day, the house of representatives opens its proceedings for the first time to televise coverage. >> since march of 1979, c-span has been your unfiltered window into american democracy. bring you direct no spin coverage of congress, the supreme court, and the white house. >> would you hold one moment please for the president? >> it exists because of c-span's founder brian lam's's vision and the cable industry's support. not government funding. this public service is not guaranteed. all this month, in honor of founder's day, your support is more important than ever. you can keep democracy unfiltered today and for future generations. >> to the american people, now is the time to tune into c-span. >> your gift preserves open access to government and ensures the public stays informed. donate now at c-span.org/donate, or scan the code on your screen.

every contribution matters. and thank you. c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these television companies and more. including wow. >> the world has changed. the fast reliable internet connection is -- wow is there for our customers with speed, reliability, value, and choice. now more than ever it starts with great internet. >> wow supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> joining us now colonel alexar vindman. he is the author of the new book "the folly of realism, how the west deceived it south russia and betrayed ukraine." thank you so much for being with us. guest: very much looking forward

to this conversation. thank you for having me. host: you are also a former national european security council foreign affairs director under president trump. remind our audience or tell our audience about your background and work in the area of u.s. foreign policy. guest: my family arrived to the u.s. as refugees in 1979 from the soviet union, fleeing communism and soviet oppression. we got here at the age of four, arrived in new york city, when off to university in the military and served for 22 years. served in combat and i was in iraq and then posted in kyiv, ukraine, moscow, russia, obviously all the news, and then in the pentagon, i looked at the russian strategy and was invited to join the white house where i was responsible for russia, ukraine, a bunch of countries,

and gained notoriety or infamy pending on how you look at it when i reported a scheme to extort the investigation of vice president biden at the time going into the 2020 elections, perceiving the dangers of the impact of russian aggression towards ukraine and the potential for an even larger war that started in 2014 as well as the impacts on our own free and fair elections. this was an effort to tip the scales in president trump's favor back then. i reported it in official channels. that ended up working its way through the government to result in a congressional investigation and donald trump's impeachment. host: his first impeachment. guest: first impeachment. host: we will talk more about your background when we get to your book, but you worked in the white house and it was at the oval office friday that

ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy met with president trump. your reaction to that meeting? guest: it was visceral. there was a deja vu moment in there, putting myself in the shoes of the policy stuff on the council and how they were heading into that meeting with probably a strong sense of foreboding, maybe a flint of optimism that somehow this deal could be signed. president zelenskyy wanted to sign this deal to tether the u.s. to ukraine on the basis of national interests. ukraine has the rare earth that the u.s. wants and needs, and trump wanted this deal really desperately to demonstrate a win, to move the needle what he has been punching with regards to achieving a peace. this deal would not have gotten us very far. it is more a way for the u.s. to

set a very basic condition for subsequent conversations without even the russians on board, but it was a start. that all was blown up because of the erratic nature of the trump administration. jd vance, the vice president, both the president and the vice president decided to take a very provocative approach sitting across the table from a wartime leader defending his country with countless thousands of victims from russia's war of aggression, cast the u.s. enemy, not just ukraine's enemy, vladimir putin, as a benign actor, maybe not the culprit behind the question, and russia after zelinski just showed pictures of troops, pows being abused, spoke about 20,000 children that were stolen away from ukraine, and now are going through reeducation. trump and vance, vance in

particular, attempted to say russia is not a bad guy. that is a most obscene and disgusting way to deal with an ally and to flatter an opponent. the intent i guess was to somehow normalize the relationship with russia to set conditions. but this is exactly what my book is about. it is the idea we constantly accommodate russia. we have done it throughout the 30 plus years under six different administrations. republicans and democrats, all the way through. now we are doing it without any lessons of the past and in the most horrific way possible, burning all the bridges with our allies. and this devolved into zelinski is one of the very few world leaders that has come in there and stood his ground. donald trump is used to the flattering, the ego stroking, the pandering he gets from his cabinet. that is why they were there and why they were selected.

he is used to that kind of flattery from the republican party that does not hold him to account, no matter how excessive his behaviors are, and zelinski, good or bad, because both sides wanted the deal, just was not going to have it. he was not going to have this adversary be recast as a benign actor. host: our guest up until 10:00 is retired lt. col. alexander vindman, author of the new book "the folly of realism, how the west deceived itself about russia and betrayed ukraine. " if you have " a question or comment from him, call in now. the lines are (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for democrats, (202) 748-8000. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . your book just came out last week on tuesday.

explain the title and how it ties to what you were just talking about. guest: so this book came out, was explicitly timed for the three year anniversary of the war. that was the 24th, which was last monday. it was the date we had this you and vote where we started the week by siding with our adversaries, north korea, belarus, russia, and casting aside our friends, so it was really a strange start to the week on the third year anniversary of the full-scale war. the war itself has been going on since 2014 when russia first attacked and invaded and seized territory from ukraine. the title refers to what we see trump has adopted as a kind of core component of his foreign policy. highly transactional. everything has to be maximizing benefits to him. not even necessarily to the united states, but to him.

this evolves out of something called realism. realism is all countries in the world pursue their interests and pursue them maximally, so each side is looking to extract as much as they can out of each and every one of these engagements. and when you have that, you have a slide towards this lunacy of forgetting the lessons of the past, everything is immediately in front of you, and you are looking to get the best deal possible. and you are enticed by these false promises from the russians that there are deals to be made, that you need to squeeze as much as you can out of even your closest allies. not necessarily even pricing in the other kinds of benefits. it is not just about trade with canada and mexico. we want fair trade deals, but it is the fact that they are extremely reliable partners. canada will be there for us no matter what or was going to be there for us no matter what

until we started talking to them as if they were the 51st state. that is the folly. the folly is we have gone down this road to maximum shortsightedness when we just grasped at bright shiny objects, hopes of things that will never materialize, or succumb to fears and look to mitigate risks when putin looks to sabre radel, he will eventually, he will say i have nuclear weapons, you guys are pissing me off. i will fire my nuclear weapons at you if you don't knock it off. the reaction will be to cower in fear. that does not account for the fact that if you continuously bend to those types of nuclear extortion, you might reduce the risk immediately, but he will keep grabbing more territory like he has. he graduated from simple basic mischiefmaking and hybrid warfare and interfering in elections to military aggression because we continue to bend at

every one of these terms. we put russia first. that is the first part of the story. i refer to this current stage as the poison kool-aid stage of the cult of realism. that is where we are. we are really hurting ourselves. the subtitle frankly could not be more accurate. if i could come i would go back and revise it a bit. the d's should be changed to s's. how the usdc was itself about russia and betrays ukraine does have the u.s. deceives -- how is the u.s. deceives itself and betrays ukraine. people paid attention to my testimony. i always look at things at things that how this affects u.s. security. europe is the u.s.'s most important partner, security partner, economic partner. if there is not stability and predictability in europe, we suffer. this is a massive amount of instability that keeps creeping in because we keep deceiving

ourselves about russia and betrayed ukraine, betraying our own interests in the region. host: a quote from your book, it is something you said earlier, a word that you used, realism. the quote says, the pviet history and u.s. relationships with russia and with ukraine presented in this book as a test case for the prevailing u.s. approach to international relations in geral, makes overwhel clear that simplistic terms, realistic. in the process of selling out our values, we haveled to deter an aggressive yet deter rebel opponent, russia, and lost a chance to form a strong relationship with a strategically critical more likely western allied partner ukraine. the alternative approach, fundamentally different, is neo-idealism. this is something you talk about in your book a lot and advocate

for it. explain what that is. guest: sure. when you start to think about where we are and this cult of realism and how it put us in this jeopardy, automatically as a military guy trying to problem solve, i start thinking about alternatives. i think about the absence of values, that everything is transactional, everything's seemingly interest driven. i start to think about, how do we bring balance to that equation? one of the ways we bring balance to that equation and become more shortsighted, not just prone to minimize risk in every occasion is to start to think about values, that you need both values and interests in the way we look at relationships around the world. in this case, because of the slide towards the folly of realism, we need to rebalance where values come first. we are going to see this eventually anyway because trump is breaking everything.

it is such an extreme transactional behavior that on the back end of this, there will have to be a correction, a pendulum swing that will start to think about how does the u.s. recapture more leadership? how does the u.s. act more consistently long-term on this idea of values? what are those values? this is not pie-in-the-sky neoliberalism where you sacrifice your values and you discount the fact that sometimes you have to have unsavory relationships for your security. there is a partner out there in the world that may have something the u.s. needs, is vital, is essential. the fundamental idea is you focus on the things that matter. you focus on hardening democracies around the world. why? because of the security and economic relationships and the stability they offer. you start focusing on the erosion of democratic states.

these are supports we provide countries around the world that experienced democratic backsliding. you're experiencing that now and will need that ourselves. democratic institutions again because as they evolve, they provide stability and predictability. neo-idealism is really frankly a pragmatic approach to rebalance a way from the folly from this colt of realism to something that balances values and interests recognizing values are important to our interests. host: if we take that approach, what impact would it have on not only russia and ukraine, but other u.s.-foreign relations -- u.s. foreign relations? guest: the first thing is you start to realize we have deceived ourselves about russia and that at points along the way, inflection points, we could have had a fair assessment of

what we could accomplish with russia and what we can accomplish with ukraine. practically speaking, if the 1990's was a moment of maybe excessive hope, somewhat warranted exiting 40 years of cold war, this threat of armageddon, nuclear armageddon, on the backend into the 1990's, you start to think about, ok, very worth the effort to try to invest in russia and ukraine in pretty significant ways to help usher them into the democratic world, into capitalism. we did not invest initially, but that kind of approach makes sense. one i spoke to both president clinton and vice president gore, the interviews were with principal decision-makers across ukraine and the u.s. i talked to condoleezza rice about the 2000's. i talked to president clinton,

vice president gore. they had this notion of trying to bring both russia and ukraine into the fold. but by the time you start to get into the to thousands, you have this kgb case officer as president of russia. you see it is evident there is democratic backsliding. they were trying to experiment but as soon this individual went in, he started to destroy freedom of the press. he subordinated all the independent press under either the government or state owned enterprises. attacks on opponents, and then ukrainians in the same kind of moment, yes, they are imperfect, but they are striving for a democratic future. they have this moment in 2004 where there is an orange revolution. it is a rejection of these pro-russian forces interfering,

spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy an election in ukraine. putin is very heavy-handed, going in there, advocating for his preferred candidate, and the ukrainians reject that. they elect a pro-western candidate, an individual that was actually poisoned and scarred as a result of that, victor, and he attempts to take a western light. still lots of problems to resolve, but that should have been a moment of some clarity. the russians are not going to be good actors when you start hedging. ukraine has a publisher approaching 50 million, a really important player in that part of the world, and we also need to make sure russia with the increasing rhetoric -- ukraine is the most important aspect of the soviet union's former empire. now outside as an independent state. but what russia has been eyeing

and attempting to secure, centuries had under control, dominated, but then broke free. this vital territory was not an easy target, not an easy mark. and we just did not do that. we did not make any investments. we did not try to rebalance our policies. it was all about russia first. what do we do to keep pressure on signs? is there something we can accomplish on important or less important policy agenda to keep russia engaged? and what do we do to not anger russia, not piss russia off? that means avoiding having these robust relationships with countries that really mattered in that region including ukraine. we also suppressed good policy with the guts to ukraine because we did not want to trigger russia. there were opportunities along the way. this was around independence in 1991 when the u.s. under george

h w bush said, calm down, ukraine, no need to rush to independence. yeah, you have been struggling for your own national identity for centuries. a brief moment in the 20th century where i talk about some of the deep history, but don't rush. that might not be as bad under this reformed russia that is unfolding or during the discussions around nuclear disarmament where we wanted ukraine to denuclearize. they had 4000 nuclear weapons. they wanted some security assurances. you don't need guarantees. we will give you assurances. we may or not be there. or around the orange revolution what they broke to the west decisively and they were like, thanks, that is nice of you to lean so heavily to the west, kind of burned your bridges with the kremlin, but we are not ready for that yet. we are still concerned about russia. all the way through the

different moments of russian aggression. 2014, we attempted resets. try as attempting the same kind of resets he criticized throughout multiple different administrations. he is doing that now by trying to normalize with russia without any evidence whatsoever that the russians are willing to come on board. actually, all the evidence is to the contrary. the russians still want complete gelation from the ukrainians, and they have made no indications that they are willing to end this war. host: we will bring our audience into the discussion. we will start with bruce in chicago on the line for republicans. caller: hello. how are you doing? host: we are doing well, bruce. go ahead. caller: lieutenant colonel, i also deal in the realm of realism, and i just wondered what your take is on when a family takes a bunch of money from overseas, from russia, from ukraine, from china? i wonder, in my little world, if

any of the money that came from ukraine and went into the biden caucus if that has anything to do with the situation we are in now. and also i wonder if any of the money that flowed from china has anything to do with the way china is treated by us, given certain things that probably the rest of the people don't come and also the money from russia from the president or whatever he is of moscow. 3.5 million dollars went into the biden family conference. the strange thing is, why would it have to be washed through companies? thank you for your answer. guest: thanks, bruce. i can swear that as you are setting up that question you were talking about trump. all of the data points are consistent that it is the trump family that has been prospering from all of these deals, whether it is trademarks in china that

amount to millions and millions of dollars or the saudis giving sweetheart deals to trump's son-in-law, a $2 billion investment fund. just look at what the kgb officer, the head of the fsb, said about trump just this past week. he may be throwing hand bearnaise looking to sow discord in the u.s., but he said trump owes his elections to us and now he has obligations, now he has to pay us back. that is the -- the overwhelming evidence is this is not a biden problem. i am not aware of any credible evidence that suggests biden himself or his family has really profited in any significant way. that does not account for hunter biden and the fact that he sat

on the board of burisma and was getting a monthly retainer for x amount of dollars just because he had the name biden and was the son of the president or vice president at the time. that is a different story. the children of the elites with their names tend to profit that way. but in terms of corruption or funds flowing into a family, all the evidence points to trump, and even then frankly, this is not my core area of expertise. where there is smoke, there is fire, but i leave it to other folks that are more professional on understanding these kinds of connections. i am more interested in not families but the geopolitics of countries and how the u.s. can be saved. host: president zelenskyy was in washington, d.c., this week or on friday. supposed to be working towards a peace deal this question coming

on x. does alexander vindman think zelenskyy should have signed the minerals deal? did he support the deal? guest: i think zelenskyy did support the deal and was ready to sign it but was not ready to be assaulted by the president and vice president of the united states. i am not sure what kind of hospitality that is, bringing in an ally, somebody you are supporting for years, and then attempting to beat up on them, attempting to get them to flattery. there are crude ways of putting this. they wanted him to just the butt. sometimes you have to call things as they are. he was there, the leader of his nation, projecting strength to his people fighting a war, projecting strength to the european allies that want to know that if they are investing in ukraine if they have some buddy that is going to be there and fight and projecting

strength to this enemy, to putin, that he is not a pushover. yes, zelenskyy wanted the deal. i think he came they are prepared to sign the deal. i think trump wanted the deal. the problem is i think vance really just through some hand grenades -- threw some hand grenades in there as russia, good, ukraine, bad, ukraine unwilling to compromise for its peace. nobody wants peace more than ukraine, and that devolved into a hot situation in which zelenskyy found it impossible to sign that deal at that time. is it salvageable? potentially, but maybe somebody else gets that deal. the europeans are in the same neighborhood. europeans are actually willing to show support for ukraine. the u.s. under trump is abusing that relationship and abusing zelenskyy.

so we will see what ends up shaking down. i guess the deal could easily have been added if it was properly managed and there was a modicum of diplomacy decorum shown in that room. host: after friday's oval office meeting, president zelenskyy spoke with fox news about it and also what it means for the future of u.s.-ukraine relations. we are going to show you a clip and get your response. [video clip] >> do you think the public spat in the oval office in front of the media served ukrainians well today? >> i think this kind of spat, this is not good for both sides, and it was open, but i cannot change our ukrainian attitude to russia, and i don't want. they are killers for us. this is very, very clear that

americans are the best of our friends, european are the best of our friends, and putin with russia, they are enemies. it does not mean we don't want peace. we just want to recognize the reality, the real situation. host: your book looks at not just the past few administrations, but multiple presidents who have not done enough to address ukraine and our relationship with them. how will that oval office meeting with trump impact the future of u.s.-ukraine relations? guest: i think it was an unmasking of the -- if there was any ambiguity of where the u.s. proclivities under the trump administration lie, they were unmasked that week between the un security council votes and

the oval office meeting. it is clear that the u.s. has really an inclination to normalize with russia. and seemingly, it becomes clear that u.s. can care less what happens about ukraine. it is willing to sacrifice ukraine, willing for ukraine to give up its people, to give up its territory in the effort to run allies relations with russia. that is the height of self-deception about what the russians will do. the russians will bank everything the trump administration has offered, will take this break, this massive rupture not just with ukraine but actually the west. think about the response for the european allies. all of them were on one side, all of them on board demonstrating the support for ukraine, embracing ukraine. from that meeting and that failed effort to sign a deal,

zelenskyy went to meet with his counterpart in the u.k., p.m. starmer. he is making the rounds in europe. they are all showing they will be there for ukraine. how much they follow through on that is not yet clear, but i think it will be a big turn that will be doubling down on support for ukraine, and the consequences for the u.s. are that the u.s. will be isolated. that is the most important thing, that we are breaking relationships with our most important security and economic partners. we are already heading down that road with these absurd tariff deals that tax the u.s. consumer for no reason. we are attacking our allies for what reason is not entirely clear because there is not a deal to be had here so much. these are countries we have had relationships with for decades.

so to me, this is just a clear rupture. you can see it from all corners of the world with regards to democracies. australia, our asian allies in korea and japan siding with support for ukraine and recognizing they may have to go it alone, that the u.s. has become an unreliable partner. that is the consequent of the meeting. completely unnecessary. most of the meeting went fine. each side had a series of remarks. they had a q&a. literally the last question, jd vance chimes in with this self-deception about the fact that the russians want peace, that the russians are not the bad actors, and that ukraine is the one that needs to -- it is exactly the opposite. it is a bizarro world where russia in fact shows no sign of

compromise and ukrainians are not going to say publicly, they will not say it out of the context of the negotiation, but they are willing to trade a lot for a cease-fire but a lasting peace. host: the meeting between president trump and zelenskyy, that was on friday. the full event was just under 50 minutes. if you would like to watch it in its entirety, you can watch it on our website, c-span.org. let's talk with lucille in los angeles, california, line for democrats. good morning, lucille. caller: good morning to everyone. first, i want to express my deep gratitude for the former lt. col. vindman. i appreciate your courage, your strength, and thank you for continuing to serve our country. next, i have suspicions about trump. we all know he was a convicted felon. he had more indictments against

him that never came to fruition. he is a real estate guy. he has done a lot. i have heard reports where he has done a lot of real estate dealings between various russian oligarchs. what would make him ask a depressed country, ukraine, to hand over 340, 300 $50 million -- $340 million, $350 million of mineral rights? he is asking for double. i feel that if zelenskyy was to sign that deal, there would be nothing to stop trump from selling part of his mineral rights over to putin. that would give putin a chance

to have some claim to ukraine. i apologize for the way the administration handled their conversations with zelenskyy. and i find no fault in zelenskyy trying to fight for democracy. this is bigger than trump. trump deals with everything about his personal gain. he wants power. he is around a lot of oligarchs. i see him so differently. tell me what is wrong with that. thank you. guest: thank you, lucille. i think you had said a lot of powerful and accurate things. this is much, much bigger than just really the largest war in the world. we are talking about russia, the largest country in the world, and ukraine, duking it out over the course of three years. it has every potential to draw

in european powers now especially with the u.s. taking a step back. the europeans understand that russia with ukraine subordinated, a famous line from a former national security advisor that astutely pointed out russia with ukraine becomes an empire. russia without ukraine ceases to become an empire, but with ukraine subordinated, it becomes an empire, becomes a power. that is what this is about, that russia is empire building and russia has every intention to assert its authority in the region and globally as one of the critical poles in the world. it is not just the russians, the asians come asian powers, china in particular -- china singularly is also thinking about what this means and whether it can do some empire building, recapture taiwan. getting back to some of the numbers here, there are plenty

of efforts by trump to engage with russia for business dealings. one of the biggest banks in russia had enormous deposits from russian oligarchs, and deutsche bank was sanctioned for various corrupt scheming, was one of the biggest loaders of funds to trump and trump inc. trump has been undertaking efforts to build a trump tower in moscow for years unsuccessfully. he has looked to engage both russian oligarchs and the russian state repeatedly with his first trip to the region in 1987 roughly coinciding with his political awakenings and his damming of nato not pulling their fair share. i am not sure why those two data points seem to coincide. the fact is moving onto this

deal, it started out entirely lopsided. it started out with a $350 billion demand. actually, it was a $500 billion demand to recover what trump believes was u.s. resources that went to ukraine at a rate of five to one, i guess a loan shark level of extortion, but what it evolved into actually was a much, much more fair deal between the u.s. and ukraine, establishing a joint fund. no dollar signs associated with that. no $350 billion. it was more of a framework for the u.s. and ukraine to work together. the ukrainians were going to seed it with resources coming out of the earth and the u.s. was going to be part of this fund and was supposed to help rebuild ukraine. it was very, very loosey-goosey.

it did not amount to much, but it was a start. it was a way to get the u.s. to see there was an interest in continuing to invest in ukraine, not just from this big picture democracy perspective, from a u.s. national security perspective. but in terms that trump likes. very, very transactional. this for that. quid pro quo type of deal where there are minerals that trump wants. he has been talking about them in the context of greenland. there is a chance to get the u.s. hoped on that one. it devolved from a pure shakedown into something manageable. both sides were willing to sign it, but again, it is almost like , why would you allow jd vance into future meetings if he is just going to blow them up? he is blowing up our relationships in europe when he goes to the munich security conference. he is blowing up these deals for trump. maybe he needs to take a timeout

and trump can put him in the corner until he learns how to behave better so that deals don't get blown up and our relationships don't get blown up around the world. host: let's hear from bill in kentucky, the line for independents. good morning, bill. caller: morning. i wanted to ask the lt. col., does he think he has more qualifications than pete hegseth? and talking about the money from russian staff and china, he just played it off on trump. everyone knows the american people are not stupid. the biden family is dirty. he can just take up for the democrat party all he wants, but it is the truth.

he can get red in the face like he is getting right now. have a great day. guest: thanks, bill. appreciate that. it is a perspective. for sure it is a perspective. not sure how informed it is, frankly. the fact is if you do the digging on this one, it is more than just accusations from trump and his political coterie when they are charged with an election. there is not much evidence to suggest. i guess we will see soon enough, right? if there is actually anything of this nature, you would expect to see some indictments from the trump administration on criminal activity. we will see if that unfolds and frankly if it is substantive or completely fabricated. we know that trump for his record was indicted four times

for mishandling documents, for the insurrection, for payoffs to a prostitute, all sorts of different interference charges to interfere in georgia and elections. those things were indictments. that means your fellow citizens when paneled found enough evidence to indict him. we will see if there is anything on the other side of the scales. like i said, there are some awful things that go on when the children and the families of the wealthy and the powerful attempt to enrich themselves with regards to their names. that is pretty clear if you heard my testimony or read the transcript. i actually may be did not make the funniest joke when i testified in front of congress and behind closed doors. certainly neither the republicans or democrats found it funny, this exact point, the

people trained on their names and attempt to enrich themselves. that happens, but this idea of rampant corruption, i have not seen any credible evidence of that. with regards to i am not sure if there was more to that question, but it is pretty clear to me that this is generally lopsided, and i think it is one of those things you see in propaganda and information wars. i am accused to basically deflect from your own behavior type of trademark. host: let's talk with wayne in douglasville, georgia, line for republicans. hi. caller: good morning. for all that you just said, trump is president and you are not. the title of your book, i find it very interesting. i take a totally different view though.

i believe that zelenskyy deceived himself and betrayed the ukrainian people. how did he do this? well, first, if ukraine could not defeat russia by themselves, they should not have invited other more powerful people into their country to assist them. the result is most likely going to be that now ukraine will be divided between russia, europe, and america. and the ukrainian people will suffer for that. and i totally empathize with the struggle that they are going through right now with the constant bombardment of their country and the destruction of their people. the second mistake that zelenskyy made is that he

actually believed his own propaganda. it seems to be everyone there is finding for the riches of ukraine. russia, russia's propaganda is they are fighting nazis. they are stealing your resources. and europe and america unfortunately, you know, we have to get paid. so we are going to take your minerals as well. i will take your answer offline. guest: i mean, i appreciate this perspective frankly and really look forward to responding because i think from my perspective, i wrote this book to explain how we got to this war. that was the fundamental question. when i left office and was forced out of the military, i wanted to continue to dive into my area of expertise. at that point in time, i left in

2020, we were five years into this war. four of those years were under the trump administration. minimal efforts were made, but no success evolved out of that effort from trump to bring a pe in hisace -- peace in his four years. he is in his second term now and claimed he was going to have peace on day one, actually that it was going to occur before the inauguration, and now it seems as far out of sight as possible, not because of the ukrainians. the ukrainians know the russians better than anybody else. they have been struggling for their own independence and freedom for a long time. they understand that russia has no interest right now. the russians feel like they have the upper hand. they don't, on the military landscape by the way, the russians are making the tiniest of gains and trading lots of

personnel and lots of equipment for them. the question is, do they have the staying power to continue to do this indefinitely? the answer is, no. before the inauguration, they were not in the best spot but they could hold their own with the europeans and the u.s. there. now it looks precarious. the skills may be shifting a little bit in russia's favor but not in a way that allows the russians to achieve a decisive outcome, to gain that much more territory, so it is still a test of who has more staying power. the europeans are almost certainly going to step up down in a bigger way with the absence of the u.s. they have an industrial base. they have the economic base to support this war for sure. have an industrial base that needs to grow to more effectively support ukraine. it will be impacts. the u.s. is the most -- there will be impacts from the u.s.

withdrawal. it is going to be a significant challenge and a boon to russia. the fundamentals here are to be quite clear. the russians have been looking to rebuild the empire. whether the u.s. was going to be there or the europeans were going to be there, they were going to try to snap up territory and keep creeping up, rebuilding the empire. it has expanded since the middle of the 1500s and all -- in all cardinal directions. to achieve the height at the end of the empire. at the collapse of the soviet union, it receipted in weakness. and once those territories back one way or another, either to dominate them outright and absorb them or just dominate them and dictate terms. it also after world war ii

during the cold war snapped up large portions of eastern and central europe. those territories are from the time being safe because they are part of nato, a collective defense. russia will continue to expand, absorb these populations, militarize, employ these different peoples to continue to grow. because it is at an aggressive -- because it is an aggressive imperial power. that is the way it sees the world. putin's view as there are only three real powers in the world. there is russia, china, and the u.s. in those states are entitled to do what they want. it is the rules of the jungle. they prey on the weak. as they infringe on europe in particular, that has a direct impact on the united states. on u.s. security as long as u.s. as part of nato, and frankly economic prosperity. one of the reasons we are the most powerful country in the world is because of our trade,

our economic relationships around the world, notably with the europeans. they do not want the russians to continue to be aggressive. they do not want the russians to sow discord and break either nato or the european union. that would be disastrous for the u.s. we would be isolated. we would be in a much more dangerous multipolar world. we want to preserve these relationships, strengthen them, and make sure these aggressive nations understand there are consequences for their actions. host: alexander, your book looks at how we got to where we are. i wanted to talk a little bit this quote from your book, the biden administration's deeply flawe ukraine policy of increment a suppways a day late and a dollar short, minated by misplaced caution and fears of escalation, left ukraine vulnerab emboldened russian aggression, but trump's doctrine takes the

missteps toentirely new level, actundermining u.s. alliances. this is not a recalibration. it is a repudiation of america's role in the world and a clear signal that determines of aggressions no longer a goal, perhaps not even a consideration. the consequences of this our desire -- approach are desire. you talked about the u.s. could become isolationist. talk about the long-term impact president trump's actions could have. guest: sure. i will do this in a hypothetical scenario. we extrapolate the forward either fully withdrawing from nato or just abrogating its response ability. we don't have to withdraw from nato to make it toothless. we just signal we will be there at our allies are attacked. russia tests that theory and starts with hybrid warfare in the baltics.

one of the things it is looking for is to make sure this place between lithuania surrounded by nato, lithuania, and poland, has ready access to it. there is territory that splits it. the theory is russia tests the resolve of nato and then maybe looks to capture this territory, demonstrate countries will only support their own interests and act in collective defense. russia then feels emboldened to do this on strong versus weak play all around its region, continues to build this empire. meanwhile, the chinese in the pacific take the signals that the u.s. will not be there for taiwan, they conduct a war against taiwan, they subdue taiwan, which has an immediate massive impact on the u.s. because the taiwanese produced an enormous percentage of the

chips around the world that we need for our tech industry, for the growing ai sector. these aggressive actions have immediate economic impact and we go into a recession. as our allies get picked off and as the europeans potentially broil themselves in a more localized conflict with russia, we are further isolated, and eventually the u.s. finds itself in a situation in which our own interests in the united states start to get attacked, whether it is through hybrid warfare or frankly the fact is we have territories in the pacific that the chinese do not like there as a means of force projection. we have samoa. we have guam. these are now vulnerable because we don't have an alliance structure.

they are in the chinese sphere of influence, and it becomes a far more dangerous world. a massive nuclear arsenal and a powerful military, but we are to finish without our allies, we are diminished without our friends. one of the important things about our alliance structure is the fact that we have all of these different posts either like posts to watch out for danger or posts to project and secure interests. various kinds. we start to lose those around the world. we are no longer deterring north korean aggression in the korean peninsula. we are no longer in japan defending our interests in the pacific and those very vital trade routes. the chinese pickup that role. we are no longer in the middle east because various aggressive powers including iran that looks weak at the moment years down the road might not look so weak,

especially when there are sharks to the system and commodities and world prices increase. we are isolated and do not have that he with us when we are facing the various challenges that emerge in our world. that is a nightmare scenario for the u.s. host: about five or six minutes left with our guest, alexander vindman. we will hear next from bradley in michigan, line for democrats. hi, bradley. caller: hi, and thank you alexander for doing what you are supposed to do, follow the constitution. i guess it is not a common thing in today's world, which is set itself. also, i would like to rebuke our governors for not leaving directly after trump threatened them, insulted them, and they just sat there. gretchen whitmer is my governor, and i let her know i did not appreciate that. and also, not to be bitter, but i hope the layoffs that trump and musk do only affect the

people that voted for him. lastly, i deeply apologize to my dad and other veterans living or deceased. they fought to rid the world of dictators but their ancestors installed one here. guest: i think there is a comment and response to that. i appreciate that, bradley. we are in dark days. they are going to get darker. the most vulnerable of our population are the ones that will suffer this proportionately, but because of trump overreach, because of this destruction of the institutions that provide services to people, that keep us safe overseas, there is going to be a correction. i think the fact is that people are not necessarily awake to the dangers of authoritarianism, not awake to the dangers of serving the interests of the billionaire

class, cutting taxes on the billionaires and taking away from the folks that need those resources, and i think that neo-idealism, it is definitely a foreign policy approach, but it is also frankly a domestic approach. i think we are going to need a vision going forward that allows us to correct and understand the values, our core values in the united states that we are inherently good people, even if we are in slumber or in the direction this country is taking. there is an opportunity to correct or maybe even do both things after 2028 when the american public -- 90 million of us did not vote and show up and reject this turn towards liberalism and the turn towards serving the very few. we can clawback some things that provide opportunities to more americans. it does not begin difference to

me if folks call in from red states or blue states. frankly, i want us all to do better. and i don't see that happening in the direction we are taking. host: we have one last call for you. it is kyle in honolulu, hawaii, on the line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think you answered my question a while back, so i will ask it. if there is so much worry by europe about ukraine, why don't they absorb them into nato? they refused them the last time. my second question is, as an advisor and as a service person, let me ask you this. why hasn't a nuclear attack happened yet in so many years? i will listen off the air. guest: excellent question and i will try to enter those pretty

quickly. the answer is europeans made a mistake in 2008. george bush pushed for ukraine's admittance into nato and it was the europeans also deceiving themselves about russia. they were the ones that rejected any type of firm timeline. that is a mistake that resulted in the georgia war of 2008, resulted in the war in ukraine starting in 2014, resulted in the full-scale war of 2022. now they are actually looking at security guarantees on the back and when we get to peace, but i think the u.s. should be part of that because we are really the most important player in the international system. we are the ultimate security guarantor. we provide the conventional and military umbrella to ward off aggression. with regards to the second part of the question, i'm sorry, do you remember what it was? host: why there has not been a nuclear attack yet. guest: why, because the doctrine

is simple. nobody wants a nuclear war. the consequences are cataclysmic, world ending. the russians are not suicidal. trump should recognize that the reflection of him with certain regards with putin, may be a more sophisticated actor, but putin is legacy building, empire building. he is not going to go in the other direction and blow up his world because he is not interested in provoking a direct confrontation with the u.s. sometimes we need to understand this is bluster to get the u.s. to back down. it is nuclear extortion. there is no interest in anybody employing the nuclear tool because of mutually assured destruction. we need to warn off this idea. we need to hold our ground. we don't need to dismiss it because the consequent as are so low but the probabilities are self small that sometimes

holding our ground and calling that bluff reduces the risk, not accelerates it like we have done repeatedly by bending. host: our guest, retired lieutenant colonel alexander vindman. he is the author of a new book "the folly of realism, how the west deceived itself about russia and betrayed ukraine." also author of the sub start newsletter "what matters -- st >> president tru is addressing a joint sessioofongress tonight to lay ouhi priorities and vision for the country during his second term. we will have live coverage beginning a8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span with a preview followed by the president' speech at 9:00 and the democratic response. will take fewer calls a g your reaction on social media. that is live on c-span, c-span now, or c-span.org. >> discover the heartbeat of

democracy with c-span's voices as we hear from you ahead of president trump address to congress. we are asking what you would like to hear from the president during his speech. >> my name is steve from beaumont, texas. the main thing i would look at him to address would be more of the spending, both good and bad. where we need to increase to make stuff better and get rid of stuff that we don't need. he's doing a good job for the border. >> my name is alex and i would like the president to talk about the recent firing of federal employees. >> i'm brandon from mississippi. what i would like to hear the president address is what he's doing to promote peace around the world, especially in very uncertain times we are in. a lot of geopolitical conflicts. and what he's trying to do to get us out of conflicts that we don't necessarily need to be in. places that are just enforcing an unfortunate policy.

>> my name is robin, i am from washington state. i would love to president to address how he's going to protect our national parks. these are national treasures that have been valued throughout time. they are important environmentally as well as the recreation and heritage of our country and i want to know how he will protect these national treasures. >> c-span's voices, delivering democracy unfiltered. be part of the conversation. ♪ >> democracy is always an unfinished creation. >> democracy is worth dying for. >> democracy belongs to us all. >> we are here in the sanctuary of democracy. >> great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies. >> american democracy is bigger than any one person. >> freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected. >> we are still at o