BUCK: The Ukraine situation continuing to deteriorate. The war in that country getting worse, more violent, more casualties. We had assumed that that was going to be the case. Unfortunately, it is. There’s been something of a shift, I think, in the last few days. In the early moments of this conflict there was a lot of talk — some would even say a lot of war propaganda — about how the Russians, no way they could continue on.
The Russian war machine was gonna grind to a halt. The sanctions were going to crush them quickly. This would all be over and the glorious Ukrainian resistance would be victorious. That’s not how wars play out, and this is a very real war that has incredibly high stakes, as we know, for the people of Ukraine and also for the whole world when you add into it the thousands of Russian nuclear weapons that loom in the background of all of this.
I think there’s a little bit more realism in the analysis of this now more generally in the media as to the strikes, missile strikes hitting everything from hospitals to the headquarters of some foreign units that have arrived to fight alongside the Ukrainians. People are recognizing more, I think, as they see the images on their screens, how bad this is and how serious this fight is likely to continue to be. Joe Biden actually said to the issue of sending troops to Ukraine… Well, I’ll let him say it.
BUCK: World War III. I would first note that a year ago Biden promised to shut down the virus, to turn on the economy, and to restore normalcy and unity. And now we’re being told, “Go buy a Tesla, peasant! Gas prices are gonna get higher and higher, inflation is gonna get worse, and hopefully we won’t be in the midst of World War III.” So I think you could all consider Biden’s year one to be a massive fail even by Democrat standards.
Beyond that, Clay, this is not over when we think about this discussion about what the U.S. involvement here should be. “Send NATO Troops to Western Ukraine.” This is the Wall Street Journal today. “A show of force inside the country would save lives and deprive Putin of the ability to dictate events.” That was just published — what was it, yesterday — in the Wall Street Journal on their editorial page, just to give you one example of what’s being talked about now.
A “limited” no-fly zone — which I think I said they would call for — in the West where we’re now seeing in real time this country be cleaved in two, and, “Oh, we don’t want a full-scale no-fly zone! We wanted a limited no-fly zone,” again creeping toward a reality with Russia that we need to be very cautious against.
First eight, nine days, first week of the Ukraine story people couldn’t get enough of it. The drama of following this war in Europe was unbelievably compelling to your average American. But guess what happened, Buck? The stories, even as they are becoming worse, are easier to understand. That first imagery of Russian invading Ukraine and Zelensky coming out and saying, “We’re fighting for Kiev tonight,” you thought that there would be some sort of massive story change.
What’s happened is what you predicted, Buck. We basically entered the long slog of war here where you’re making progress — if you’re Russia — a couple of miles a day. The overall rate of casualty is increasing fairly rapidly, but the day-to-day swings are not as substantial. And so the American public, everybody put up their Ukraine flag on social media, all the politicians walked out with their Ukraine flag lapels.
And now as this battle is ongoing, there’s a dial-back, right, in the overall interest, it feels like, in America in general. And I don’t know where we go from here. But how long do you think this process plays out, right? ‘Cause I think there’s a lot of people out there say, “Okay, we’re mid-March. We’re two weeks into what feels like a very long process. When is there a resolution, and what do you think that resolution might look like?”
BUCK: I think this goes on for a couple more weeks before Kiev essentially becomes so destroyed that it is almost indefensible militarily, and then I believe there will be negotiations that will stretch on with intermittent ceasefires. This is all prediction, folks. I could be wrong. That will eventually create a Russian protectorate in much of eastern Ukraine and a full Russian Federation absorption of the so-called independent region of Donbas or the separatist region of Donbas and a corridor that connects the Donbas to Crimea.
Which would essentially block the rest of Ukraine from access to the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea. So cut the country in half in a matter of months is, I think, is what is going to happen here. And at that point the Russians will be willing to say, “Well, we’ll back off now,” and whatever.
CLAY: You think Zelensky survives and remains in power for the remainder of Ukraine, or how do you see it? ‘Cause many people are following him as the heroic protagonist of Ukraine-Russia struggle. What seems likely to you to occur?
BUCK: I think that he will… I hope and think that he will be okay and be a part of the eventual negotiations here because I think militarily, he’s not a significant target to the Russians insofar — or I should say, he’s not an obvious target for the Russians insofar — as the martyrdom of Zelensky may create an even emboldened resistance among the Ukrainians.
Because Russia, at the end of this, wants to go back to being a member of the international community and there are some things that I believe are gonna guide Putin here as much as he can be guided, because look. Obviously, he could level any of these cities if he wanted to. So he’s using escalating force to try to punish the Ukrainians enough that they will give him what he wants at the negotiating table.
I think Zelensky probably makes it to the end of the conflict. And what I mentioned before on the changing perception, by the way, Clay, I had been surprised. In the first week or so of this conflict we were told that 75% of the American people — according to, I think it was, a Reuters-Ipsos poll if I remember correctly —
CLAY: Yes.
BUCK: — 75% of them supported a no-fly zone over Ukraine. The most recent polling on this one — and this is a CBS News/YouGov poll — 59% support a no-fly zone over Ukraine. However, “Would you support a no-fly zone over Ukraine if it is viewed as an act of war?” and 62% oppose it then, which is another way of saying:
“Yeah, people realize we don’t want a war with Russia because a no-fly zone over Ukraine would absolutely be viewed as an act of war by Russia.” How would they respond to that? We don’t know, because to do a no-fly zone you have to shoot down Russian planes and destroy Russian surface-to-air missiles on Russian territory. There’s no other no-fly zone.
CLAY: It also shows, Buck, how the wording of poll questions really dictates many times what the response you’re going to get from the people that you poll is. So relying on poll question answers that-to-help dictate American policy, certainly American foreign policy, can be freighted with danger just based on that difference that you’re explicating there in essentially word choice. Nobody wants World War III.
Everybody, in theory, likes the idea of supporting Ukraine as much as Ukraine can possibly be supported. So if you’re right and we’re talking about eventually an agreement where part of Ukraine is given back to Russia, I think most people out there wonder several things. One, would Russia stay happy with that result, and two — what I haven’t heard a lot of people talk about, Buck, is — how does Russia get re-integrated into the global marketplace when there’s some sort of resolution here?
BUCK: Everyone is so mobilized right now with this moment of —
CLAY: Unity to —
BUCK: Exactly, unity against Russia, and they even stopped some… I think it’s like a 20-year-old piano prodigy from playing at some concert hall in Canada. He’s Russian, he’s 20, he’s outspoken against Putin and the war. He’s basically a Russian dissident at this point, and they won’t let him perform because he’s Russian.
They’ve stopped teaching some of the greats of Russian literature in major universities in the Western world because they’re doing this anti-Russian thing. It’s the freedom fries moment. Remember we’re supposed to rename french fries “freedom fries”? Not because we’re invading France but because Jacques Chirac wasn’t on board for the Iraq war of 2003. So we were supposed to turn on the French.
The whole thing was idiotic. But there was a moment of public fervor, and I think we, because of what we’ve seen as a country over the last 20 years, are a little bit more, “Prove to me,” a little bit more, “Show me,” a little bit more cynical, which we should be, about government claims when it comes to things like war.
But, Clay, Russia is going to be integrated into the international community again. There is no in the future in which one of the largest producers of hydrocarbon in the world with 130-million person population and thousands of nuclear weapons is ignored by everybody. That doesn’t happen.
CLAY: Yes.
I know right now nobody wants to hear that, but you think about this, really? Do we think that we’re treat Russia like North Korea for the foreseeable future? Putin knows that that’s just not possible. He knows that countries won’t care enough about what’s happened in Ukraine to do that. So this all goes into his very Machiavellian calculation.
CLAY: Well, his idea is essentially, I think, correct. But can you imagine how awkward the re-integration of Russia and their economy is going to be after so much of a statement being made about how you’re gonna shut down Russia, and then suddenly — just think about it — McDonald’s gonna open back up? Dr Pepper and Pepsi and Coke are suddenly gonna start flowing again? I’m just talking about low-level economic input in terms of Russia. The oligarchs get back their yachts? There’s so much to unravel here as eventually Russia gets brought back into the global marketplace.
BUCK: It’s not even clear — I always wonder about this — what the legality is of punishing people and taking their assets in the West who are Russian without… Have they proved? There haven’t been… First of all, these oligarchs can afford very good legal teams, I can assure you. Have they proven that these assets are illicit? A lot of what’s going on here is driven by this mass mobilization mentality.
Look, I feel like people — everyone — needs to take a step back and be very cautious about this. Joe Biden is actually discussing the possibility of World War III erupting if we get this wrong, and there are people who are saying, “Yeah, but blow Russian planes out of the sky. What are they gonna do about it?” and they have platforms.
BUCK: Let’s say that I’m right — and I know we gotta take a pause here. We’ll come back to this. But let’s say I’m right, Clay, and they do cleave the country in half and there’s some kind of negotiations. You know what everyone who wants to do business with Russia is gonna say? “Okay, guys. This is now peace. It means putting things behind us and Putin is the…”
And you’re gonna see here so much justification for why we need to forget all about these sanctions and these things, just because of the money. Because there are so many people that are going to want access to Russian energy. If Russia didn’t have oil and natural gas, Clay, it wouldn’t be a different conversation.
CLAY: Yes.
BUCK: But there’s no way. There’s no way this is longtime. That’s how I see it.
From pistachio Crème Brûlée to Brussels Sprouts, is this man ever happy?
Watch Clay and Buck analyze what's different about this Trump transition.
Eric Hovde speaks out over concerns about his race against Tammy Baldwin.
Clay's loving Trump's cabinet picks so far.
The former New York Times reporter explains his transformation.