c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are sponsored by these television companies, and more. including mediacom. >> the world changed in an instant but mediacom was ready. in a traffic sword and we never

slowed down. hools and businesses went virtual and we powered a new reality. at media come, we were bill to keep you ahead. >> mediacom support c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers. giving him a front row seat to democracy. the up today in the latest and publishing with book tv's podcast, about books. current nonfiction book releases, plus, the bestseller list. as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. welcome back to washington journal, i'm joined now by george beebe the director of grand strategy for quincy institute for a responsible

statecraft. the former special adviser to vice president cheney on russia. also a former caa rush analysis chief. george, welcome. >> thank. you >> nice to see you in the studio. here is the headline from the associated press. zelenskyy says ukrainian special military units are in kherson. of course the russians have withdrawn. what is the significance of that? >> well, i think this has an enormous amount of significance. first of all on the battlefield. kherson is really the battlefield gateway to crimea. this opens up the possibility of the ukrainians advancing into crime area and taking that peninsula back from russia. russia annexed in 2014. this is one of the goals that some ukrainian leaders have voiced. as a possible ambition. the other thing about kherson is this is also the gateway to the southern ukrainian coast for russia. if russia is to have any hope

of trying to advance towards the ports of mykolaiv and odessa, to really try to turn ukraine into a landlocked country, they have to have kherson. what this means for russia is russia's ambitions need to be a lot more modest than they were going into this war. >> i will just remind viewers that if you would like to call in and talk to our guest, you can do that on our lines by party affiliation. democrats 202748 8000. republicans to a 2748 8001. independents to a two separate 2002 that was the symbolic effect of the withdrawal from pierson, sorry -- that was the strategic. what is the symbolic? >> symbolically this is a real blow for putin and russia. this one hurts. it is the most significant loss that russia has taken since this war putin is already under pressure, domestically, from

hard-liners -- people on the nationalist right in russia who believe he had not conducted this war effectively. he is under growing pressure to demonstrate success on the battlefield. we will have to wait and see what that translates into in terms of concrete russian actions going forward. there is no question that, politically, putin is on the defensive right now. >> why has russia struggled so much, just in general, in that war? people back in february saying it would take three days to take the country. >> there is a combination of reasons for that. many of them are internal to russia. there was some serious errors of judgment that putin committed at the beginning of this. he did not expect that ukraine would put up the kind of resistance that ukraine did. russian forces that were

advancing on kyiv back in february were actually outfitted with riot control gear. it tells you how much resistance the russians likely thought they were going to face. the other part of that is corruption. i think the russian military has suffered from poor allocation of resources. a lot of funds that were supposed to be devoted to building up the russian military were diverted. i think we are seeing some of the results of that. i think the biggest factor in all of this is actually the role of the west. the russians are not just fighting one-on-one against ukraine. they are fighting against ukraine, plus the united states and nato. u.s. military support, especially american intelligence support, has proved to be quite a decisive factor in helping the ukrainians repel the russians. >> here is a another article from the associated press with the headline, 100,000 russian

troops killed or injured in ukraine, u.s. says. the article starts with russia's announce retreat from kherson. regional capital in southern ukraine that it ceased early in the war in a potential stalemate in fighting over the winter could provide both countries an opportunity to negotiate peace. that is from general mark milley, a member of the joint chiefs. do you think that there is an opportunity for a diplomatic solution? i do, for a number of reasons. one is that the russians are going to have a very hard time going beyond the line of control that is now in place in ukraine. they are digging in, defensively. i think putin long ago abandoned his goal of seizing kyiv. that proved to be too difficult for russians to pull off. he is now going to have to abandon the goal of going after ukraine's southern coast.

this is really now a battle of holding the territory that the russians now have in the donbas and the land bridge that connects the russian federation to the crimean peninsula what that means, i think is the russians might well be open to some sort of negotiated settlement in all of this. their ambitions, i think, have changed quite significantly. the other part of this is ukraine. the united states has said from the start of this war was that our goal was to put the ukrainians in a strong position in the battlefield. that can translate into an advantageous negotiating position so they can come up with a settlement to preserve independence and sovereignty, but also at the same time avoid escalation of this war into a direct russia and u.s. confrontation. mark milley, of the joint chief of staff, is essentially saying

that he thinks we are probably at that point. the ukrainians are probably not going to be able to make a lot more progress on the battlefield right now the russians are essentially themselves stalemated that seems to be an opportunity to find peaceful negotiated and to this conflict. >> what about the impact of winter? you know that russian winters are, historically, that. they will be affecting both sides of this war. >> that is right. i think winter does provide an opportunity for a breather. that is a breezier that i think diplomats can take advantage of. >> all, right let's start taking some calls. first up is dale in annapolis, maryland. independent one. hi, dale. >> good morning. thank you for c-span. good morning to you mr. bibi. i have one quick question. if president trump had won the

2020 election, considering -- can you hear me? >> go ahead, a. >> i'm sorry. considering that president trump really was trying to get the united states to be out of nato. it seems like the united states, basically, has supported the ukrainians. i'm just wondering, with the united states still be as militarily supportive of the ukrainians to maintain their freedom? it seems like the people of the united states -- i had to go back to former president trump but it just seems like he could do no wrong. to me i just felt like he divided this country. >> they all look at a answer to your question. >> well, this is a very difficult question to answer

the relationship between the nato alliance and the u.s. military and ukraine is a central factor in this war. the russians have, for many years, said that the prospect of ukrainian membership in nato is a red line for them. i think they have shown that, in fact, it is. they have been willing to go to war to try to prevent that from happening. the real question is, is there a way that the united states can both prevent ukraine from losing its independence and sovereignty, and strike some sort of practical understanding understanding about ukraine's place in the european security architecture? i think that there is that possibility. the reality is ukraine is not going to be part of the nato

alliance in our lifetime. -- the national vital interest to actually go to war themselves to defend ukraine. that is what article five commitment to the north atlantic. if we are not actually willing to go to war to defend ukraine than we are willing to bring ukraine into the nato alliance. if that is the case, there may well be a basis for some sort of practical understanding with the russians on this. >> let's talk to john next in plain feel new jersey. democrat line. >> my name is john. i have been studying what's been going on with the cranium war. i think a lot of countries that border ukraine have been very helpful to that country because of the history of russia going into their country, especially

in 1939 when the russians invaded poland with the germans going in there -- one of the reasons i think the finns join nato was the war in 1938 to 1940 i think that has been one of the things that push the ukrainians. how they fell against the russians. we have to remember that, in world war ii, there were a lot of ukrainians who fought as part -- against the germans. there is a history of rebellion, resistance, to any invader in that country. >> all right john. >> that is exactly right there is a long and very tense history between moscow and a large portion of eastern

europe. and that has in fact driven a lot of the demands that part of the world to be part of the nato alliance. they have strong reasons to be concerned about russian aggression. they see nato and the united states as their assurance know russia is not going to repeat what's happening in asia right now. i think ukraine, of course, feels much the same way. the difficulty here is that ukraine itself is divided on this issue. and has been for a long time. western portions of ukraine were one part of poland is also part of the austrian garrison empire. eastern portions of ukraine have long been part of russia it have close relations with moscow. how you strike some sort of understanding inside ukraine that allows those different

cultural cushions to coexist peacefully has been a real challenge. and the challenge is going to remain even after the tour is over. how we handle this recognizing all of the complicated historical factors that are in play here is going to be a real challenge. >> george, we have a question for you from dave in in minneapolis who says that there seems to be no off ramp for putin. will i get desperate enough to set up a tactical nuke? >> well, very difficult question to answer. i think that after the cuban missile crisis john kennedy gave a famous speech at an american university where he said the big lesson of the cuban missile crisis for him was that the leaders of nuclear powers should not be put in a position where they had to choose between national

humiliation and resorting to using nuclear weapons. and the question we have before us with ukraine is how close by could putin be to that kind of stark choice? >> do we know? >> we don't know. quickly is under pressure. clearly the russian military suffered from serious setbacks on the battlefield. and clearly, i think, crimea is what is really the big variable in all of this. putin and almost every russian across the political spectrum believes that crimea is a part of russia or should be a part of russia. so emotionally and politically this has an enormous amount of residents. strategically it is important because crimea is home to the black sea fleet which is vital to the russian perspective of protecting russia's southern flanks. so if you lose crimea not only -- will >> we leave this here to take you live now to capitol