.jpg)
BACK STORY WITH DANA LEWIS
Dana Lewis is a veteran World Affairs Correspondent. He's been everywhere. From global war zones to the streets of London where he is based.
He has been based in Jerusalem, and Moscow.
And he loves talking to people about whats behind the headlines. Award winning. "A real in the trenches reporter". Great interviewing skills and easy to listen to.
BACK STORY WITH DANA LEWIS
Quest for Peace in Israel and Ukraine
On Back Story with Dana Lewis this week, Israel's leader P.M. Netanyahu is seeking to drive a wedge into America's political landscape. Will it back fire? Former Israeli diplomat and advisor to multiple foreign ministers Alon Pinkas, believes Netanyahu is courting disaster.
And Pinkas says Trump's remarks in the election debate on Israel, amount to a "concentrated pile of nonsense". Kamala Harris he says is right to pursue a two state solution.
Israel and Gaza is one war to solve, but there are increasing calls for the Ukraine Russia war to enter ceasefire talks. Is there a path to peace, or at least a map to getting the shooting stopped? Colgate Political Science Prof. Masha Hedberg says the options for resolution are many, but neither side appears willing to put the brakes on now, but maybe later this year?
On Kamala Harris from Donald Trump. She hates Israel. At the same time, in her own way, she hates the Arab population because the whole place is going to get blown up. Arabs, jews, jewish people, israel, israel will be gone, said Trump last night. Yeah, your reaction.
Alon Pinkas:I mean a more concentrated pile of nonsense is really hard to utter traded pile of nonsense is really hard to utter.
Masha Hedberg :They're asking Zelensky to formulate more realistic plans about what Ukraine can achieve militarily this year. So I do think Zelensky is under a great deal of pressure in a way that I don't think Putin is.
Dana Lewis :Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of Backstory. I'm Dana Lewis. 23 years ago, terrorists from Al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in New York, 2,977 people killed. They also flew a plane into the Pentagon, hijacked and crashed another aircraft in Pennsylvania. As a news correspondent for NBC, within days I would pack my bag and head for Tajikistan and then on into Afghanistan to cover the beginning of the war on terror. Now there is a war in Europe between Russia and Ukraine, started by Russia, and almost a year of fighting in Gaza between Hamas and Israel. Is there a way out of this escalating violence? Well, we speak to one of my favorites Israeli, alon Pincus, on Gaza and a possible wider Middle East war, and Masha Hedberg has just written a report on possible solutions to Russia-Ukraine. Alon Pink has served as the chief of staff to two foreign ministers. He was a foreign policy advisor for.
Alon Pinkas:Yeah.
Dana Lewis :They changed quickly. Wait a minute now. You were for Ehud Barak and you were for Shimon Peres. What are the other two?
Alon Pinkas:Professor Shlomo Ben-Ami, who was foreign minister, and David Levy, who was foreign minister. I was chief of staff to all four.
Dana Lewis :Wow, you've been on the government payroll for a long time.
Alon Pinkas:No, I told you, they changed quickly. Government's fault.
Dana Lewis :Okay, thank you for sending me. You were also the Consul General of New York City. I'm not redoing that intro. We're going to let it play the way it is and I'm very impressed, especially on who some of these were, and we're very lucky to talk to Alon. Here's the quote, because you and I were just talking off camera about the debate last night On Kamala Harris from Donald Trump. She hates Israel. At the same time, in her own way, she hates the Arab population because the whole place is going to get blown up. Arabs, jews, jewish people, israel, israel will be gone, said Trump last night. Yeah, your reaction.
Alon Pinkas:I mean, a more concentrated pile of nonsense is really hard to utter. He could have attacked her on the you know, on the Biden-Parrish administration's policy. He could have attacked her for being a progressive liberal who sides with the Palestinians, which is not true, but it would have been a legitimate line of attack. Instead, he went low because you know, this is what he does and this is who he is. She hates Israel and if she's president, Israel will be gone, Israel will disappear, Israel will be annihilated in two years.
Dana Lewis :So you let me jump in there. Who's he reaching out to? Is that evangelical voters, or where does he? I mean, they spin that all the time A evangelical voters B.
Alon Pinkas:he's trying to create to make Israel. He with the help of Mr Netanyahu for a long time, to make Israel a wedge issue between Democrats and Republicans. He thinks that if the war goes on and he accuses Harris of being anti-Israeli, throwing Israel under the bus, threatening to curtail arms shipments, whatever you're going to have a sizable group of people who support Israel and the US but are unhappy with them. Then we're thinking maybe I shouldn't vote, to come out and vote.
Dana Lewis :And you said Netanyahu does the same thing. They're creating this so-called wedge issue, and is that dangerous for Israel?
Alon Pinkas:Very dangerous. Netanyahu has been doing it for many years. I mean, he failed every time he tried to do so. But you know, you go back to March 2015,. His speech in Congress against the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal, which essentially was a speech against Barack Obama. You go back to his courting of evangelicals during the Clinton administration. You go, you know it's endless, but you know it's a funny thing that you mentioned Dana, because here's Trump saying that if Kamala Harris is president, israel will be destroyed, and here's Netanyahu saying that if he doesn't stay prime minister, israel will be destroyed. So what do these two have in common? That they're both talking nonsense about this?
Alon Pinkas:Now, but, if I may, on the very same, it was a uniquely Trumpian moment when he was asked by David Muir from ABC News what would you have done differently on October 7th in terms of the Hamas attack on Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza? And here's Trump saying if I were president, it would not have happened. How exactly is unclear. And then the second sentence he says and Putin would not have invaded Ukraine. Now that's genius, dana, that really is genius. So if he were president on October 2023, putin would not have invaded Ukraine in February 2020. Not the first time he said it. Yeah, I know. How he reconciles the timeline and the two issues is beyond me. Aside from talking nonsense, what can I say?
Dana Lewis :Well, he pushes out, he's a strongman image and the world will roll out the carpet before him, unlike the Democrats. But I mean that's his messaging right. But you know, today is and it struck me, I don't know why, because we've had 23 of them, but it's the 23rd anniversary of 9-11. I know I was there in New York looking at it. Were you consul general? Then yes. I know I was there in New York looking at it. Were you consul general? Then yes. So when people draw a parallel between October, the 6th in Israel and 9-11, is that over-exaggeration?
Alon Pinkas:Is it fair? Look, the sources of both attacks is radical Islamic terrorism. There's no question about that, and radical Islamic terrorism should be dealt with forcefully and with determination and resoluteness. However, if you look at the context, it's quite different. No-transcript how I see it, but in their eyes this was an act of resistance to an occupation that's going on for 57 years, since 1967, that Gaza is encircled, that Gaza is under siege, that Gaza is starving, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That and their twisted, distorted minds, justifies the savage and barbaric attack of October 7th. So you know there are similarities. But you know, and if you go into the technology and the tactics, both were surprises, both supposedly came out of the blue. In retrospect they didn't, and the signs were there Washington and Pennsylvania, where all four jets crashed for all concern that was out of the blue for Israel.
Dana Lewis :Misleading itself into thinking that Hamas is deterred and would not dare do something on this scale. That was out of the blue as well. But doesn't that play to? You know? 23 years war on terror, I think we just got. We probably harvested a crop of more radical Islamic groups, some of them on the rebound now, 23 years later. But for Netanyahu to stand in front of the Israeli public all the time and say there's no leaving Gaza now, I mean, if we do, hamas is just going to regroup and we have to defeat them this time, just not allow them to thrive in an enclosed area. That seems to, you know, play with some of the Israeli public, you know, with the caveat that it should be the priority. But yeah, staying in the Philadelphia corridor waiting in Gaza. The Israelis seem to support me.
Alon Pinkas:No, 90% of Israelis don't know what the Philadelphia corridor is. They don't understand why it's important. Dozens of former generals have stood up and said it is totally insignificant, particularly when weighed against a hostage deal. Netanyahu did nothing about the Philadelphia corridor for 15 years as prime minister, with the exception of two years in which he was not, or almost two years in which he was not prime minister. In fact, when the war began, it took him nine months before he even devoted or allocated forces to deal with the Philadelphia corridor. So this is just an excuse and a pretext for him to prolong the war.
Alon Pinkas:Now, what you said, the premise of what you said, is absolutely right. Israelis want to eradicate Hamas, but Israelis also don't understand the cost of doing so. The cost of doing so is occupying the Gaza Strip. When he says we will not leave the Gaza Strip, what does he mean? That the status quo that exists now will be extended. Fine, so call us ceasefire.
Alon Pinkas:If you're leaving the forces there, you're not going further in no incursions, no further occupation, no further conquering. Then why not call for a ceasefire? If you want to choke them, you don't need to fight, you just choke them. Right them. You don't need to fight, you just choke them, right. It's not making sense, other than it is a lame and unserious excuse for him to prolong the war for his own reasons. One of those reasons I'm tying the two issues we've discussed until now, dana. One of those issues is that he reached he Netanyahu reached the conclusion that it is best for him to extend the war, prolong the war, not seek a ceasefire slash hostage deal until after the election in America. He thinks this is his side of playing the Israel as a wedge issue.
Dana Lewis :Because the American election brings him.
Alon Pinkas:Well, he hopes Trump will win. He's not making a secret of that, by the way. If Trump wins and says to him, you have two weeks to end this war, he will end that war. But you know, this is me speculating on speculation, speculating about a conversation that's based on a speculation that but he wants Trump.
Dana Lewis :Because? Why? Because the Republicans are not pushing a two-state solution.
Alon Pinkas:Because the Republicans don't give a damn about what's going on in the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Dana Lewis :All right, you've called Netanyahu a vile messiah leading a cult of death and lies, and a rogue prime minister is turning Israel into a rogue state. Some of the articles that you write in Arez. You know you don't pull any punches, right, and do you actually? Is that harsh on Netanyahu? Yeah, is it in your? Also your reading of something else? You said that what he says in Hebrew and what he says in English are two different things and to understand them you should listen to his Hebrew.
Alon Pinkas:Yeah, well, even his Hebrew has some version, but certainly when compared to how he speaks in English, it's an entirely different person. In English he makes all these spurious claims that you know. He intends to seek a ceasefire, he wants an agreement, he's working hard, he's okay In Hebrew. He doesn't even bother to say those things. He says, as you accurately described it we need to stay in Gaza. This war will not end until Hamas is destroyed. Otherwise, I'm quoting you, quoting him, otherwise they will regroup, etc. Etc.
Alon Pinkas:Now, yeah, well, look, I don't pull any punches because he earned it, because you know, I think he has caused severe I don't want to say irreversible, because there's no such thing but he has caused severe damage to Israel internally in terms of society, the cohesiveness, the Israeli narrative, how people relate to each other. He caused a complete disconnect between the military and the government, between the military and the government. He caused an unarmed at this point, a nonviolent civil war between his core base and the so-called elites, and he has tarnished Israel's brand internationally in a way that is almost unprecedented. I cannot recall, and I've researched this. I'd love to hear someone tell me that there is a precedent. I have never seen a democracy diminishing itself or destroying its self-value the way he has done to Israel. I've seen other countries do that.
Dana Lewis :Yeah, but not a democracy very quickly, because I know we're out of time. Um gaza, I mean alone you. You live in israel. You follow this minute by minute. People are confused now. They don't understand where it's headed, what is the way out of it. Is there going to be a? You know a lot of people. You know even israelis. 73.5 percent of israelis are pessimistic about the likelihood of a deal. Where are we headed? Where are we?
Alon Pinkas:now. Well, they're pessimistic about a deal because they don't trust Netanyahu. 70% support a deal, Not because they see some kind of compromise or conciliation with Hamas, but because they don't trust Netanyahu. It's not headed anywhere until after the American election. Let me repeat what I said a few moments ago I don't, you know. The issue right now, believe it or not, is not even gossip, but the renewed potential for escalation in both the West Bank, but also in Lebanon, vis-a-vis Hezbollah and with Iran. This all serves a narrative Nathaniel's narrative that this was not about a Hamas attack on the 7th of October, but this is a broad war, 360 degree encirclement, a civilizational conflict, which is why, of course, he is absolved of any responsibility, because you know how could he avoid it, how could he have, you know, avoided it altogether. This is a false and flawed narrative. That's why I don't pull any punches.
Dana Lewis :Are you concerned? People don't understand the difference. A lot of my friends wouldn't even understand the difference between Gaza and the West Bank a lot of them. But I spent years as a reporter in the West Bank. A lot of it was secular, not very radical. Hamas was a minor minor group with the Islamic Jihad and others. I mean the PLO dominated there. There were lots of moderates. This week alone, I mean, we've seen this fired up in Jenin and elsewhere. Are you worried about what the West Bank is becoming? Is it just becoming another Gaza right now and very quickly deteriorating?
Alon Pinkas:Yeah, I am, I am. You're absolutely right. You know, there's enough blame on both sides and there's no point in relitigating the fact that there hasn't been a political process for over a decade. I mean, the last time anything was tried was when John Kerry was Secretary of State in 2014 and came here in what became an exercise in futility, trying to resuscitate some kind of a peace process not even a political process, let's not even be pretentious and call it a peace process and occupation remained intact and settlements grew and the military friction or interaction between Israel and the Palestinian population in the West Bank grew. Israel consistently and deliberately, by design, weakened the Palestinian authority, which, to begin with, was sort of borderline dysfunctional, with a lot of corruption there.
Alon Pinkas:But Netanyahu was happy to do his part. I was happy. That's why, in his twisted logic, he even strengthened hamas, because if you strengthen hamas, by extension, you weaken the palestinian authority, and when you do that, when people pressure you, why not engage the palestinian? He said me I want peace, but look, look at them. I, you know you can't talk to them. They're radicalizing as we speak, there's no one to talk. I said you know what? Fine, you're right, you're making a point.
Alon Pinkas:What is your alternative? Because see, here's the thing what if the Palestinians renounce armed struggle and just ask to be annexed to Israel? You want us, you have us, one by national state. We're just asking for one thing one man, one vote. Uh, we want to be enfranchised. Um, we don't want a palestinian state. You've turned the palestinian state into a? Um impossibility, uh, something that's unfeasible and not viable. Israel would never go along with that. Well, what would is do then? My point is we don't want you. If you don't want us, then get the hell out. But here's my problem with Mr Netanyahu. I can understand his reservations, fears and anxieties over a Palestinian state Truly I can. If not a Palestinian state, what then? Because he, in 15 years in power, not once did he come up with an idea, not once.
Dana Lewis :Do you have? Does Alon Pincus have a solution?
Alon Pinkas:There are various solutions out there. We could shoot them down Confederation between Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian entity. A Kosovo-like NATO protectorate, A state in the making, a gradual state in the making.
Dana Lewis :Without, maybe not an armed state, maybe don't control the borders.
Alon Pinkas:They won't. No, no control, demilitarized. Without any control of the borders, you don't touch Jerusalem. In the next five years, the issue of Jerusalem. There are a lot of ideas that can be entertained or at least be a platform on which you can develop some kind of a process. You don't have to have the exact, detailed nuts and bolts, level and results in front of you. Let's start with this. He hasn't done any of that, any of that.
Dana Lewis :The key is and correct me, because you know, what do I know but the key is if you actually had a sincere government that wanted to resolve the Palestinian issue with the Palestinians, there are Palestinian moderates out there that you can talk to and you could probably come up with. I mean, a lot of the solutions are already known.
Alon Pinkas:I mean, that's my point. This is not reinventing sliced bread. This is not a eureka moment. Oh, here's a solution no one ever thought, or a modality that no one ever thought. It's all there. It's all there. More of the same is bad. So triangulate, take a little from here and a little from here and a little from here, but for that you need some kind of a vision and goodwill. Neither side has those.
Dana Lewis :Right and moderates that will reassure one another that they're not going to turn weapons on each other the next day. Right, and they are there. I mean, those people are there on both sides.
Alon Pinkas:Yep.
Dana Lewis :Alon Pincus. I wish we had more time. Thank you so much, sir, my pleasure, Dana.
Alon Pinkas:Thank you.
Dana Lewis :Masha Hedberg is an assistant professor of political science at Colgate University and she joins me now from New York. Hi, Masha, Great to meet you.
Masha Hedberg :Good morning Dana. Good to meet you. Oh, I'm sorry.
Dana Lewis :Everybody increasingly is talking about peace between Russia and Ukraine, not because there appears to be a promise of peace, but because this war has been dragging on, now into its third year, and people are looking for, you know, pathways to peace. And that was all what you have written about and documented and given a lot of great background on the report that you've written, and that's why I wanted to interview you. Interview you and what struck me that I really didn't understand until you kind of wrapped it up for me is that there have been already some 25 proposals on ending the fighting. Am I overstating that?
Masha Hedberg :number. I don't think you're overstating that number. I think you're understating that number. What I found? There've been a gamut of ideas. I picked 25 because that was an imaginable number. These were 25 of the more prominent ones, but I guarantee you that if I had cast the net more widely, I would have found additional proposals of what could be considered a proposal, even if they call themselves something else.
Dana Lewis :Did you, in examining all these proposals, see a path forward? Easy question, very difficult. You have to weigh so much in answering that right.
Masha Hedberg :I personally think that there are a number of routes to consider. Unfortunately, there isn't going to be one path that is going to thrill everyone. The least worst option and hope, hoping that you know that will satisfy enough of each side's demands to make peace possible. Right, but was I inspired by just one approach that I read? Unfortunately no.
Dana Lewis :Okay. So why don't we chip away at it? And it begins, it seems to me, that anything that would be considered would be a phased-in approach. So there isn't going to be a grand summit I mean, who knows? But there isn't going to be a grand summit where they establish a ceasefire and say these are the ways forward for peace and there's a grand agreement, the waves forward for peace and there's a grand agreement.
Masha Hedberg :Originally, I think that was the hope, and a lot of the proposals do envision some grand agreement that, quite frankly, satisfies all of Ukraine's demands. But there is this. Originally, in the beginning, the earlier proposals saw precisely that that there would be a grand agreement that resolves a lot of the outstanding issues, whether it is the status of Ukraine as a neutral country or a NATO member, the territorial question. So I think early on, our ambitions, our hopes, were quite maximalist. Now I think you're right. Realistically speaking, we are looking at a much slower approach where the two sides might be able to find agreement on smaller issues, might be able to agree to a ceasefire. You say it is. Then, is that the core of the conflict to begin with? That, you think, going to be one of the thorniest issues?
Masha Hedberg :to resolve because it is binary yes or no right, there's very little room for compromise, although there's some ways of, I think, creating an adequate security architecture even if NATO is off the table. But I think the other really thorny issue is going to be one of territory, and I don't mean Crimea, but I mean the territory that Russia now partially or fully controls and that it acquired control over after 2022.
Dana Lewis :How close do you think?
Masha Hedberg :Sorry, go ahead. I think these are the two main issues, right the future status of Ukraine as a non-aligned, possibly non-nuclear, power and the territorial question.
Dana Lewis :How close do you think we were to some kind of a deal in the spring of 2022 in Widenegg?
Masha Hedberg :there are credible reports that say that the two sides were closer to a deal that would that might have halted the fighting. At that point I was not there, but given the recent reporting, given the documents that I've read, it seems that a deal might have been possible. But remember, at the time things were moving so quickly, right, that it's really hard to say the deal could have been broken off at any point. But I do think the two sides had agreed well, one to keep Ukraine neutral in return for very, very strong security guarantees by some big international players. And, what's interesting, the two sides had agreed to postpone the question of territory to later negotiations. So already you see that the idea that we can't resolve all issues at the same time is kind of prominently on display.
Dana Lewis :It's kind of prominently on display In terms of an armed Ukraine. The deal was that Ukraine would lay down its arms, become a neutral state, maybe disarm altogether. I mean, it seems like we're just so far beyond that now. The suggestion that Ukraine would ever now give up its arms and demilitarize is pretty far-fetched, Would you agree?
Masha Hedberg :I would agree. I think right now we are very far-fetched and the kind of limits on Ukraine's military that Russia wanted back in 2022 no longer seem feasible. But you can think of that's another thorny issue that will have to be confronted. Is that will have to be confronted? Is you know how do you create a Ukrainian military that is kind of strong enough to withstand any future aggression or at least deter any future aggression, while also kind of getting Russia to agree to those kind of much higher limits on Ukrainian reserves, firepower, military in general?
Dana Lewis :I mean that gets pretty complicated, right. I mean we can spend a lot of time talking about it or not, but I think if you're going to start talking about an armed Ukraine, but it would only be a defensive force, then you start getting into all sorts of long-term negotiations about the kind of weapons it would have. Could they reach Russia? You know, medium-range missiles, short-range I mean. Those negotiations could take years. I mean they're very complicated.
Masha Hedberg :Negotiations could take years. I mean, they're very complicated. Those negotiations could take years. But what was interesting is to see that a number of proposals, particularly recent ones, have begun to consider precisely those questions that if Ukraine agrees to some limits on its military, then Russia would also need to agree not to position troops With the border of Ukraine. There have been some ideas about who would be a credible monitor. So we're kind of getting to the idea that to get peace we're not going to have to, we're not going to resolve. We have to resolve both the big issues, but probably start smaller and then build up to heck what happens to Crimea and Ukraine would.
Dana Lewis :You discussed this in what you've written, but I mean, many other people have talked about it as well. Okay, so you want, if you want the fighting to stop, and you don't want Ukraine in NATO then what does Ukraine get in return? And what they would want are security guarantees. And the only way those guarantees mean anything it can't be a promise between Russia and Ukraine then you have to have, you know, people like maybe Turkey, the United States, different countries in Europe, that would guarantee the security of Ukraine if Russia were to rearm, regroup, relaunch a war. So in a way, there's a bit of smoke and mirrors there on. Ok, if Ukraine was to shelve NATO membership, if, if, if, they would in fact probably have security guarantors that are in NATO. Fair enough.
Masha Hedberg :Fair enough. I think that's what a lot of the plans suggest, that then the United States, the EU, perhaps other NATO members would be the major guarantors. There have been also some proposals that it would just be the EU, that one of the things that if NATO membership is off the table, eu membership is certainly still on the EU, that one of the things that if NATO membership is off the table, eu membership is certainly still on the table, and say that we forget that EU membership also comes with some security commitments. I'm not sure that would be satisfying to Ukraine.
Dana Lewis :Can you fill that out a bit? I mean, that's a new one on me. What would be the security commitments if you're a member of the EU, if there's a European army formed? You mean?
Masha Hedberg :Well, there are. Yes, there's this less known stipulation that EU members have to come to the defense of other EU members in case of aggression. Right. Eu members in case of aggression, right? Obviously, the question is, do they have the capacity to come to each other's aid without the aid of NATO? Right? But there is some idea that there are also security obligations as part of the EU membership. They're not well-developed, but Interesting.
Dana Lewis :Can you talk to the notion of giving up territory? I mean Crimea probably is set in a special place versus the eastern regions that Putin has illegally annexed.
Masha Hedberg :I cannot envision a realistic scenario under which Russia gives up Crimea, but there was this idea, at least in the early attempts at negotiation in 2022, in spring 2022, where Ukraine seemed to suggest that Crimea could be subject to future negotiations and Russia seemed to agree to future negotiations and Russia seemed to agree. Whether we believe this or not, but there was this kind of it was set down in writing that, all right, we can negotiate over Crimea, which at the time seemed like a surprising concession by Russia. But, let's say, crimea is off the table. What happens to the territories that Russia now partially, wholly, controls? Some different ideas. I think the more plausible one is that, well, russia retains de facto control, but Ukraine doesn't recognize it formally, right, and again, we make these territories subject to future negotiations. Not ideal.
Dana Lewis :Yeah, not ideal, because it's not a frozen conflict in the sense that then you know, Russia continues to educate, to absorb those people from those regions to the point that they would never want to return to Ukraine. That would be Ukraine's argument, right.
Masha Hedberg :Well, some people argue that, in return, ukraine gets to join the EU. Or, you know, the idea is this what is negotiable, what is not? Some people propose that territory is negotiable. Ukraine's status as an independent, sovereign nation is not. So you might be able to. Or the argument is that Ukraine should be willing to temporarily cede control, but not formally renounce those territories. Control but not, you know, formally renounce those territories. Develop, grow further, democratize, right, and then who knows what happens in 10 years? Right, a lot can happen in 10 years, 15 years. Again, it's not a proposal that's going to be loved by anybody, right? But it is again a proposal that's been put out there for consideration, because the alternative is continued fighting. But it's not clear that continued fighting will help resolve the territorial issue either.
Dana Lewis :Why not a kind of North-South Korea armistice, where you stop shooting, everybody moves back two kilometers and we freeze the conflict? What is wrong? Is that practical at all, or what do you think is wrong with that?
Masha Hedberg :Actually, there has been one proposal that says that this is a good model to follow, that right now the United States and allies arm Ukraine as much as possible in order to put it in a good position, but eventually we will end up with a negotiated armistice. So we fight and talk and at some point, when both sides decide that the fighting is no longer worth it, we freeze the conflict along whatever line, whatever battlefield line exists at the time, and I have heard a number of people say this is possibly the most that we will get right. So North and South Korea have signed an armistice. The armistice has held for decades, but technically they're still at war. I think the big difference between that example.
Dana Lewis :You can't exactly call that a success story either, because they seem like they're on the verge of war at different times.
Masha Hedberg :I think that's why people often say that an armistice is not only unideal but unstable. You don't want perpetual tensions on the border between Russia and Ukraine, right. This will not only destabilize that region but will have spillover effects on Europe, right. But is it better than continued fighting that just causes more death and destruction? You know people take different sides on that one, but I think the difference between North and South Korea then and Ukraine and Russia now is that remember North and South Korea, we had a bipolar world, we had the United States and we had the Soviet Union, and right now there aren't two other big players that can restrain the two belligerents. That no longer exists.
Dana Lewis :So you've discussed a lot of the stated. I mean, it's the stated philosophy of a lot of different people in Europe and in the US, and probably in Russia too, that all this talk doesn't matter. What really matters is what happens on the ground. And if you're able to drive your argument on the ground, if you're able to take territory, that's the most convincing negotiating position of all. The difficulty is that it doesn't seem to be very conclusive on either way.
Masha Hedberg :Yes, I think why we haven't seen credible negotiations is both sides still think they can make decisive military gains that then skew the negotiations in their favor, the negotiations in their favor. But we've also seen the past two years where decisive military victories have become few and far between, yeah, these halting grinding advances. Ukraine, for a while, was in largely kind of a defensive posture, obviously before Kursk, right. So Ukraine is still capable of military surprises and I think both sides still think they can win the argument through military means. Right, and we're probably going to see this for another year, were probably going to see this for another year. But I think it's becoming clear and clear that both sides are very capable of inflicting damage on each other. But you know, militarily, I don't see Ukraine capturing all the territory that Russia has gained since 2022. Right, but we also don't see Russia marching again on Kiev and this time taking it by force.
Dana Lewis :Right. But Ukraine argues. You know, bringing the war home to Russians will convince Putin that he's got to stop the fighting. How much stock do you put in that when you see them? You know even this week firing drones into Moscow they hit an apartment building, hitting gas plants, trying to strike at airports and freezing airspace over Russia, increasingly having long range missile capability and drone capability that reaches pretty deep, 1,800 kilometers inside Russia.
Masha Hedberg :I agree, but it does reach pretty deep. Those kind of attacks within Russia have increased, but I don't see Ukraine having enough drones, military capacity to really shift the calculus in the Kremlin Right. Like if you think about something like the Kursk Incursion daring, well-planned, really well-executed.
Dana Lewis :But what did it change?
Masha Hedberg :What did it change? It certainly didn't change the way that the people in the Kremlin or the Russian Defense Ministry have thought about their plans for further gains in eastern Ukraine, and I don't see the Russian leadership changing course unless Ukraine can really inflict serious, decisive damage, and I think the potential for that is more limited than Can you quickly give me your thoughts on leadership?
Dana Lewis :We often talk about leadership in the Kremlin and how long President Putin can remain in power and how long will he and who will succeed him, but we often don't pay much attention to the Ukrainian leadership, and there have been a lot of internal changes recently and I think there's a lot of things that are not being spoken about in terms of Zelensky's leadership and those around him and how Ukrainians might be feeling about getting, you know, worn down and tired, and how long is this going to go on? I mean, they certainly seem committed and it's their country to defend, but there's pressure on both leaderships, do you agree?
Masha Hedberg :I think there's more pressure on Zelensky than there is on Putin, just by the nature of the politics in those countries. I think Zelensky is under a great deal of pressure, but not just from the Ukrainian public. I think Zelensky is under a great deal of pressure from other Western governments. What we see right now, I think US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and the UK Foreign Secretary are visiting Kiev right and again from what we've read, they're asking Zelensky to formulate more realistic plans about what Ukraine can achieve militarily this year, right. So I do think Zelensky is under a great deal of pressure in a way that I don't think Putin is. But in terms of the Ukrainian public, yes, every indication is that people are tired, people are weary of the war, people want to return to normal life and that is exactly how you would expect people to be right.
Masha Hedberg :We all like our normal life, but it is also interesting that when you look at opinion polls, still a majority of Ukrainians do not support a negotiated settlement that makes Ukraine a neutral state and that seeds large swaths of territory in eastern and southern Ukraine. So I think the Ukrainian public is still willing to live with the dangers, the horrors, the economic and social dislocation, at least for the time being. In Russia you still see much support for the government right as well as though you do see an increasing support for a negotiated settlement. But, interesting, when you ask Russians what a negotiated settlement would look like, at least a third say the only kind of acceptable negotiated settlement is the one that results in a neutral Ukraine and Russia gets to keep the territory it now wholly or partially controls.
Dana Lewis :Well, and the information that they have to form that opinion is pretty narrow, based on state-controlled media right, so that could change pretty quickly if the Kremlin decides to program nightly television a different way.
Masha Hedberg :I think it would be easier for the Kremlin to portray whatever they get as a victory right than it will be for Zelensky and the Ukrainian government. Again, there are significant differences in the politics of those two countries that make Putin's tasks easier.
Dana Lewis :Just to wrap it up, do you want to make a prediction on where we go in the next 12 months, 18 months or maybe shorter?
Masha Hedberg :12 months, 18 months or maybe shorter, given the unpredictability of politics in both Europe and the United States particularly the United States and the fact that this is an election year where the results are predictable Right.
Dana Lewis :We should just mention, as we're recording this we're doing this one day after the US presidential debate between Trump and Kamala Harris, where, you know, trump again said that the war would be over in 24 hours and Harris said, essentially, your peace plan is surrender and you know, president Putin would eat you for lunch. Quote unquote.
Masha Hedberg :Thank you for filling that in, but exactly this is the environment in which you're asking me to make a prediction about the next 12 months. So I will do so, but I do so with many, many cabinets. I actually think that, unfortunately, for the next 12 months, we see continued attempts to score military victories. I think we will find ourselves in the same position we find ourselves now, and we end up at the negotiating table with negotiations that are more likely to favor Russia's positions than Ukraine's, but I think concessions will need to be made on both sides.
Dana Lewis :Masha Hedberg, it's great to meet you, great to talk to you and, yeah, thank you so much from the political science department at Colgate University. Thank you, masha.
Masha Hedberg :Thank you, Dana. I really pleasure to meet you and have a wonderful afternoon in London.
Dana Lewis :And that's our backstory this week. I watched the US debate last night. I think Kamala Harris's remark that Putin would eat Donald Trump for lunch Tough talk, but realistically Trump's only solution to that war would be to let Russia win. And that's not a plan. It's surrender, capitulation and then what Putin moves on. To fill in the blank, I'm Dana Lewis. Thanks for listening to Backstory. No-transcript.
