Editor’s Note: We hope you enjoy the video above. If you’d rather just listen to the podcast, click the button below to Apple Podcasts: The Common Bridge. It is also available on all other podcast platforms. We have included the transcript to this program below. We offer this program in it’s entirety to our paid subscribers, and welcome all to subscribe below.
You can also help the show by contributing in any of these methods:
• Shop. https://thecommonbridge.com/subscribe-shop/
• Zelle. rich@richardhelppie.com
• Buy Me a Coffee. buymeacoffee.com/RichHelppie
You can also send an email to Editor@TheCommonBridge.com
Thanks!
Richard Helppie
Hello. Welcome to The Common Bridge. I'm your host, Rich Helppie, and today we've got a returning guest from Eastern Michigan University, Professor Jesse Kaufman. He is an expert on eastern and central Europe, author of books, in fact, another one coming out. You'll remember Professor Kaufman from three years ago, in April of 2022 not long after Russia had invaded Ukraine, we talked a lot about the history of the region, the various ethnicities there, insights, I didn't know, for example, that the mother tongue of President Zelensky is Russian and the complexities of this. Now here we are not on Episode 148 any longer, but now in our sixth season of The Common Bridge, and we're going to revisit Ukraine, Europe and related matters. Dr Jesse Kaufman, welcome back to The Common Bridge. It's good to see you.
Professor Kaufman
It's good to see you too. Thanks for having me back.
Richard Helppie
I can't imagine how busy you have been with all the events, and I trust that the students are curious about the context and what happened. I've got to ask you this; how surprised are you three years later about what's transpired in Ukraine?
Speaker 1
Surprised. I mean, having spent a little time there before the war, I'm not really surprised at all. I thought the Russians were going to have a very tough fight on their hands, much tougher than they thought. And I think I was right. I think they believed their own propaganda. But anybody who's been there and talked to the people, this was not going to go the way they thought. So I'm very impressed that they've really held out.
Richard Helppie
They have, at great cost. As The Common Bridge we're trying to find where people can agree and I used to think it would be easy to get people to agree, like, let's not have a war and kill people and destroy things. That's more difficult than I thought. My understanding is that the Russians now have control of a 18%-19% of Ukraine territory, including many key ports. Are things at a standstill today, on the ground?
Speaker 1
It does seem that way. I think it probably is at a stalemate. I think that if it were just a matter of real estate, Ukraine would probably be willing to deal but it's not that. It's not what they're fighting for. It's not what the Russians want. So 18%-19% is not enough, it has to be 100%.
Richard Helppie
Well, when you think about what is it that the Russians want, early on there was a lot of talk about they want to put the band back together; let's get the USSR together. That's their buffer zone. Of course, they've been invaded multiple times in their history including devastating losses in World War II. In the early 1990s, Gorbachev agreed to allow the reunification of Germany. There was a memo from James Baker that said NATO would not expand one inch eastward from that early 1990s meeting, yet since that time there have been 16 countries that have joined NATO. I can only imagine how the Russians would look at that. I mean, if China had set up a defense pact with Canada and they were there on the Montana border I'd probably be a little concerned about that. Is there a way to help our listeners, readers and viewers understand maybe what Russia is feeling and what they're after?
Speaker 1
So first of all, I really don't think it has anything to do with NATO. Ukraine did not become interested in NATO until after Russia annexed Crimea. And of course, one hears about we have to see NATO from their perspective. But you also have to see it from the states that asked to join - Estonia, Latvia, Poland, places like that. Essentially what they see it as is arson insurance. They're being told, well, you can't buy arson insurance because you might tempt the guy next door to burn your house down so it's better not to have that insurance. They see it as defensive. The line in the memo was never a promise, was not a condition. What was much more explicit was that US and Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's borders if they gave up their nukes, which they did, and Russia has reneged, and now we have reneged. So the existential threat to Ukraine from Russia is much more pressing and has been much more pressing than than any, I think frankly, imaginary threat that NATO might pose to Russia. I think its neighbors have more reason to be scared of Russia than Russia has to be scared of, say, Lithuania.
Richard Helppie
I think since we talked last time, I had been up to Finland and in Lapland and I went looking for people that didn't like the idea of Finland joining NATO; I found exactly zero. (Jesse Kaufman: Yeah, that's right.) And they have a saying - this doesn't translate 100% - the enemy may be coming from the West because he may have flanked you, but they know that the enemy is to the east. They feel much better about being part of NATO, especially as you get into that high north, they've got the highways widened to land our fighter jets there and such. So, yep, they're feeling pretty good about that. (Jesse Kaufman: Yes, they are.) I can't speak for the whole country, obviously, but I went looking, couldn't find anybody that didn't like that idea. When we talked last time, you were working on a book and you had to return to Europe to finish that. I want to remind our readers and listeners and our viewers that you're well-versed in this region of the world. You speak Polish. You taught classes - I don't know if it's part of your current class load - about the history of warfare, and you're also considered an expert in this part of the world. If you wouldn't mind, please bring us up to date? Were you able to get over there? What did you see and how's the book coming?
Professor Kaufman
I was able to get over there and it was very interesting because I was in Poland, there were a lot of Ukrainian refugees there, exclusively women and children. It was interesting because I was also in Europe in like 2006 or something, where there were big waves of Syrian refugees, which were almost exclusively men or young men, you tended to see young men around. So it was very different to see this wave of refugees. It was exclusively women and children, occasionally an elderly man but the men were all there fighting so... Poland - like you said the reaction you got in Finland was sort of surprising - I had a friend in Poland who I think considers herself very progressive and anti war, but she held me personally responsible. Why isn't the US attacking Russia now? Because Poland's next. Let's just get this done, like they're all convinced. They were issuing iodine for radiation in Krakow when I was there, just in case. So things were tense. I think they've relaxed a bit now. You asked me if I was surprised. I am surprised at how inept the Russian army has been. I'm surprised they're still fighting, honestly. I have a colleague friend who has taught at West Point. He's fought in all the wars and went all this first started he was watching footage of the Russians, and he was saying they're violating basic rules of infantry maneuver. They don't have any idea what they're doing. So I am a bit surprised about about that. Anyway, the book's good. It should be out next summer. It's called "Blood Dim Tide: Central Europe's Long, Great War, 1905 to 1921." The Ukraine war is definitely part of that, because the first Russian invasion of Ukraine comes in December 1917 when Ukraine declares its autonomy from Russia for the first time. In many ways that's why it has nothing to do with NATO; that has been going on ever since.
Richard Helppie
I'm going to recommend everyone go back to episode 148; there's a podcast and a transcript out there. It's a great history lesson. It brings things into context. But it remains a mystery, I think, why now? Why... Russia sees the Crimea in 2014, they went quiet briefly, and then they invaded into Ukraine sovereign territory again. And I think there was... it was called a special military operation. They wanted to denationalize or denazify Ukraine. I don't know how hard that would be to get the Nazis out of Ukraine. Are they there? What is it that they're after?
Professor Kaufman
I don't know, we talked about it last time, but there are a couple things going on. One is that Ukraine was very much on the verge... let me put it this way... let me back up. If you look at the trajectory of post Soviet states, on the one hand you have a place like Poland - which is thriving - rule of law, democracy, robust institutions, happy to be independents, celebrating its own culture, its own history. And then you have Byelorussia, which has essentially been denationalized,economically decrepit. It's corrupt, and it's under the thumb of Putin. Ukraine was unambiguously on the Polish route. It was becoming more prosperous. Yes, it still has some corruption as all of these post Soviet states do, but it was democratic. The rule of law is becoming ever more entrenched. It was thriving. I think part of the reason he invaded is that - no other way to put it - it makes him look bad. So Russia is becoming more autocratic while what they see is not even a real country is doing exceptionally well. And the other part, and I think we've maybe talked about it last time, is that many Russians genuinely, truly believe there is no such thing as a Ukrainian. They are Russians. They speak a dialect of Russian to them and all that's happened is that the West has come in and created this nonsensical identity called Ukrainian and used it to undermine Russia. So they see it as a threat to their current system, but they also see it as a kind of existential threat to their identity, that's part of why it went so badly for them. Because you can read some of the intelligence reports from the early weeks of the war, they clearly actually believed this. Hitler thought that the USSR was not a real country, was kept in place, basically, by terror and slavery. He thought, well, if the Wehrmacht just kicks down the door, the whole house will collapse, and it's exactly the way the Russians were thinking about Ukraine; it's not a real state, it's kept alive by this kind of NATO scheming and so on. We'll kick in the door, everybody will be happy to see us, and that's not what happened.
Richard Helppie
That's interesting. They thought they would be welcomed as liberators, and instead, they find themselves in a devastating, bloody war. I find it really interesting, the ineptitude of the Russian military. There have been reports that they have just been sending conscripts to the front lines with little to no training, and now they're adding North Koreans and allegedly Chinese as well, and that the North Koreans are being told, don't surrender, because we'll kill your family in North Korea. So even if you believe in the strategic objectives tactically, I mean, how can they be that bad?
Professor Kaufman
Yeah, I don't know. I think it probably has something to do with its authoritarian systems, that nobody wants to tell the chief the army's not ready so you just lie and everybody lies on all the reports and all of this. So I don't know, but it's definitely something systemic. I don't know how to explain that.
Richard Helppie
If we look to how this might end there are a lot of factors going on right now. By way of example, many countries in the European Union are saying they're going to step up their defense spending, they're going to commit more resources, they're going to show that they're going to stand up to Russia. We've got that factor going on and then we talk about democratic principles. But my understanding is that the elections in Ukraine, at least for president, have been suspended. What other factors are going into making it easier or more difficult to get a resolution to stop the killing over in Ukraine?
Jesse Kaufman
I think part of it is what Zelensky said at the White House, and he was right - he signed all of these things with the Russians over and over again and it doesn't mean anything to them. Traditional diplomats see a treaty as binding, but they do not, again, I would say, kind of like Hitler. Hitler signed all kinds of treaties, including a non-aggression pact with Poland and then later the USSR. They were just means to an end and the end is not peace or stability. As far as the European buildup, that's one thing where I've agreed with the current administration for a long time, that it's time for the rest of NATO to step up. I'm just not sure it's going to happen. They've been so thoroughly civilianized and this is just... I don't know, I'll believe it when I see it. I think more realistically, what you might see is that they will maybe invest in a nuclear arsenal because it's much cheaper, and you don't have to deal with conscripts and all that sort of thing. You don't have to feed them or put their kids through college. I think that the lesson people will probably take from Ukraine is don't ever give up your nukes. If you have nukes, you're probably not going to be invaded. If you don't, you're vulnerable. So we'll see.
Richard Helppie
I was just reading this morning about a new type of drone that Sweden has developed that is AI driven, that they can change its mission, it learns, and who knows, maybe we're going to be in a drone manufacturing contest. (Professor Kaufman: Absolutely.) It's all pretty pointless to me, if we keep destroying things. The president the United States, President Donald Trump, proposed that there would be a mineral rights agreement struck between the United States - I don't know if it was the United States - on behalf of NATO and Ukraine. They thought that that would then basically be the pretext to say that the United States has vital interests in Ukraine, short of NATO, and that therefore Russia can be told to back off, because you're now threatening United States' vital interest. First of all, I don't know if I've got that right.(Professor Kaufman: You do.) Then, are there valuable minerals in Ukraine, because I think that's a question too, is it not?
Professor Kaufman
I think there are valuable minerals there. Ukraine has always been a source of all kinds of raw materials coveted by various powers, the Nazis, the Soviets and so on. I'm not convinced by that security arrangement, because normally when the US has business interests somewhere and a war starts, you just evacuate the businessmen. It's not a trip wire. Only military forces can function as a trip wire, which is, in a way, what NATO is for. So if it is going to be a trip wire, well, why not just have it be a real trip wire?
Richard Helppie
That brings us to the brink of war. If you're Putin and you see NATO deploying into Ukraine, you can't beat them conventionally. You have to be first strike ready if you're going to do that. Now, early on in the war, we were told that the Russians had hypersonic missiles that we had no defense for and I haven't heard about that now. It doesn't mean they're not being used, I just haven't heard about it. Do we know what's going on with their hypersonic missiles?
Professor Kaufman
I don't think so. I mean, you heard about one or two, supposedly, that hit their targets and then that kind of disappeared. The last chatter I saw was that they hadn't worked so they were sort of quietly put away. But that's a good question. Even [with] the best news sources and open source intelligence it's just very murky because of the nature of both governments, because of the war, all these sort of things. It's really hard to get really first rate information. So that's a good question. I don't know.
Richard Helppie
I wonder if you watched any of the exchange Vice President Vance, President Trump, had with President Zelensky, and what your take is on all of that. I know it's really hard for me to sort out that something happened before that, something happened afterwards. I watched that, and I'm just cocking my head because I just didn't understand it. What was going on there?
Professor Kaufman
I think a whole lot of things were going on there. I think, one, people say you have to watch the whole thing, okay, but you have to really watch the whole thing which is in the weeks before. Trump was tweeting things like, Ukraine shouldn't have started this war, Zelensky is a dictator - there's no sense. He's being slandered on the world stage before he even sets foot here. He's expecting not a pleasant environment. And then, if Jonah Goldberg's correct - somebody I follow - it was supposed to be a five minute photo op; you have your photo and then you go in and you talk. It turned into a 40 minute Q & A with various hand picked reporters, which was not supposed to happen, and I think it caught him off guard. The way I read it... so here's the thing, some people on what used to be my side of things, don't understand that Zelensky is a dead man. Zelensky is going to have a target on his back for the rest of his life, no matter what happens, even to say if Ukraine somehow wins and ejects the Russians. He's at the top of the FSB list for the rest of his life and he knows that. And so to me, the telling exchange was when he said - and he was mocked for this, he didn't understand the language - I'm not playing cards. I thought that was great. This is, I've been at the bedside of these dead, dying soldiers and these funerals and I'm a dead man if FSB ever gets a hold of me, I'm not playing cards, let's be serious about this.
Richard Helppie
The FSB, for the part of our audience that don't [know] the acronym?
Professor Kaufman
The Russian Security Services, basically; the guys who tried to kill that guy in Great Britain, they poisoned him.
Richard Helppie
A lot of people around Putin that thought they could fly out of very tall buildings, and it turned out that none of them could. Zelensky, I'm sure, has connected the dots. Now another take that I've read about - and again, I have no background to get the veracity of this - but that the meeting in the White House was supposed to be about signing that mineral rights agreement, and it was supposed to be the five minute sign it, shake hands, and that's it. And then Zelensky refused to sign it. Is there any veracity at all to that?
Professor Kaufman
There could be. Again, the account I read that goes back before that - which I don't know this is true - when he was presented with it by the US Representative in Ukraine before he left, he told them it contains security guarantees, right? He and his people read it and there are no security guarantees. He says where are they? And the answer is, well, they're implicit, because we'll have this business relationship and therefore that's a security guarantee. He says, that's not what we talked about. In an implicit guarantee this isn't worth the paper it's printed on, which I think he's right. It was interesting how that whole scene was like a Rorschach test. Everybody watched the same thing and came away with completely different views of what happened.
Richard Helppie
You talked about whether the Ukrainians could eject the Russians, and is this war winnable militarily by either side. I know that's a crystal ball moment, but I don't know if you've thought about it, like, yeah, the Ukraine could win if they did this, and Russia could win if they did that. What would a victory look like?
Professor Kaufman
It's a great question. I think, in a way, the Ukrainians already have won, in a sense that they preserve their independence. I think that at this point, the Russians are somewhat unlikely to overrun the rest of the country, and if they did, that's the thing, like, the next 50-100 years in Ukraine would make the West Bank look like Duluth, Minnesota or something. They would never be able to solidify their rule on that place. It would be underground resistance, all sorts of things. What I was hoping for and I did want - I was hoping the administration would pressure the Ukrainians a bit -was, look, the Russians can keep what they've taken so far, but we are going to guarantee they come no farther. And to me, there is no other way out of this war than that. The problem is, and again, Zelensky is being dragged over the coals for not taking a deal that was never offered. This was never about real estate for the Russians, ever. We need to find a way to make it about real estate for them and say, it's time you cut your losses, you've destroyed your army, nobody respects you as a military power anymore, you've been humiliated, frankly, by the Ukrainians. Cut your losses. Draw the lines here. Yes, there will be people in Ukraine very upset. I understand that, but that territory is all blasted now anyway, it's worthless. Let them have their consolation prize. NATO will come in and say the Russians will not come through here anymore. I don't see any other way of settling it.
Richard Helppie
So basically saying, okay, what Russia has destroyed and now controls, they get to keep that. Ukraine gets a NATO guarantee that if they go further that they'll be contending with NATO and that it would be then left with whatever guerrilla action that would be taking place in the conquered territory.
Professor Kaufman
Right, which would probably dissipate itself eventually. I don't think it could be a NATO guarantee, because we guarantee the borders that they overran now. It would have to be actual, a real trip wire; NATO nations there.
Richard Helppie
I thought that was interesting, what you said about the European states not really having a military culture anymore; more civilian. The answer can't be, we're going to send young Americans over there. And the answer can't be, we're going to send American treasure over there. At some point, if they perceive a threat, don't the European countries, particularly those in the European Union, don't they have to step up and make their own security guarantees with Ukraine?
Professor Kaufman
They do. And I think we should... our military will have to be part of it. There's no way out of that right now, I think. But we should help them step up. It doesn't even have to be major. Again, what are the reasons why US aircraft carriers maneuver off Taiwan? It's a trip wire, right? It's to get in the way and trigger a larger response. You wouldn't need more than... I don't know, you could send a battalion of German soldiers there or regiment of French. It doesn't have to be alive, it just has to be there. There was a terrible video making the rounds captured on a GoPro, Ukrainian soldier and a Russian soldier, hand to hand combat with knives. It was bad. It was really bad. But the thing that really struck me is you can spend all the money you want but what it comes down to is having people that are willing and able to do that. And I just don't see Jens from West Berlin trying to stab somebody in a trench in East Ukraine. I just don't see it.
Richard Helppie
Absolutely, and that in the history of warfare, it always comes down to boots on the ground, or sandals on the ground if you go back far enough. But I mean, if you look at what we did to Vietnam, the amount of ordinance we dropped on that country, it just makes people angry. That's all you really achieve. We're looking at a war that's probably not winnable in any conventional sense. Ukraine, under that scenario, would have to say, all right, we're going to cede part of our territory to stop the war and trust that it's not going to start again. Russia and Putin would have to say, yeah, that was our objective, we're good and go to the side. We talked a long time ago, three years ago, and you were speculating that perhaps this war could only end with a regime change in Kyiv or in Moscow, and both of those scenarios seemed to be plausible at the time. What's your view on it today? Is that still within the realm of possibility?
Professor Kaufman
It's not looking like it in either case. My big question with the Ukraine war is - I wonder if it were to grind on - would it survive Putin, like he's now so personally invested in it. But if someone were to succeed him that has a greater sense of self-preservation or something and found a way out, to me that's probably the best hope; that or the collapse of the Russian army.
Richard Helppie
Let me ask you a difficult question, if I might, Professor Kaufman, and it's going to require your imagination. Imagine you get a call from the White House and President Trump and Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Rubio, want to have a meeting with you. Let's presume they really want to listen, including the president and they say what's your best advice? What do we do here, and how do we go about doing it? What might you offer to the President?
Professor Kaufman
That's a tough one. I think I would tell them... boy, that's really tough. If Russia does not withdraw back to the pre-war boundaries, then NATO will guarantee the boundaries up to which they've advanced now, and the choice is up to them. I would publicize that this is a choice. The main thing that I would really want them to see is that, for Ukraine, this is an existential war. That's why he's not playing cards. That's how they perceive it and justly, so it's not about real estate. Once you understand that, then I think you'll be able to be a bit more sensible about the kinds of negotiations you enter into, and what's going to be acceptable and what's not. You've got to remember this is literally life and death for them, existence or annihilation. Begin from that principle and go from there. Also stop telegraphing that you expect everything from one side and nothing from the other. That's probably not a good negotiating tactic.
Richard Helppie
Very good. It's a very intractable situation. I certainly don't want to have you back in a year or three years and talk about this war continuing or how's Europe doing cleaning up the nuclear aftermath, which would be a horrible outcome. As you're studying this and teaching your students and publishing, what type of topics are you starting to get interested in diving in deeper, both from a research and a publishing perspective?
Professor Kaufman
For the teaching aspect, we've talked a lot about technology and the way it it unfolds in ways that maybe seem obvious in retrospect, but never are at the time. The way drones have been used is very interesting, and this is clearly the future, although exactly how it's going to meld with other kinds of war fighting technologies. Like you said, the end still comes down to boots on the ground, and drones will be a part of that in terms of war. It's also very interesting for thinking about nuclear deterrence. And you know how the purpose of nuclear weapons is to have them so you don't have to use them, but that means maintaining a credible arsenal. I do think something that's restrained Putin up till now from using one is the reality that it would probably be the last thing he ever did. That would unleash annihilation. And because of our submarines, we still have the upper hand in that thing. We have guaranteed second or even third strike capability, which, again, it's horrible to contemplate these things, but you have to because they're thinking about it too. If you can stay a step ahead, then the purpose is to never have to use them so. I also think that Americans think they're not ideological, which is wrong. Ideology tends to be like water for fish. Fish don't believe in water, right? Americans don't believe in ideology. They definitely are marinating in it but I think it's hard for them to understand that when Putin says there's no such thing as Ukrainians. You've got to listen to these people, he absolutely means it. They see the world differently from us. I was just, for a talk, looking at a map that the Institute for the Study of War put together late January 2022, early February, weeks before the war, and it showed all the Russian dispositions that are all the way encircling Ukraine, and it's remarkable to look back and think everybody looked at that map and said, no, that's not going to happen. Now you're like, how could so many people have been so wrong?
Richard Helppie
Yeah, and miscalculations have sent the world into wars and human kind folly. Professor Kaufman, you are a fascinating guest, and I really appreciate your time here. Is there anything that we didn't cover today that you'd like to convey to the listeners, readers and viewers of The Common Bridge? I
Professor Kaufman
I think we did cover everything. Maybe one thing I'd like to leave them on as they sort through what is and isn't driving the Russians, to consider the perspective of places like the Baltic states and Finland and Poland; this is a very serious threat to them. You can abdicate for withdrawing from NATO all you want, but to them it's real. It's real. So, yeah, maybe bear that in mind.
Richard Helppie
It'd be a worldwide calamity. We need to bifurcate that, the other countries spending more on their own defense, versus a threat that the United States won't be there. Any student of history, a mild student of history, would understand the folly of that. As our current President said, we have two oceans protecting us, obviously doesn't understand the difference between the pre-World War II methods of conveyance and what we have today.
Professor Kaufman
Absolutely, and maybe if I could leave it with one last thing, go out and watch a Norwegian Netflix show called "Occupied." It was made before the war in Ukraine, actually, but it very plausibly envisions a kind of what we call a soft Russian takeover of Norway. It's a very interesting juxtaposition, because the Russians project a credible threat, but to the Norwegians, the whole time the number one priority is we just have to make sure nobody gets hurt. Just do what they want so nobody gets hurt. I think it is actually a good reflection of security culture in a way, in Europe, and it's very compelling and interesting. And in that show the US has left NATO in this alternate future. So, yeah, "Occupied."
Richard Helppie
Well, that looks like it's a good watch for sure. I'd just contrast that with the Fins; they're like, we'll fight them again.
Professor Kaufman
Yeah, it's like, and they'll beat them again.
Richard Helppie
Yeah, indeed, ultimately be overpowered. It was obviously a horrible experience, but they're very proud of that. And of course, every able bodied man in Finland gets military training, and it goes on, you can be in your 50s, and you're still getting there. Everybody has a job to do in the event of a war, but you know what, less than five million people in Finland, so it's not that big of a military there. Professor, any closing comments? This has been great as always.
Professor Kaufman
Closing comments; just thanks for having me on again. I appreciate it.
Richard Helppie
It's our honor and our pleasure. We've been talking today with Professor Jesse Kaufman of Eastern Michigan University. He's been sharing his expertise in history and in warfare in Europe. Please look him up and look up his books. And if you're in Southeast Michigan, I'd recommend enrolling in his classes. With our guest, Dr Jesse Kaufman, this is your host, Rich Helppie, signing off on The Common Bridge.
Share this post