reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Supporting Ukraine is crucial for us because they are fighting a war that we are not involved in. It is important to engage in dialogue with our American colleagues and friends as they share the same interest. Supporting Ukraine is a cost-effective measure to ensure that Russia, under its current regime, does not pose a threat to the NATO alliance. This support must be sustained to safeguard our collective security.

The panelists discuss whether recent developments around Ukraine, NATO security guarantees, and Western support can produce a peace agreement acceptable to Russia and Ukraine, and what the war’s trajectory might look like by year-end and beyond. Initial reactions and sticking points - Speaker 1 sees potential in recent moves if true and reliable, arguing Ukraine is signaling goodwill to the United States, but remains skeptical that a peace deal will satisfy both sides given core demands over territory and Donbas control. He emphasizes the Donbas as the central unresolved issue. - Speaker 2 notes Putin’s need to show tangible gains to save face, arguing the war is being fought to achieve declared goals and that Russia will not sign a deal unless it secures substantial results. Security guarantees, no-fly zones, and peacekeeping - The discussion centers on two main proposed points: U.S. security guarantees (including possible no-fly zone enforcement) and a European-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine. There is debate about how binding such guarantees would be and whether Russia would accept them, with concerns about the Budapest Memorandum’s history of non-fulfillment versus what a new, more comprehensive, legally binding framework might look like. - Speaker 1 points out that even a robust security package would require Russian agreement, which he doubts will be forthcoming given Moscow’s current aims. He underscores that Europe’s and the U.S.’s support for Ukraine is contingent on political will, which could waver, but he notes Ukraine’s trust gap with U.S. guarantees given past experiences. - Speaker 2 stresses that Putin’s aims include defeating NATO and achieving a U.S.-level accommodation (a “Yalta 2.0” style deal) while keeping Western control over Europe at arm’s length. He argues Putin would accept U.S. and possibly some European troops but not a formal NATO presence on Ukrainian soil, especially in western Donbas or beyond. Budapest memorandum vs. new guarantees - Both sides discuss the difference between a nonbinding Budapest Memorandum and a more robust, legally binding security guarantee. Speaker 1 highlights Ukraine’s past trust in security assurances despite U.S. and European failures to honor them, suggesting skepticism about the enforceability of any new guarantees. Speaker 2 suggests that a stronger, more binding arrangement could be essential for Russia to accept any settlement, but that Moscow would still resist concessions over full Donbas control. On-the-ground realities and war dynamics - The panelists agree Russia is advancing on multiple fronts, though the pace and strategic significance of gains vary. They discuss Ukraine’s ability to sustain the fight through Western weapons flows and domestic production (including drones and shells). They acknowledge the risk of Western fatigue and the potential for a more protracted war, even as Ukraine builds its own capabilities to prolong the conflict. - The West’s long-term willingness to fund and arm Ukraine is debated: Speaker 1 argues Europe’s economy is strained but notes continued political support for Ukraine, which could outlast Russia’s economic stamina. Speaker 2 emphasizes that Russia’s economy is fragile mainly in the provinces, while Moscow and Saint Petersburg remain relatively insulated; he also points to BRICS support (China and India) as sustaining Moscow politically and economically. Economic and strategic pressures - The role of energy revenues and sanctions is debated. Speaker 1 suggests Russia can be pressured economically to seek a deal, while Speaker 2 counters that Russia’s economy is adapting, with China and India providing strategic support that helps Moscow resist Western coercion. They discuss shadow fleet strikes and global energy markets as tools to erode Russia’s war-finance capability. - There is disagreement about whether, over time, economic pressure alone could force regime change in Russia. Speaker 1 is skeptical that penalties will trigger a voluntary Russian withdrawal, while Speaker 2 argues that sustained economic and political pressure, combined with Western unity, could push toward a settlement. Strategies and potential outcomes - Putin’s internal calculus is described as existential: he seeks a win that he can publicly claim to legitimize his rule and justify the costs of the war to the Russian people and elites. This shapes his openness to concessions and to the kinds of guarantees he would accept. - Alexander posits that a near-term peace could emerge from a deal brokered at high levels (potentially involving Trump and Putin) that reshapes European security with U.S. leadership and BRICS engagement, while Paul emphasizes that any credible end to the conflict would require Ukraine and Russia to agree to a swap-like territorial arrangement and to accept a new security framework that deters renewed aggression. End-of-year and longer-term outlooks - By year-end, the panel agrees it is unlikely that a major peace agreement will be realized under the current conditions; any real breakthrough would depend on significant concessions, including Donbas arrangements, and a credible security guarantee framework. - By the end of next year, both expect a continuation of a contested balance: Ukraine likely to press for stronger Western guarantees and EU integration, Russia seeking to preserve Donbas gains while navigating internal and external pressures. Alexander envisions two “wins” emerging: the United States under Trump coordinating a broader peace framework, and China leveraging its economic influence to shape Europe’s response. Paul anticipates a gradual trajectory with ongoing military and economic pressures and a continued stalemate unless a major concession reshapes incentives on both sides.

Speaker 0 says that Russia's strategy is to collapse morale within Ukraine and the will to fight. We've been in discussions with them about defensive weapons to be able to protect their grid, and ongoing technical conversations about the specific equipment they need, but ultimately, if that equipment is ultimately destroyed a week later after it's installed, that remains a problem, and that's been the history the last two or three years.

Today has been emotional, highlighting President Zelensky's fearless leadership and inspiration. He emphasized that Ukraine needs help urgently, not in the future. The U.S. must provide more lethal aid, including MIGs for air superiority and surface-to-air missiles. This support will demonstrate to Putin that NATO allies are united behind Ukraine. We should facilitate Poland's transfer of MIGs to Ukrainian pilots and ensure Ukraine receives the necessary support. America must stand for freedom; failing to do so could have repercussions at home. We know Putin's ambitions extend beyond Ukraine, so it's crucial to protect our homeland while assisting those in need.

The speaker states that there are plans to send more weapons to Ukraine, confirming that the country will receive additional arms. The speaker emphasizes that this action is necessary: “We have to. They they have to be able to defend themselves.” The speaker asserts that Ukraine is being attacked and hit hard, describing the situation with repetition to underscore the intensity: “They're getting hit very hard now,” followed by “They're getting hit very hard.” The speaker reiterates the need for further weapon deliveries, saying, “We're gonna have to send more weapons.” The emphasis is on defensive capabilities, with a clear indication that the weapons being sent are primarily defensive in nature: “Your defensive weapons primarily.” Throughout, the message conveys that the defense of Ukraine requires continued and increased military support in the form of weapons, due to the heavy blows Ukraine is sustaining.

"United States continues to stand with Ukraine. And earlier this morning, I called Ukraine's acting defense minister to tell him that president Obama has approved additional nonlethal military assistance for health and welfare items and other supplies." "Pressure is mounting on US president Barack Obama to provide lethal aid to Ukraine's military." "Both the house and senate passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act in late December, paving the way for March worth in lethal and nonlethal military assistance, a rare agreement in the usually divided congress." "The US is one step away from providing Ukraine with $350,000,000 worth of support after congress unanimously passed a bill late on Thursday." "As rockets are launched into the skies over Eastern Ukraine and shells hit apartment buildings in Donetsk, the human toll of the conflict is inescapable."

Speaker emphasizes the importance of supporting Ukraine for national security. They urge to stop complaining about Trump and focus on increasing defense spending. Stressing the significance of a strong NATO alliance for security, they highlight the need to work with the US president, regardless of who it may be. The speaker underscores the mutual interest of the US in a robust NATO.

There was no policy decision to stop sending weapons to Ukraine. A review of stockpiles caused a temporary pause of certain munitions. During the review, some shipping slowed down, but didn't stop. The review has occurred, and there's been no change to the posture of providing what is available. Ukraine needs Patriot batteries, which are available in multiple European countries, including Spain and Germany. Some countries that have ordered Patriot batteries and are about to receive them could defer shipment to Ukraine instead. These are defensive weapons that would help with missile attacks, but not drone attacks.

Today was emotional, highlighting President Zelensky as a fearless and inspirational leader. He emphasized the urgent need for assistance—today, not tomorrow. The U.S. must provide lethal aid, including MIGs for air superiority and surface-to-air missiles. This support will demonstrate to Putin that NATO allies stand united behind Ukraine. We should facilitate Poland's transfer of MiGs to Ukrainian pilots and ensure Ukraine receives the necessary support. America must uphold the values of freedom, as neglecting this could lead to consequences at home. Putin's ambitions extend beyond Ukraine, so it's crucial to protect our homeland while helping those in need. Thank you.

I believe Ukraine needs support in the form of weapons and fighter pilots to win the war. We should provide F-16s and training for pilots. I want Ukraine to join NATO by 2024. We should issue an invitation and provide more weapons in December to help them fight in 2025. American-made weapons are being used effectively by the Ukrainians, benefiting both countries.

How can the UK further support us during this challenging time? I’ve been assessing our anti-air capabilities to ensure we can expedite their delivery to you. We're exploring a defensive alliance with a nuclear power, and it would be beneficial if the UK could be that partner. We’re eager to assist in negotiations. President Zelensky is interested in having the UK involved, especially given the lessons learned from the Minsk agreement, which lacked UK and US participation. There’s a strong desire to discuss a security alliance and other related topics in these negotiations.

If Putin attacks a NATO ally, we will defend every part of NATO as required by treaty. It's important to clarify that we do not seek American troops to fight in Russia or against Russia.

When it comes to supporting Ukraine, we need to provide them with the weapons and training they need to win. Retired F-16 pilots are welcome to join the fight. I want Ukraine to be invited to join NATO in 2024. American weapons are being used effectively, and we hope to provide more support in the future.

General Breedlove, Ambassador Burns, and Ambassador Vershbowel discussed the need to provide lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine if Russia continues its aggression in Eastern Ukraine. They emphasized the importance of maintaining Alliance unity and working closely with NATO partners and the EU. They agreed that giving Ukraine these weapons would be helpful in boosting morale and capabilities. However, they also stressed the need for close consultation with allies to prevent divisions and exploitation by Putin. General Breedlove reiterated his support for Ukraine's right to defend itself.

Speaking to reporters in Berlin, Speaker 0 described remarks in which the speaker said we must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents or great-grandparents endured, and that if we deliver on our commitments, the tragedy can be prevented, with specific reference to Ukraine. He added that the United States cannot be kept safe without a safe Europe, and expressed optimism that the United States and Europe can get on the same page regarding Ukraine. The remarks note there has been evident division between the White House under Donald Trump and European allies, as well as Ukraine, prompting a push to increase Europe’s defense production capability. This push spans the European Union and the United Kingdom, and is described as following pressure from the White House and Donald Trump for Europe to do more to ensure its own protection. In this context, Mark Ruta is quoted as saying that allied defense spending must rise.

We must not abandon Ukraine or allow NATO to weaken. It goes against our national interests and the promises we've made. We need Congress to pass funding for NATO as soon as possible.

We are actively discussing how to support Ukraine, having recently engaged with Ukrainian leadership, including President Zelensky. We have provided over $10 billion in aid, including military equipment like drones, armored vehicles, guns, and ammunition. We will continue to support Ukraine by purchasing necessary equipment on the international market. Our commitment to Ukraine is unwavering as we stand by our allies in the face of Russian aggression.

Supporting Ukraine is crucial for us because they are fighting a war that we are not involved in. It is important to engage in dialogue with our American colleagues and friends as they share the same interest. Supporting Ukraine is a cost-effective measure to ensure that Russia, under its current regime, does not pose a threat to the NATO alliance. This support must be continued to safeguard our interests.

Europe must quickly increase support for Ukraine as artillery shells, air defense interceptors, and drone production capabilities dwindle. Europe could use proposals and potentially collateralize frozen Russian assets to act fast. The speaker is concerned about the cutoff of intelligence streams from the U.S. and pressure on allies like the UK not to use US intelligence for their own weapons. The primary purpose of US intelligence has been to help Ukrainians see Russian attacks coming and have advanced warning. Key weapon systems require U.S. satellite queuing and the military GPS system to hit targets. Without these, more Ukrainians will die, and Europe cannot replace this capability quickly.

Europe must quickly increase its support for Ukraine, especially as artillery, air defense, and drone production become more challenging. Europe could use proposals and potentially leverage frozen Russian assets to provide immediate assistance. The speaker is concerned about the cutoff of intelligence streams from the U.S. and pressure on allies not to use U.S. intelligence. U.S. intelligence has been vital for providing Ukrainians with advanced warning of Russian attacks. Additionally, certain weapon systems rely on U.S. satellite queuing and GPS for targeting. A prolonged pause in this support will result in more Ukrainian deaths, and Europe cannot rapidly replace this capability.

Speaker 1 says Putin must be confronted with strength: "the velvet glove, but I think the hammer needs to come, and it needs to come immediately." He urges welcoming Zelensky to the Oval Office and, "pick up the phone, and ask, majority leader, John Thune to to immediately pass, the secondary sanctions bill that is supported by virtually everyone in the United States Senate." He calls for "the combination of engagement, but also making it clear to Putin that we are prepared to take actions, that would literally break his economy" while redoubling our commitment to Ukraine and European allies. He notes Putin's history: "Putin has made it clear that he wants to reassert the old Soviet sphere of influence, what we used to call the evil empire Mhmm. In Eastern Europe." He concludes: "Putin's not going to stop until he stopped, until he understands that there's gonna be enormous cost to Russia, and there's an unflagging commitment to defending Ukraine's sovereignty by The United States and our allies."

I am discussing the importance of defending sovereignty and territorial integrity, specifically in Ukraine, with our NATO allies on the eastern flank. This moment is crucial for upholding the guiding principles of the NATO alliance.

Europe must quickly increase its support for Ukraine as artillery shells, air defense interceptors, and drone production capabilities dwindle. Europe could use proposals and potentially collateralize frozen Russian assets to act fast. The speaker is concerned about the cutoff of intelligence streams from the U.S. and pressure on allies like the UK not to use US intelligence for their own weapons. The primary purpose of US intelligence has been to give Ukrainians advanced warning of Russian attacks. Key weapon systems require support from US satellite queuing and the military GPS system to hit their targets. Without this support, more Ukrainians will die, and Europe cannot replace this capability quickly.

Europe must quickly increase its support for Ukraine as artillery shells, air defense interceptors, and drone production capabilities dwindle. Europe could use proposals and potentially collateralize frozen Russian assets to act fast. The speaker is concerned about the cutoff of intelligence streams from the U.S. and pressure on allies like the UK not to use US intelligence for their own weapons. The primary purpose of US intelligence has been to help Ukrainians see Russian attacks coming and have advanced warning. Key weapon systems require U.S. satellite queuing and the military GPS system to hit targets. Without these, more Ukrainians will die, and Europe cannot replace this capability quickly.