Ukrainian Artists on Their Oscar-Nominated Documentary 'Porcelain War'
57:46 Share

Support for KQED Podcasts comes from Star One Credit Union, now offering real-time money movement with instant pay. Make transfers and payments instantly between financial institutions, online or through Star One's mobile app. Star One Credit Union, in your best interest.

Support for KQED Podcasts comes from Landmark College, offering a fully online graduate-level Certificate in Learning Differences and Neurodiversity program. Visit landmark.edu slash certificate to learn more. From KQED. From KQED in San Francisco, this is Forum. I'm Mina Kim.

President Trump is signaling interest in President Volodymyr Zelensky's previous offer to give the U.S. access to Ukraine's rare earth minerals in exchange for continued U.S. military aid. So we're looking to do a deal with Ukraine where they're going to secure what we're giving them with their rare earth and other things. We get reaction from former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Stephen Peiffer as Russian troops advance on Ukraine's mineral reserves.

We'll also meet the Ukrainian fighter and artist behind the new Oscar-nominated documentary called Porcelain War. Join us.

Welcome to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. Oscar-nominated documentary Porcelain War tells the story of Ukrainian artists Slava Leontiev and Agnieszka Senko as they defy the Russian invasion, both through their art and as fighters. In their intricately painted porcelain figurines, the artists show how their lives used to be and their hopes for the future.

We'll also talk with former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Stephen Peiffer about the U.S.'s role in determining what that future will be and recent signals from the Trump administration as Russia's invasion nears the three-year mark. But first, let me welcome to the studio Slava Leontiev, artist and co-director of Porcelain War. Slava, it's a pleasure to have you. Thank you so much. Thank you for having us here.

Also, Paula Dupree-Hessman is with us, producer of Porcelain War, who also was the producer of the Austria-winning documentary The Cove. Paula, really glad to have you with us, too. Thank you for having me. So, Slava, you have worked in porcelain for many years and make the porcelain sculptures that your wife, Anya, paints. And you say Ukraine is like porcelain. How? Yeah.

We are really feeling this. We are feeling this about porcelain. We've worked in porcelain with Anya many years. And porcelain is so fragile. It's so tiny, so lightweight. And really easy to break porcelain. But nothing may destroy porcelain. Porcelain survives in flame. Porcelain may be recreated after thousands of years underground.

And for us, it's a metaphor of Ukraine because it's so easy to damage, to take away part of our territory, to kill our people. But nobody can completely destroy Ukrainian culture and nobody can take away our identity. Talk about some of the sculptures you make. What are they of?

I really work in deep collaboration and usually I am creating the figurines and Anya painting these figurines. And Anya's, I'm so happy, I'm happy working in any kind of collaboration and experience with movie, with this movie, it was so beautiful, amazing for me because it's other level of collaboration.

But we work in deep collaboration with Anya so many years and I'm happy because Anya's language, Anya's artistic language is so acceptable, so interesting for me. Her language is very metaphoric and we

Anya's art is the source of metaphors in our movie, like these fragile dandelions, like these snails and their shell, like metaphor of home, and these snails without shell, like metaphor of refugees who lost their homes. Yeah, snails were definitely a prominent metaphor

figurine, also owlets, even a little dragon I noticed. And as you say, Anya is painting things that are very metaphorical, but also very nature-based it looks like, like things that are around you. Is that right, the nature around you? Yes, it's so true. Nature is source of our inspiration and

That time when we filmed our nature is in danger, is under shelling and it was so important for us because in time of war all is fragile like porcelain and we were so focused on every person or every piece of nature, every flower or tree in our movie we filmed and

It's like if it was the last day of their existence because nobody knows about tomorrow, especially in the time of war. Paula, you also see these paintings that Anya does on the porcelain figurines animated. Why did you do that?

They were originally, we originally were working with Slava and Anya on an animated series with the other co-director and producer. And so they had always seen their art as something that could be animated. When the war broke out, the conversations began about how can we use the figurines and that style of animation to help tell their story and use their language to talk about the war rather than showing war footage, which becomes very tiring for people. And it does look the same.

And so using their language of art was a way that they could tell their story. So we were across the world in Zoom with them.

and asked them questions about their past life in Crimea, the day of the invasion, and their hope for the future. And we sent those stories to a Blue Blue Studios in Poland, an animation studio, and they studied 20 years of Anya's art, and they hand-drew 7,000 frames of art to put on these figurines and bring these stories to life. Yes, you used to be in Crimea, and then, of course, you were in Kharkiv. I'm not sure if I'm saying that correctly, but that also has seen tremendous...

attacks as well from the Russian invasion. Slava, in addition to being an artist, you are a soldier, a former soldier. You were part of the Special Forces Unit. And there are vivid scenes in the film of clashes with Russian soldiers. There are vivid scenes of you training civilians to be able to fire a gun and so on. We've heard reports of Ukraine's ranks being depleted after so many years of war. We're approaching the three-year mark.

The difficulty of finding new training, difficulty of finding and training new recruits and things like that. I'm wondering where you are with your role as a fighter in Ukraine as well. All my friends and me, we came to army as volunteers. We never served in army before the big war, this big invasion. But we

My commander, my former commander, he is historical scientist. He is professor of history of our state university. And since annexion of Crimea, he completely understood what kind of war will come to us. And he started, he established our military preparation. And we have all these years to get some expertise in this. And that is why we were ready for this war.

because we find the source in history and have knowledge about the future. And it was a surrealistic experience to have war right outside your door, and it was a really surrealistic experience when all these civilian people

came to army as volunteers without any military experience. They get this AK rifle, but they never even touch firearms before the big war. It was so dangerous. Pregnant girls and seniors and many others

Sikh people who was ready to defend their country, but not ready to use firearms. And that is why I start to make this work. I taught this civilians and I hope it was helpful. What motivated them? I know...

the need to defend your country as a motivator. But I'm wondering, to be able to sustain that motivation, what is it at a deeper level? I have experience of my friends, my close friends. They, not everyone survived, but we are so lucky all people from my unit survived so far. They came to army, of course, to defend their homes and to defend their homes

but it's not about property. They defend our culture and our identity, and they came to army because they felt kind of responsibility in the face of history, because it's front line between totalitarian and democracy lifestyle. Totalitarian government trying to take away our free choice how to think and how to create,

And it's not about Ukraine and Ukrainian only. It's in the whole world. And they felt this kind of responsibility. And I hope we can bring this experience of success because resistance is possible and regular people, regular everyday people can stay for democracy, can defend their independence and preserve humanity and even

even develop culture, even in darkest of times. We see images in Porcelain War of the beautiful nature of Ukraine that you are fighting so hard to hold on to and show to others, as well as very stark images of destruction as well. After everything you've been through, Slava, I wonder what you see as the role of art in wartime.

because the goal of the totalitarian government is to build a new empire. Russians are trying to rebuild their empire and take away our identity because we lose so many important parts of our culture and art.

Since the start of the big war, our museums were destroyed, our universities were damaged, and most importantly, so many of our artists and actors and writers and even teachers of Ukrainian language, all these people who contribute to culture, so many of these people were killed on the front line because they came into the army.

in their apartment, in their own kitchen or bedroom because Russia's shelling districts of apartment houses. And it's really pretty sad, but so many people who contribute culture was killed, especially on occupied territory. And nobody can fix this. Nobody can bring these people back to life.

And now it's our duty to work instead of all these people to build the future of our culture. You have this lovely line in the film where you say, the stories we tell through art, they are also our resistance. This is how we avoid erasure. We're talking with Slava Leontiev, artist and co-director of Porcelain War, and Paula Dupree-Pessman, producer of Porcelain War. And we'll have more after the break. I'm Mina Kim. ♪

.

Turing with Tia is the quirky YouTube talk show where Tia Creighton is the host and all her guests are talking AI chatbots. Whether it's health and beauty, science and technology, pop culture, or current events, Turing with Tia delivers answers about everything. That's T-U-R-I-N-G, Turing with Tia, a funny and fascinating way to experience artificial intelligence. Only on YouTube at Turing with Tia.

Hi, I'm Bianca Taylor. I'm the host of KQED's daily news podcast, The Latest. Powered by our award-winning newsroom, The Latest keeps you in the know because it updates all day long. It's trusted local news in real time on your schedule. Look for The Latest from KQED wherever you get your podcasts and stay connected to all things Bay Area in 20 minutes or less.

This is Forum. I'm Mina Kim. We're talking about how the war has affected a group of Ukrainian artists since the Russian invasion. It's the subject of a 2025 Oscar-nominated documentary called Porcelain War, which also won the 2024 Grand Cherry Prize at Sundance. Slava Leontiev is co-director of Porcelain War and the artist and subject of the film, along with his wife, Anya, and also his friends, Andriy and others in Ukraine. Paula Dupuy

Pessman is producer of Porcelain War. And Paula, I understand that this film was incredibly logistically and emotionally complex in ways that you hadn't necessarily encountered before. Tell us quickly how.

Yeah, they were, Slava and Anya and Andrei were in Kharkiv, Ukraine. They're in the farthest eastern border, almost to the eastern border of Russia. And we were all in the United States. So we were 6,000 miles apart with different languages as well. We did everything over Zoom. We smuggled cameras in through an artist in New Jersey. And she got them to Slava and Andrei. And then Brendan, the co-director, trained them over Zoom how to use the equipment.

And we just had, you know, several times a week we'd have Zoom conversations with them and talk to them about what they were seeing, what they were capturing, asking them about the footage, getting translators to help us translate the footage and really to also keep confidential where they were at at different times because we wanted to keep their mission safe as well and private.

So there was many challenges around that, blackouts, trying to get the footage out with the power outages, their power grids continues to be attacked. All of those challenges aside, they were so determined to tell their story. And even nature, you don't think about nature in a war, but it's the most landmined territory in the world.

And so they were showing us and showing us the beauty of what they wanted to fight for and why they're defending their country. I should remind listeners that Porcelain War is returning to Bay Area movie screens on Friday, February 7th. It's so true, Slava, you show so much beauty and so much nature. But war, war changes us. It takes a toll. Do you worry that it has changed you? Do you feel it has taken a toll?

I think yes, because nobody needs war experience. Nothing good inside the war, except one important thing. In really dark times,

kind people are starting to shine. I was really surprised how good humans may be, these amazing humans around us. And we really have not enough time for reflection. We never build special situation for our movie.

We were busy and focused on our everyday activity. And we were so lucky to have Andrei Stefanov, my close friend and cinematographer of our movie. Now he's a first-time cinematographer, but he's nominated now.

Yeah, that's pretty incredible. And I understand we'll see you at the Academy Awards. You'll actually be attending the ceremony as well. But yes, you're reminding me of something that Anya said in the film about that.

People are not as creative at being bad as they are at being good. And it is really a very lovely sentiment. You know, we are about to talk about where U.S. support for Ukraine stands now that President Trump has taken office. And I'm wondering if there is a message you want to send or you hope that your film sends to Americans? I hope, I hope. How a movie can bring kind of hope and inspiration.

Because this front line between democracy and totalitarianism is everywhere in the whole world. I hope the message of our movie is about resistance is possible. Resistance may be successful in any situation. Resistance is available for regular civilian people.

People are afraid to watch a war movie because war is horrible and disgusting and nobody wants to be upset. But our responsibility as artists and our responsibility as filmmakers is to bring hope and inspiration to the audience. It's my main idea about this movie. The movie is Porcelain War. Slava Leontiev, thank you so much for talking with us. Thank you so much. And thank you also for bringing an example of...

Your figurine, it is very beautiful, very beautiful to see it in person. Paula Dupree, thank you so much for being with us. Dupree Pessman, really appreciate you being on. Producer of Porcelain War. I want to bring into the conversation now former ambassador to Ukraine, Stephen Pfeiffer. Stephen Pfeiffer is also affiliated at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford. Steve, thanks so much for being with us.

Happy to be here, Mina. So I know that you have been listening in since the beginning. I don't know if you have any reflections on what you just heard from Slava and Paula. Yeah, I think they made clear what a big part of this war is about when they talk about identity and culture. And that is, we have seen the Russians are trying to erase Ukrainian identity, Ukrainian culture in the areas occupied by the Russian military, some going back to 2014, Crimea,

Donbas in eastern Ukraine, there has been an effort by the Russians basically to prohibit use of Ukrainian language, to introduce a Russian curriculum into schools for Ukrainian children.

And I think The Economist magazine back in November referred to those areas as a totalitarian hell. But a big part about this is Vladimir Putin does not accept the right of Ukraine to exist as a sovereign and independent nation. And part of his motivation for this war is to basically rucify Ukrainians.

So, Stephen, President Trump, of course, famously said on the campaign trail that he'd end the war in his first 24 hours. Obviously, that didn't happen, but many saw that statement as putting continued U.S. support for Ukraine in doubt. Add to that that J.D. Vance, before he became vice president, said, I don't really care what happens to Ukraine. So how would you characterize the administration's approach toward Ukraine since taking office?

Well, we're still waiting to see what real plan the administration has for trying to settle this war. The president has talked about a conversation with Vladimir Putin. But before getting into a conversation with the Russians, I think the president needs to do things like preparation and he needs to be patient. Those are not straight traits that he's noted for.

But before talking to the Russians, he needs to talk to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy because it doesn't make sense to advance ideas that cannot be sold in Kyiv. He also has to talk to the Europeans because the Europeans are very much supporting the Ukrainian effort and the Europeans will be affected by any outcomes.

And then he needs at the end to talk to Putin. But I would also think he should be taking steps now to build leverage with Putin. Things like asking Congress for additional funds for military assistance for Ukraine, moving to seize the $300 billion in Russian central bank assets to make clear to Putin that if Putin does not negotiate in good faith and seriously, there'll be continued and growing economic and military costs for Russia.

Well, the thing that seems to have gotten his attention, Steve, is the earlier offer from President Zelensky, I think even before he was elected, to give the U.S. access to Ukraine's rare earth minerals in exchange for continued military assistance to defend itself against Russia. And I am so curious what you think about that, Stephen.

Yeah, well, Ukraine could hold probably as much as 5% of the world's rare earths, things like lithium and nickel that are very important for the modern economies. And it seems to me that President Zelensky understands that on one level, President Trump is very transactional.

So Zelensky is trying to do things that would sustain the president's interest in Ukraine, because from a Ukrainian point of view, American assistance is very important. If, in fact, American assistance ends and there is no new money appropriated by Congress and approved by President Trump,

Europe will continue to try to support Ukraine, but Europe lacks the defense capacity now to provide what the Ukrainians need to defend themselves. And Zelensky wants to sustain that support from America. Yes. It feels like he's playing the hand he has, right, with the president that he now has to work with. Exactly. He's made that, he understands that. And again, he's trying to find ways to reach out

to the White House and persuade them to stay engaged in a supportive way for Ukraine, and then also in any kind of a negotiation to be mindful of Ukrainians positions, which are entirely justified. So do you see President Trump's interest as a positive development? I'm not sure we know yet. His special envoy for

uh settling the war retired general kellogg put out some ideas uh late last week which i think need a rethink uh he talked about having a ceasefire a standalone ceasefire and then an election in ukraine

That's going to be problematic in Kiev. In fact, the Ukrainians have already said that they're not really interested in that idea. First of all, a standalone ceasefire without the broader elements of a settlement that are important to Ukrainians, things like security guarantees, is likely to be very controversial. Were President Zelensky to adopt it, I think he would have significant domestic opposition to that.

Moreover, an election and under Ukrainian law, when there's martial law, you cannot hold presidential or parliamentary elections, but elections by their nature can be divisive. I think Vladimir Putin would like nothing more than to see Ukrainians have a divided election, which could well lead to either a different leader or more likely a weakened Zelensky. So I think that idea really needs to be thought through a bit more.

Let me invite listeners to join the conversation. We're talking with Stephen Peiffer, former ambassador to Ukraine under the Clinton administration and also affiliate at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford. What questions do you have about Ukraine's future under President Trump? Where does your support for continued military aid to Ukraine from the U.S. stand?

I do want to go back to this question about potential change.

deal, I guess is the word that President Trump would use with regard to access to Ukraine's rare earth minerals, because it sounds like there are a lot of potential complications, not the least of which is the fact that many of the mineral areas are where Russia has occupied land and that they are also closing in on other reserves. Can you talk about this?

Yeah, no, the Russians have occupied about 18% of Ukraine's territory. And that includes areas that have significant rarers, but there's still a significant amount of rarers that are in possession of Ukrainian Ukrainian controlled territory. And again, what Zelensky is trying to do is saying that there are assets here that would be of interest and value to American American industry that would justify continued American support. So

Given that, I mean, there is some under Russian-occupied territory. There is some under Ukrainian territory.

The question, I think, becomes, you know, how firm could this deal potentially be if it's not entirely clear how much will be under Ukrainian control? And also, I guess there is a question of President Trump continuing to be a reliable partner to Ukraine, even if it enters into some kind of an agreement with Zelensky related to these rare earths. Yeah, I think that's a big question. But standing back,

I think any deal between Russia and Ukraine, any deal that would be brokered by President Trump, it's going to be judged primarily on two factors. One is, does Ukraine have to give up land? And if so, how much territory? But second, in return, what kind of security guarantees does Ukraine receive?

And I think those are the big issues. And that needs to be worked out before you can actually really get into this kind of negotiation with Vladimir Putin. And at the end of the day, that negotiation, I mean, there certainly can be a discussion between Trump and Putin. But, you know, this is not going to be solved just in a U.S.-Russia channel. The Ukrainians have to be there. The Europeans have to be there. Absent their presence, any effort at broking a settlement is going to fail.

What are you hearing in terms of how the Russians are reacting to this latest news? There was some framing by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov that essentially Trump wants Kiev to buy aid from us, a sign that we're not going to do it for free anymore.

Yeah, I think that the Russians are trying to sort of spin this, you know, in the worst possible way. You know, Moscow has now said, well, first of all, Moscow has tried to...

Delegitimize is Lenski because they've said under there under the Russian interpretation of Ukrainian law Zelensky is no longer the president because there was not an election That's a very flawed reading of Ukrainian law and the Ukrainian Constitution by the Russians They want to do legitimize them, but they've also now said well, they would perhaps be prepared and negotiate with him but whenever Vladimir Putin talks about what he wants in a settlement and

It's Ukrainian recognition of territories as Russian territory, including territory that the Russian army does not even occupy. It's neutrality. It is Ukraine reducing its military to 50,000 to 80,000, 85,000 troops. It would leave Ukraine diminished. It would leave Ukraine vulnerable to attack in the future. And there's been no sign of

in the last three years of any moderation in the Russian position. That's why I think that if President Trump is serious about brokering this solution, he's got to find ways to apply greater pressure. He needs more leverage with Russia. Otherwise, his attempts are going to prove futile.

The Wall Street Journal and a couple of other outlets are reporting that there are talks with the U.S. over Ukraine with the Russians. So basically entities in the Russian government and entities in the U.S. government who are discussing Ukraine. Have you heard that?

I have seen occasional references to that, but it's not clear that there's much substance there yet. General Kellogg plans to go to Europe, I think, next week to the Munich Security Conference, and he sort of billed that as his opportunity to be engaging with Europeans on that. So at this point, I don't think we have a sense that there's a real conversation going on with the Russians

But again, I worry that if we get too far down a track in talking to Vladimir Putin, that could end up in a process that will not succeed. Again, by most accounts, Donald Trump does not spend a lot of time in preparation. Vladimir Putin spends a huge time in preparation.

And unless President Trump is prepared, he goes into that one-on-one conversation with Putin and he could end up agreeing to things that would be clearly unacceptable for Ukraine, but also could potentially be very damaging for American security interests. And you're not hearing of any meeting between Trump and Putin being scheduled?

There's nothing on the schedule yet announced by either side. I mean, both sides are sort of saying it will happen at some point, but they have yet to define exactly when that point will be. And again, it seems to me that if President Trump wants to be successful before sitting down with Vladimir Putin, he's got to be talking to the Ukrainians and the Europeans and he's got to have a well-formed position there.

We're talking about the future of U.S. military aid to Ukraine with former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Stephen Peiffer, and we're talking about it with you, our listeners. I'll get to your comments right after the break, but you can share more at 866-733-6786 at the email address forum at kqed.org. And you can find us on our social channels at KQED Forum. We're at Blue Sky Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and others. More after the break. I'm Mina Kim. ♪

Turing with Tia is the quirky YouTube talk show where Tia Creighton is the host and all her guests are talking AI chatbots. Whether it's health and beauty, science and technology, pop culture, or current events, Turing with Tia delivers answers about everything. That's T-U-R-I-N-G, Turing with Tia, a funny and fascinating way to experience artificial intelligence. Only on YouTube at Turing with Tia.

Welcome back to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. We're talking with Stephen Peiffer this hour, affiliate at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford and former ambassador to Ukraine. We're talking about the latest news on Ukraine and the future of U.S. military aid, what it indicates. You can join the conversation with your questions about...

Ukraine's future under President Trump. And tell us where your support for continued military aid to Ukraine stands as the war approaches its three-year mark, Russia's invasion on Ukraine approaches its three-year mark. Again, our coordinates are forum at kqed.org as the email address. We're on email.

social at KQED Forum. And our phone number is 866-733-6786, 866-733-6786. And Ross writes, is it true that Ukraine refrains from putting young adults on the front lines in order to preserve them for a later rebuilding of the country? Do you know what Ross is talking about, Stephen? Yeah, right now, Ukraine mobilizes young men ages 25 and above to

but they're not really mobilizing 18 to 25. Now, men between those ages are welcome to volunteer and they have to apply for the draft, but they have not been mobilized. And part of this seems to be a concern about demographics is that the Ukrainians basically are thinking about their demographic future and worry about getting too many of the younger men killed.

Another factor, when I was in Kyiv last year, I heard from the Ukrainians is they said that actually the skill sets that the Ukrainian economy needs now because of the limitations opposed by the war, really younger men who don't have a lot of experience have those skill sets and therefore they can basically also be very useful in the economy.

So this listener writes,

You know, Stephen, I was struck by reading that Putin has complimented Trump recently and even suggested that he supports his false allegation of the U.S. presidential election being stolen in 2020. And I mean, it sort of sounds funny to be focused on a compliment, but a compliment from Putin tends to be significant, right? Remember, Vladimir Putin is a former KGB agent.

One of the skills that KGB agents are trained in is manipulation. And Putin calculates, I believe correctly, that Trump responds well to flattery. Go back to the 2018 meeting between Trump and Putin in Helsinki. And after their small group meeting, I don't know what exactly Putin said, but then at the press conference,

President Trump sided with Putin against the conclusions of the American intelligence community.

So I think this is part of the effort publicly by Putin to try to begin manipulating the American president. And, you know, if that listener's comment, what it's making me think about is if we have such a transactional president and Zelensky is aware of this and offering rare earth minerals or access to those, you know, what would stop Trump from going to which side has the better deal, right? Who is offering the better deal?

Yeah, well, I think in this case, I mean, Zelensky is playing the hand that he has. He believes correctly that Trump is interested in the idea of rare earths and minerals in Ukraine, and he's trying to use that to sustain American interest. We have a situation now where American military assistance, there is still some continuing that was funded by the supplemental finally passed by Congress in May of last year.

But at some point that runs out fairly soon. And then what happens to American military assistance? That's a pretty big question. When I was in Kiev last March, Ukrainians were saying that in part because of the American halt to assistance in some battles, they were able to fire one artillery shell for every 10 that the Russians fired.

American military assistance is very important for Ukraine. Well, the CISNER on Blue Sky writes, what is Ukraine's endgame? Will they just try to hold Russia off forever? Stephen, talking about where things stand in the war, of course, we have heard that Ukraine has struggled. Nearly three years of fighting has really...

depleted their ranks. And of course, you're just describing, you know, the weapons stocks that are also depleted as well and why they are so dependent on U.S. military aid. But can you tell us if there's been any significant shift from the fact that Russia is continuing to advance, though, at a rather slow pace, but it's a steady one, no? Yeah, no, 2024 was not a good year for Ukraine. But just a little bit of perspective. I

The Russian military over the course of 2024 gained about 1,600 square miles of Ukrainian territory, which sounds like a lot, but 1,600 square miles is less than 1% of Ukraine's territory. So Russia went from occupying about 17% to 18%. And they paid huge costs for those gains in terms of casualties.

I think estimates now are by the British Ministry of Defense that the Russians have suffered more than 800,000 soldiers killed and wounded. So the war is not going well for Ukraine, but I would argue it's also not going well for Russia. The Ukrainian hope, I think, is that at some point the Russians conclude that the casualties are so bad, the Western sanctions are so bad, that it's time to give it up.

But it was interesting that at the end of last year, the Ukrainian president suggested that he might be prepared to consider some territorial concessions, at least temporarily,

but he wanted to have strong security guarantees for ukrainian return ideally in his view nato membership so i think the ukrainians are beginning to think about what a negotiated outcome might look like where perhaps they might not get back all of their territory or might have to agree that they would not use military force to recover that territory um but

But that idea is beginning to form. But it gets back to, I think, two big questions. One, how much territory in the end of the day does Ukraine have to give up? And two, how solid are the security guarantees that Ukraine gets in return? And that will also depend in part on a Ukrainian calculation of whether President Trump's commitment can be trusted. And this listener asks, what's the chance that Ukraine will become a NATO member?

Right now, I would say immediately while the war is going on, not very high. But it does seem to me that we've seen over the last four or five years really a shift in attitudes among NATO members. Whereas in 2018, 2019, there was not much interest within NATO. But in 2023, when NATO leaders met for their annual summit,

I would say at that point, the reporting was that over a majority of NATO leaders were prepared to say we should put Ukraine on a solid membership track. I believe that makes the most sense because it seems to me that from the point of view of an American interest in Ukraine, you know, the United States wants to have a stable and secure Europe.

At this point, it's hard to see how you have a stable and secure Europe unless Ukraine is stable and secure. And the best way to ensure Ukraine's security is NATO membership. But that'll be a difficult question. It'll take time to get to that point. This is Noraitz. What Trump will do with Ukraine will only serve Putin and Trump. We shouldn't try to appeal to Trump's better nature. He hasn't got one, according to this listener. You know, to go back to your point about the incredible number of people who are in the

number of casualties that the Russians have faced. Also, you know, they tried to shore up their ranks with North Korean soldiers as well. And I have seen reporting that, in fact, North Korean soldiers have not been on the front line for some time now, that that has, in fact, been halted because they experienced so many casualties as well. Did you hear the same thing? Yes. I mean, I saw...

the Russian effort to bring in North Korean soldiers as a reflection of, I wouldn't say desperation, but a very strong desire by Putin not to have to mobilize more Russians.

I think the Russian public is much more tolerant of North Korean casualties than Russian casualties. And reportedly, the North Koreans sent between 10 and 12,000 soldiers. They were in action beginning within the last year. But both Ukrainian sources and U.S. sources are reporting that they withdrew from the battlefield maybe two to three weeks ago.

And that may reflect the fact that the reporting suggests that between 30 and 50 percent of North Korean soldiers have ended up as casualties, either killed or wounded. That's a significantly high casualty rate. And part of it is, is the reporting is they basically move across open fields and try mass charges against prepared positions, which are attack tactics that are almost designed to absorb maximum casualties.

We sort of touched on this, but Stephen writes, do the Ukrainians need to lower the age of soldiers that they recruit? I don't understand why they haven't done that. Yeah, the Ukrainians do have a manpower issue. They need to bring in more people. They've already lowered, last year they lowered the age from 27 down to 25. The reporting now suggests that they're getting better at addressing the manpower questions, but that's a problem they have to fix.

The other problem that they have, of course, is making sure that the soldiers that they do mobilize have the equipment, the weapons, the ammunition to carry out on the fight. And that's where they look to the West for help. Listeners, we're talking with Stephen Peiffer, affiliate at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford and former ambassador to Ukraine. And you can ask him your questions about Ukraine's future under President Trump and tell us where your support for continued military aid to Ukraine stands as the war approaches next.

It's three-year mark. You can tell us by calling 866-733-6786, by emailing forum at kqed.org, or finding us on our social channels, Blue Sky, Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. And let me remind listeners, you're listening to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. Well, Joyce writes, thank you for speaking on this topic. I am 100% in support of my taxpayer dollars going to support Ukraine to protect the world from Putin's aggression.

Stephen, while Joyce feels that way, there are a lot of people, too, who feel that billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine is not in America's interests.

There was an American Enterprise Institute report that actually estimated the cost of a Russian victory would be far greater budgetarily than the investments that we would need to make in Ukraine militarily. I was wondering what you thought of that assessment. Yeah. No, I believe American support for Ukraine and military assistance is very much in American security interests.

If Russia wins, either on the battlefield or wins in a negotiation, you're going to have an emboldened Vladimir Putin who will pose a much greater threat to Europe and to American security interests there. Now, how far would it go? I think he could even consider, Putin might even consider posing a threat, military threat to American allies, one of the Baltic states, for example.

Now, most officials or most experts now would say Putin would never do that. That would be crazy. But I think most experts in 2018 would have said Putin would never launch the kind of invasion he launched against Ukraine in 2022. That would be crazy.

We shouldn't underestimate Mr. Putin's ambitions. And when the Russians say things about, like, it's not just about Ukraine, but it's about broader European security issues, we need to understand that Moscow wants not only to subjugate Ukraine, but it really wants to reverse the developments in European security that have taken place over the last 25 years.

This listener writes, I understand that Putin is cheering, even enabling the dismantling of USAID. Does the ambassador have a comment on that? Yeah, I think that what...

Mr. Musk and his Doge group are doing to USAID is a huge disservice to the United States. Most USAID projects go to humanitarian assistance. We had a very active program when I was in Ukraine. It was doing things like helping the Ukrainians close down Chernobyl. It was helping the Ukrainians develop a free press, developing

It was helping the Ukrainians make the transition from a command economy to a market economy. And it's a huge soft power plus for the United States. And it's going to be Putin. It's going to be Xi. It's going to be anybody who wishes America ill is going to be applauding as the destruction of USAID proceeds.

Adele on Discord writes, quote, strong guarantees didn't work when Russia decided to take Crimea.

You know, Ambassador Pfeiffer, a lot of people are pointing to this sort of move by Zelensky as a smart move, you know, with regard to offering U.S. access to its rare earth minerals and also as, you know, a model for how any country will need to negotiate with Trump in the years ahead or just something to look at and study as a way to negotiate with our current, quote unquote, transactional president. I

I would just love to get your thoughts on what you think being transactional is with regard to benefits to America. Do you think it is a good thing to have a president operate, a president of the United States, operate in that kind of manner? Well, I think other countries are going to become transactional because they see that

What President Trump looks at are their financial interests, economic interests. But I think an overly transactional foreign policy is going to doom a lot of goodwill that the United States has around the world.

I mean, if we're going to, for example, base our relationship with Denmark, which has been a very good ally for 75 years on whether or not they can see to sell Greenland to us or not, that's going to do damage to that relationship. There are already conversations in Europe going on about if the United States is going to become so transactional, how do they deal with the United States when shared interests and shared values seem to count for less?

I think one of the things that, you know, really stand out to me with regard to what has been happening, all the things that you've been describing in terms of the type of president that Trump is, the type of person that Putin is and the type of things that he wants.

And of course, as you pointed out during the course of this entire conversation, any kind of agreement to end this war will be incredibly difficult to achieve. The other alternative is for Ukraine to win. Do you still think they can? Ukraine has going for it. And I think in the earlier segment, again, you heard from Slava Ananya earlier.

is their commitment to preserving Ukrainian identity, Ukrainian culture. There is this will to resist in Ukraine. Now, that can take them only so far. I'm not sure at this point that Ukraine could really count on recovering all the territory lost. It would require greater manpower. It would require a much larger stock of weapons. But I do think...

that there is that desire in Ukraine to continue to fight on. Now, a negotiation, if it develops, Zelensky seems to be open to the idea, but we also have to bear in mind the limitations on Zelensky because while polls show that more Ukrainians are in favor of negotiation than before, the polls are not showing a lot of Ukrainians being prepared to give up a lot of territory.

So it's not just getting to the negotiation, but it's going to be the question of then what do you agree to? What do you give up? And there, Zelensky's hands may be somewhat limited by Ukrainian public opinion. That's why it's important to be talking to the Ukrainians first before the president sits down with Vladimir Putin. This is Nurayat. Is it likely that Crimea will remain permanently in Russian control in any future peace scenario?

I think of all the pieces of Ukraine that Russia occupies, Crimea is the most important. So that would be if when you get into a territorial conversation, that's going to be the piece that would be most difficult for Ukraine in negotiations to dislodge. Well, Stephen, thank you so much for talking with us today.

Thank you for having me. Stephen Peiffer, affiliate at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford and former ambassador to Ukraine. I also want to thank Slava Leontiev and Paula Dupree-Pessman, who joined us earlier to talk about porcelain war. And thank you, listeners, for your questions and comments about the future of U.S. military aid under Ukraine, the future under President Trump. My thanks as well to Caroline Smith for producing today's segment. You've been listening to Forum. I'm Mina Kim.

Funds for the production of Forum are provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Generosity Foundation, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.