The Fentanyl Crisis, Shanghai Lockdowns, and Russia's War in Ukraine
48:33 Share

It's the new year and time for the new you. You've thought about running for political office, but don't know where to start. Before you start any planning, you need to secure your name online with a yourname.vote web domain. This means your constituents will know they are learning about the real you when they surf the web. Secure your domain from godaddy.com today.

Welcome to Breaking Battlegrounds with your hosts Chuck Warren and Sam Stone. Another fantastic program for you this week.

First up today, Anna Giaritelli, the Homeland Security reporter for The Washington Examiner, covering the Department of U.S. Border and Policies Related to Cybersecurity, Immigration, and Transportation, has a fantastic article out, which you all should read, about the fentanyl crisis. Yeah, so Anna, thank you for joining us today. You wrote an article this past week called Prepare for Mass Overdose Events from Fentanyl. DEA warns police nationwide.

A couple things about this. What has stood out to you about this mass overdose warning, and has the DEA done this before? Yeah. Chuck and Pam, thanks for having me. So I've been covering Homeland Security for a couple years and fentanyl, and we've only seen the issue of fentanyl grow and grow and grow. What stood out was the Drug Enforcement Administration has never put out a statement like this

saying, hey, local police nationwide, they sent us to every department in the country, get ready for mass overdose. So this is the kind of thing where a group of people in their 20s or 30s go to a party in Miami and they all buy what they think is Percocet from some guy at the club. That Percocet is actually counterfeit Percocet that's been manufactured in

in Mexico by the cartels and then they also put fentanyl in it. The idea is if you can hook somebody when they don't know they're taking something and they're taking something else, you just have that customer come back for more of that product if it doesn't kill them. The issue is that people are unknowingly taking fentanyl through these counterfeit pills that they think are other things and and

And then you're having like seven people at a party die from an overdose. And nobody knows what actually happened. So it's these types of events that the DEA is saying, hey, we're already seeing this, but we're going to start seeing a lot more of this because people don't know what's in the drugs that they're using. And a mass overdose is when you have three or more people overdose at the same place, same time, right? Yes. And really, it's just like a mass shooting. It's three or more, and it's just a...

You know, it's a very unusual thing for the DEA to say. And I thought it was interesting in their statement they didn't say why there's been an increase in fentanyl getting into the United States. And, yeah. Would that be because we have this border that we just have lots of people coming through?

So most of the fentanyl that is taken into custody by U.S. border officials, so they work at the land, air, and sea ports nationwide, is stopped either in the mail coming in from overseas or at the ports of entry. So most fentanyl does not come between the ports of entry. It's brought through vehicles that are stopped. That's where they're seizing the most, which is an indication of where they're trying to smell in the most. But, you know, it's easy to see.

It's also a lot easier to smuggle because you're talking a very relatively small amount. Yeah. I mean, you could put in books. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, like two, like a grain of sand, two or three. It depends, right? The stuff coming over the southern border is typically like 10 to 15%.

compared to the fentanyl coming in through the mail. And I've been with federal inspectors at mail facilities at O'Hare, and that stuff is 90% to 95% potent. So it's a lot different. But you get the really strong stuff, two to three grains of fentanyl, you know, think of like if you're at the beach looking at a grain of sand, that's enough to put you in a coma.

So, muggling that is extremely, you know, you only need like, you know, if you're familiar with like a dime bag, that's a ton of fentanyl right in there. And that's how little needs to go into a pill.

to really hurt somebody. Before the show, we were all here because we're all metric adverse and trying to figure out what is an example we can give of two milligrams. So the DEA states two milligrams is enough to kill somebody. And basically the visual we have for our audience is two milligrams is basically the size of Lincoln's nose on a penny.

If you looked at it visually. Yeah. Yeah. And it's just amazing that such a small dosage can have such fatal effects, not only on the person and their life, but their family, their community, things of that nature. Yeah. And I think that's the, you know, we've always had drugs. We're in the third phase now of the opioid epidemic with fentanyl. And so it's kind of like, I think the popular train of thought is,

well just stop doing drugs you know people shouldn't be doing fentanyl and the issue with this is people don't know they're doing fentanyl when they buy something they're buying like oxycodone or they're doing this it's not like someone who's a drug addict it's a bachelorette weekend in nashville and you know the girls decide to get some stuff from a guy outside cds and and then it's

They all end up in the hospital. It's that sort of situation. Yeah, and talking to the police here in Phoenix, what they're telling us is while the hardcore drug users are actually now seeking out fentanyl, everyone else, it's so easy to have this adulterated in any other party drug.

Uh, these are just being, it is being put in absolutely everything. And, um, I mean, they're, they're literally telling people go test your party drugs, send them to someone in the mail and have that done. It sounds crazy, right? Are they really? Yeah. I mean, yeah, like literally like there are test kits now and that's what the more progressive folks on drug policy are saying is you need to test your drugs before you shoot up and before you take that tab. Um,

And in Pima County, I had a story a couple months ago, the number one cause of death for teenagers is

is fentanyl overdose. It wasn't COVID or car accidents or suicide. It was fentanyl overdoses. And so that's just, you know, we're starting to see the impacts of fentanyl. Obviously, if it comes over the border through the force of entry and gets past officials, it's first coming into the country in those communities, and then it's being transported further north. And so I think it makes sense that you're seeing, or I would imagine that you would see

The impact initially, you know, like with overdoses being the number one in some of those border states as it flows northward. I think in Arizona, if you're under 35 now, fentanyl is the leading cause of death, period. Wow. Wow. It's second nationwide. I mean, drug overdoses are second nationwide. Yeah. So, Anna, let me ask you this question. How much do we spend on drugs?

the drug war, trying to prevent fentanyl coming in and comparing that to what we've spent on COVID. Do you know? No, I don't have those figures. Yeah, no, I see what you're saying. Yes. I mean, because we have on here, I mean, you made the point in your article that, you know, U.S. Customs and Border have seized 11,200 pounds of fentanyl, which if we equal out in the math, the two milligrams, that's 2.5 billion potentially fatal doses. Right.

So that seems like a real health crisis. Yeah, I don't disagree with you. And President Biden in his State of the Union speech called out the opioid crisis again. I think Republicans and Democrats typically get held up on, is it coming at the ports of entry or is it coming between the ports of entry? And we focus on

the stupid aspect of, frankly, where is it coming instead of doing something, instead of saying, okay, 85% to 90% is coming through the ports of entry as well as in international mail. You know, what can we do to actually secure the ports? Because right now only 15% of commercial traffic is inspected. Right?

prevent that. And then, you know, like fentanyl isn't going to go away, right? There's already the cartels are making something stronger than fentanyl. But I think like public education, people understanding this, unfortunately, people don't realize until they know someone who's been affected by it. I think that's an important. The cost of an epidemic like this compared to the cost of actually ramping up border security to increase inspections is

We're spending a lot more trying to save the lives of people who are being killed by this than we would by actually intervening in the first place. I mean, yeah, I'm throwing that out there. But, well, let's let's let's change from that rosy topic. Let's talk about Governor Abbott's bus ride he's preparing to do with immigrants who cross the border and are released. Tell us a little bit more about that. And how does this how do you foresee this works out at the end?

So the governor, who's seeking a third term in office this November, he's been the most vocal against the Biden administration's immigration and border policies. And he announced last week that the state, which has seen the most people illegally cross the border, come into custody. One point two million under Biden, more than any other southern border state. And.

He said, listen, we're not going to allow – the way he worded it made it sound like the state is going to automatically transport every person released by the Border Patrol into the U.S. We're going to bus them to Washington, D.C., and leave them at the doorsteps of the U.S. Capitol. Greyhound Greg. Yeah.

And the state is funding it too, right? So it's like, okay, he's making a very political statement. When I looked into it and spoke with people from the Texas Division of Emergency Management, the Texas Department of Public Safety, with the governor's office, with Border Patrol,

What the state is planning to do is similar to a hurricane evacuation. So if a hurricane comes with Corpus Christi, the state will say, hey, residents, we have buses. If we need to evacuate you out, you just got to sign this form and then voluntarily board the bus. We'll take you to Dallas. You'll be safe. Same thing with this. So migrants that are dropped off in the thousands every day across the country, say in McAllen,

get released there and then there would be buses there. The local government has to opt in and ask the state for buses

Those buses would then be available for, say, migrants who want to go to Washington, D.C. So if you have family in Seattle and you're planning to go there from the border, that's probably not the journey for you to go to D.C. But for people who are headed that way or headed to New England, it makes a lot of sense. And so it has not started yet.

You know, if it does start, you know, kind of waiting for the first lawsuit to be filed. Right. Well, and over what sounds like, frankly, a ridiculous show pony of a policy. And that's the interesting thing. You've had a lot of conservatives come out and say, what are you doing?

And before we go, we have just about 30 seconds left. How can folks follow you and stay up with your work? Because we love the stuff you're doing. We want our listeners out there to be able to keep track of your work as well.

Yeah, thanks so much. So Instagram's actually probably the funnest way. It's Anna in D.C. with spaces in between each word. And I post up there every day. Fantastic. Well, Anna G. Artelli, thank you so much for joining us. Folks, keep track of her work, Anna in D.C. on Instagram. Breaking Battlegrounds will be right back.

Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your hosts Chuck Warren and Sam Stone. Our second guest in a packed lineup today, Lingling Wei. She is the chief China correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, co-author of Superpower Showdown. She covers China's political economy, focusing on the intersection of business and politics, which is interesting.

one entity essentially in China. Born and raised there. She has an MA in journalism from NYU and got her start covering U.S. real estate and was a Pulitzer Prize finalist, which is a big darn deal. Ling Ling, thank you so much for joining us on the program today. Thank you. Glad to be here.

What is going on right now in Shanghai? Because I think not enough people out there are aware. I started following this on Twitter a few days ago, maybe a week ago. It is really astounding what China is doing, and their citizens seem to be starting to come apart at the seams.

Absolutely. So what is happening in Shanghai these days is very, very concerning. What really happened was, you know, just a few weeks ago, Shanghai, backed by Power Center in Beijing, was supposed to offer the entire China a roadmap

to Chinese style coexistence with COVID. However, you know, this kind of, you know, living with COVID, this purpose was very, very difficult to do in China because ever since the outbreak, the COVID pandemic started in early 2020.

2020, the leadership had set a goal of clearing up this virus in the country. Previously, they had done really well, home confinement, business closures, travel bans, or work closures.

because the virus wasn't as transmissible as it is today. So that kind of lockdowns really worked. So with Shanghai, you know, the Chinese leadership originally wanted Shanghai to do what it has been doing for the past two years, which was, you know, basically just targeting affected neighborhoods, affected residential buildings, affected office buildings with lockdowns instead of like lockdowns.

on confinement of the entire city. However, you know, it was very difficult to, you know, still very difficult to clear the virus from those neighborhoods, from those affected buildings. So, you know, very soon other cities near Shanghai or in the rest of China decided

started to complain to Beijing that, you know, what cases from Shanghai were spilling over everywhere, basically making those localities very difficult, making their job very difficult. So very much alarmed by the complaints, the top leadership, President Xi Jinping himself, ordered Shanghai to...

basically to go into a full lockdown about a week or 10 days ago. But because this whole order just came down so suddenly, that left millions of families in Shanghai, all those residents, more than 25 million residents, very much unprepared.

For home confinement, they didn't get to stock up on food, on water, on vegetables. So a lot of them were just really afraid of running out of food and water, these basic daily essentials. So there's definitely a sense of frustration, anger, and helplessness sweeping through the city these days.

I was reading today that, for example, the only service people really allowed outside their home are food delivery drivers, and they don't have enough of them because people don't want to do it. So now the government is trying to get Communist Party officials and members to deliver food, but in a very uncommunist-like way, they want to be paid for it.

So how, you know, is Shanghai a major, you know, is it fair to say Shanghai is the most Western city in China by head and shoulders? Absolutely.

Absolutely. It's the most Western-oriented of all Chinese cities, and it's the most important city to China's economy. It's a financial center as well. So, you know, the experiment basically in Shanghai failed. It's not just a setback for a city of 25 million people, but also a setback for the top leadership. You know, for Xi Jinping, this couldn't have happened

at the worst possible time because later this year, he's going to seek another term in office, a very unprecedented third five-year term in office. Even though China is a one-party state, public opinion, popular support is still important because that would...

basically work at pressure points on him. So it's really a very tough situation there. And the turnabout in Shanghai, you know, the sudden, you know, going back to lockdown to show how difficult it has become for China to abandon this whole zero COVID approach.

That has basically underpinned Xi Jinping's narrative that China managed the pandemic much better than the West. And Chuck, I know you have a question here, but this is a much harder lockdown than anyone in the United States has experienced. I mean, it is a...

absolute shutdown of this entire city. Well, and the problem for Mr. Xi, as I see it, is because Shanghai is the most Western city, it's not like the government could do this in Wuhan or Xi'an, the smaller rural areas or provinces. These people have access to social media and so forth. Right. So this is like screaming this to the world, which I'm sure causes dismay to Mr. Xi and the Communist Party. Is that a fair assessment?

Yes, definitely. This lockdown in Shanghai is more severe than the one that happened during the earlier days of the pandemic, the lockdown Wuhan. It's really because people in Wuhan also have access to social media and other platforms to express their concerns.

frustration and anger. What makes this different this time is Omicron is like the wind, as one of the experts we talked to told us. How do you stop the wind? How can you clear the virus when it has become so much more transmissible? And also just people are tired.

you know, repeated lockdowns. Two years into the pandemic, the rest of the world is learning to live with the virus and China still, you know, ramping up lockdowns again. You know, it's just really becoming this kind of strategy has become more and more unpopular. Well, which is amazing for a country that first denied it was happening, right? I mean, wasn't that pretty much

talking points that when it first started it's not real that this isn't real kovitz not real

Well, yeah, earlier during the pandemic, there was a lot of denial on the severity of the pandemic. You know, the Chinese government definitely was slow to react. That really caused, you know, quite a delay in, you know, how to respond to the COVID. And yes, there were a lot of earlier missteps. However, you know, the lockdowns,

definitely worked, you know, to sort of extend because the virus back then was not... Lingling, I apologize. I'm going to have to cut you off real quick. We're going to bring you back when we come back from break. Breaking Battlegrounds, we'll be right back. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds. On the line with us today, Lingling Wei, chief China correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. Lingling, when we went to break, we were talking about China's response to the virus, the shutdown in Shanghai.

What is the end game for President Xi and the Chinese government with what appears to be an absolutely unstoppable endemic virus, especially at this point with the Omicron variant and its extraordinary transmissibility? How are they viewing this that is going to come to some sort of end? It doesn't seem likely that their measures are really going to succeed.

Well, for now, they're not changing the strategy. So as long as the zero COVID strategy remains in place, I can hardly see, you know, they trying anything different to cope with the virus. One thing I wanted to point it out is that, you know,

China could have avoided this kind of repeated lockdowns and shutting down the entire city to combat the virus had it, you know, had better vaccines early on. You know, for the past two years, China has repeatedly basically resisted approving vaccines.

any large-scale adoption of the mRNA vaccine developed by Pfizer and other Western companies. So that's a really puzzling decision to a lot of healthcare and doctors in China because Chinese vaccines, yes, they are...

effective to a certain extent, but definitely not as effective as mRNA vaccines. So that really has been a contributing factor here in terms of why it has been so hard for China to deal with the pandemic.

And Lingling, from what I understand, at least in Hong Kong, their vaccination strategy actually focused on the younger and less vulnerable segments of the population rather than the older and more vulnerable segments. Is that also been the case in the mainland?

Yes, there has been a lot of skepticism, especially among the elderly about, you know, the effectiveness and the safety of vaccines. So they haven't done a great job in terms of vaccinating people.

the older population, that really led to, you know, a huge spike in death rates in Hong Kong, as you just pointed out. You know, that also is a factor that, you know, the top leadership is so bent on taking

you know, continuing zero COVID strategy because they were worried about the elderly, you know, because, you know, those people are at least vaccinated and at least protected here. Well, and they're saying that they haven't had any deaths, but you've had in your reporting and I've seen elsewhere, that's highly unlikely to actually be the case.

Absolutely. Our colleague in Hong Kong really has done a brilliant job in terms of, you know, actually finding out quite a few elderly care facilities where, you know, at least

20 patients had already died of unknown reasons and their family members were blaming COVID. Because of the lack of transparency and independent press in China, it is very hard for us to get to the bottom of it. But definitely, you know, there is a lot of questions about the truthfulness of the data.

So let me ask you this question. So they're talking about, you know, because of, you know, the shutdown in Shanghai and the other provinces, about 40% of China's production is now in areas that they've closed down. Okay. Which means you're going to lower your target for your gross domestic product. And they're talking about China is going to boost state-led spending on infrastructure and things of that nature. Okay.

What does this mean for the gross domestic product and what does that mean for them buying U.S. debt? The ugly bugaboo no one wants to talk about. Well,

Well, the Chinese economy definitely is facing much more severe half-wings than the top leadership had expected earlier this year. So they set quite an unrealistic target of about 5.5% rate for this year. And now with the lockdown of almost...

you know, the entire country, basically major, all the major cities in the country, industrial, economic hubs in the country, basically the likelihood of China growing

slower definitely has risen tremendously. That really, in terms of their holding of U.S. dollar debt, I believe that the Chinese government has been gradually unloading their treasury holdings over the years. And Lingling, before we come up to our break here, and thank you for joining us, what is the best way for folks to follow you and your work?

I guess, you know, subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. And you can also follow me on Twitter at LingLing-WEI. That's my Twitter handle. Fantastic. Ling Ling Wei, thank you for joining us. And folks, subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and follow her on Twitter. Good advice. Great advice.

You deserve a home that's beautiful and stylish. At Overstock, you don't have to choose between low prices and quality. Find new on-trend home goods that reflect your taste and don't compromise on value. You can be proud of your home and design a space where you feel like you, all under budget. Plus, you get free shipping on everything in the continental United States. Overstock is where quality furniture and decor cost less. All right, welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your hosts Chuck Warren and Sam Stone.

Unbelievable show today. On the line with us, our third guest, Michael Kimmage. Michael is a professor of history and department chair at the Catholic University of America. He's also a fellow at the German Marshall Fund. From 2014 to 2017, he served on the secretary's policy planning staff at the U.S. Department of State, where he held the Russia-Ukraine portfolio, publishes widely on international affairs, U.S.-Russian relations, and other issues.

American Diplomatic History, his latest book, The Abandonment of the West, The History of an Idea in American Foreign Policy, was published by Basic Books in April of 2020. He's also the chair of the Kennan Institute Advisory Council. Those are a lot of fantastic titles, especially given what is going on right now, Michael. Obviously, the Ukraine war is continuing to dominate news as it should around the globe. Russia has found themselves in a situation they never imagined.

What is the end game for Vladimir Putin in this conflict?

Well, it's definitely not the one that he anticipated before the war. We do have, I think, a lot of indications that they thought it would be easy, the Russians, that the Ukrainian government would fall or Zelensky would flee or that they would run the tables militarily, and none of that has come to pass. So he's readjusting for sure. I can't imagine that somebody like Putin would give up and just turn back to Russia. So I think probably the endgame he may have in mind at the moment

is a long war of attrition where, you know, this just goes on indefinitely and he tries to seek advantage and see if he can get sides of weakness from the other side. For the Russian military, I mean, that's going to continue extracting. I know they have huge stockpiles of equipment, but the human toll, at what point does that start playing a

on the political level in Russia where folks are simply sick of all the missing and dead soldiers that this is creating, especially with a conscript army that in many cases are inadequately trained? It's a very good question. And, you know, I think that the chickens will come home to roost at a certain point for Putin.

this is a failing venture in the scheme of things and the political objectives that got them into the war in the first place some kind of control or influence over ukraine i think those are becoming not easier to achieve they're becoming over time more difficult to achieve uh and so your question is a very good one a war of attrition will be costly for russia uh it will bring about political costs for pushin certainly

But I don't think we're speaking of weeks or months in terms of the Russian public getting tired of this war. I think we might have to be speaking in terms of years. That's a pretty grim calculus, I know, but that's, I think, how the situation is at the moment. Let me ask you this. What do you see happening to Russia now?

If this goes on for years, I mean, you've seen some estimates that this lasts 10, 15 years. OK, what does this mean for Russia long term? I mean, you have these economic restrictions now. They seem to be doing more clamping down by the week. What is the end game for him on this? It does. He can't just show weakness at all and just say, I'm going to take this eastern portion of the leap. What what is the end game for him on this? Because Ukraine's not going away quietly in the night. Not at all.

No. And, you know, he faces a very difficult path, really, in every direction. If he would yield and just give up, he would come across as not just looking weak, but actually being weak. I think that's very hard for him to accept. I think it would be hard for him to do. I think that he may feel that the costs to Ukraine are so great.

that Ukraine may come to the table with concessions that Russia could accept. I think that for Putin is one possible endgame. And also, Putin began the war on the assumption that he wasn't going to encounter that much resistance from the United States and from Europe. I think he's miscalculated there, but I'm not sure that we've really changed his mind fundamentally yet. He may feel over time that people will lose interest, the sanctions will start to

is allowed and uh... people that have moved on and change their uh... perception look at uh... other conflicts with more uh... attention they do it you create and then russia may be

gaining certain advantages that way. But I think that's about the best that he could expect at the moment. Michael, is Russia putting itself in a position where essentially economically they're going to become far more reliant and potentially even subservient to China because they're the only country that can provide an out for their economy in terms of providing all the things they need as well as the markets they need at this point?

I think that's very correct. I think subservient is probably an overstatement, but certainly increasingly dependent on China. That's, you know, one of the many negative consequences this war is going to have for Russia. You know, you could qualify the point a little bit. India has held back from the sanctions. You know, most countries in the Middle East have not sanctioned Russia. Same is true for Latin America. So, you know, Russia has...

options in terms of markets in some of those places, but it's a much less natural market for Russia than Europe would be. And the technology transfer that you get from connections to the U.S. and Europe, that's unparalleled. And Russia has just cut itself off from all of that until it changes course completely. So that might be for a very long time. Can you explain to our audience what the MISC agreement was and how this led up, how this was part of this Ukraine invasion? Sure.

I can explain it from the Russian side as best I can. Thank you. And if you want to ask about the European side or the U.S. side, I'm happy to speak about that as well. But let me stick to Russia, since after all, they're the country that invaded. And we want to be very clear on their thinking. And we don't have terrific evidence on this, so a lot of us, myself very much included, are speculating here. That's why you make the big bucks as a college professor. Exactly. That's why I make the big bucks as a college professor. So I think what I say...

With a grain of salt, and I'll do my best. I think that Putin had two general motivations for beginning this war. One goes back to 2014 and to a revolution in Ukraine that pointed Ukraine much more toward Europe and the West.

And Putin didn't like that outcome. He did certain things in 2014. He annexed Crimea and he invaded part of eastern Ukraine. And his hope was that this would give him a kind of lever over Ukraine and allow him to pull it back into Russia's orbit.

And basically the exact opposite happened. Ukraine deepened its relationship to Europe, it deepened its relationship to the U.S., economic and military terms. And so I think Putin looked at Ukraine in 2021, early 2022, and said, this country is going in the exact wrong direction. How can I change its course? He no longer has the option of persuading Ukraine.

the Ukrainians. And so military force, I think, became for him the answer. I don't think it's going to bring him what he wanted, but I think that was his thinking on the eve of the invasion. I think the other thing that Putin had in mind with this, and I think the jury will be out on this point for a long time to come,

is that he wants to rewrite the rules of how people do business internationally. And he wants to make it less about American influence, less about international institutions, less about the sovereignty and independence of what Russia thinks of as small countries like Ukraine,

and more about what powerful countries are able to do in their core areas of interest. And what I think Putin feels is that it's his right to determine how things go in his neighborhood and the U.S. and Europe, and nobody else can tell him otherwise. So he wants to change the rules in that respect and show that might makes right and see how far that takes him.

That's a fascinating point. Michael, you're talking potentially about this war lasting for years. It feels like so far the approach to supplying Ukraine with weapons, food, medicine, everything else they need to engage in combat with the Russian military has been very piecemeal on the part of the West. Do you see or hear of any efforts out there to start planning for a multi-year pipeline to provide all those things?

I'm sure that there are such efforts. I'm not privy to them. Personally, I noticed that National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, I believe it was yesterday, made a few comments about this war probably lasting for quite a while. So he's well aware of that as a possibility. And if so, I'm sure that the U.S. government is planning for long-term support to Ukraine. And I'm sure that for the other European partners who are doing the same, especially Britain and France,

that similar preparations are being made. Where I think, you know, to focus for a moment on the Biden administration, where they have to be very, you know, sort of committed and energetic is not just in military aid to Ukraine. You know, I think that they'll get that part of it right, I'm pretty sure. Where they have to be very committed and energetic is on informing the American public, you know, letting them understand why the sanctions program is important, letting them understand why military support for Ukraine is important. And even if there aren't

going to be great results to show, you know, this summer or this fall, to have the American public ready for a conflict that really does have the potential to go for the long haul. So we're going to need patience. We live in a social media era where people have very quick emotional responses to news and often expect things to happen very quickly. That's not how this conflict is going to play out. So it's necessary for all of us to start thinking

in the long term. It doesn't make me happy to say that, but I just feel it's necessary. We're with Michael Kimmich. He is the professor of history and department chair at Catholic University, a fellow at the German Marshall Fund. And from 2014 to 17, he served as secretary of policies planning staff at the U.S. Department of State. Let me ask you this. Do you think Putin has acted more reckless than his predecessors when they were the Soviet Union?

Yes. In fact, I can't think of an episode in the last hundred years, looking back at both Soviet and Russian foreign policy, that shows this degree of recklessness. If you want it to be, you know...

comprehensive about the history, you might go back to 1905, and that was the year that Russia chose to go to war with Japan, and they lost very badly. And that actually sparked a revolution both in 1905 and was a contributing factor in the Russian Revolution of 1917. So that was pretty reckless and had some pretty profound consequences for Russia. This seems to me, if anything, more reckless, the scale of the invasion.

the casualties that Russia has suffered so far. I mean, I think there are alleged to be 15,000 fatalities for Russia. That's apparently more than all of the Soviet war against Afghanistan. You know, the total U.S.

fatalities in the Vietnam War, around 57,000. And we all know what a trauma that was for the United States. So this is extraordinary in those terms, but also the economics of it are very reckless for Russia. You know, it's not a stable, strong global economy. As we talked about a moment ago, it has dependence on China. It needs access to markets. Russia certainly needs access to technology transfer. All of those things are long-term problems.

good for Russia, and they just made their lives so much more difficult with this war. And I think, this is my assessment, that over time, I'm guessing over a couple of years, they're going to lose this war. So that's maybe the ultimate recklessness. All of these prices paid, all of these burdens assumed in the name of a military venture that's very, very unlikely to succeed. Michael, I'm going to have you put on your analyst hat here, right? So this is only purely conjecture, but

Why do you think the world has just united around this, at least the European and the Americans? And it seems like we've all of a sudden discovered again we need to work together. Why do you think there's been such an outcry about this versus what they did in Georgia or Chechnya? Go ahead. Yeah, please. Go ahead.

Two things I would emphasize. One is how terrible a job Putin and the Russian government has done to develop a narrative. I mean, maybe for their own people it's different, but to develop a narrative that speaks to international audiences. You know, we, for the last six, seven years, have often put Russia on a pedestal, the master manipulators, people who can go in and turn elections in other countries and

and uh... you know shape and manage public opinion you know we've said those things over the last couple of years and at times they've been true perhaps but it's definitely not true at the present moment and then we can have not convinced anybody that this is a war that makes sense uh... and then you have all these sort of crazy argument that the russian government comes up to when atrocities are

are pointed out and they say that the ukrainians killing themselves to blame russia for these things it's just completely unpersuasive uh... and you see a real failure every war is a battle for hearts and minds and uh... you know the russians have done a terrible job on that front with this war from the very moment that it began so that's an important part of the story i think and that matters it's less important though than the second point i would want to make which is uh...

that you've seen some real leadership in Ukraine, real wartime leadership from Volodymyr Zelensky, who before this was an entertainer, television personality and comedian. And that might sound like it's a questionable background for a politician, but it's actually served him very well. He's a good communicator. He's done a great job communicating on social media. And, you know, beyond just his skills in communication, he's

What he's doing is telling a story that really rings true, I think, for all of us. This is the will of a country to survive, to defend itself, to maintain its

sovereignty and independence. You have echoes of the American Revolution in that story. And I think a lot of people from outside Ukraine could look on the country and say, well, maybe I didn't know much about this country before the war, but how could I not sympathize with the Ukrainian people? So I think it's on the basis of that sympathy that you've got all of this very real foreign policy and political support for Ukraine. Absolutely. Michael, before we wrap up here, tell folks how they can follow you and your work.

Well, it's kind of you to ask. I do post on Twitter at mkimmage and try to say a few things in that medium, but I'm a little bit more comfortable publishing in article form. So I have written three articles about the war so far, all of them in Foreign Affairs, the journal, all of them titled What If? What if Russia wins? What if Russia loses? Thank you so much. Breaking Battlegrounds back on the radio next week.

Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds. This is the podcast-only segment. Chuck, we had three pretty darn good guests, people I want to get back on this program again soon today. Anna Gierteli, Homeland Security reporter for The Washington Examiner, Lingling Wei, chief China correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, and then Michael Kimmage,

A professor of history has served in the U.S. State Department on Ukraine. You know what stuck out to me on this? And I've always felt this for all presidents. So I feel for Biden, too, because he is our president. Presidents wake up to these national security reports every morning. I don't know how you're not just popping Xanax or drinking, reading this every day. I mean, it's just like everything is tender today.

It's amazing. I mean, we talked about three things that aren't far out. These are literally happening now. And you're combining that right now with really rough domestic conditions when you talk about inflation, when you talk about fentanyl, which we were talking about on the program, when you talk about immigration, everything that's going on in this country right now is adding to that. You have a really difficult stretch for a president who –

I got to be honest, doesn't seem like he's really up to the challenge. No, but we need him to be. You want all your presidents to provide peace and prosperity. So, you know, let's look at the fentanyl situation. That is self-made. People can stop taking drugs. It's pretty much something we could

eliminate if people practice personal responsibility. The Shanghai situation and 40% of their manufacturing base or economic base is being shut down. I don't think Americans understand what that means for our debt and how we service it and all that. For our inflation, too. For our inflation. It's unbelievable. And then Ukraine, it was great having Michael on. I'd like to get him back on for a longer time, but

Look, we're in this road here. You know, I mean, you and I may be retired before that thing's resolved. Well, and on top of that, one thing we didn't get to with Michael that I also wanted to touch on is given the way the Russian military is conducting this campaign with essentially unrestricted bombing and shelling of major urban areas, at some point you're going to have to engage in a rebuilding process, right?

something akin to the Marshall Plan, or you're going to end up with one of the poorest countries in the world where disease and everything else runs rampant. Well, not only we have that, but it's also Ukraine's a breadbasket.

I mean, this is affecting populations in Egypt and Africa and Europe. And the ramifications of what they're doing to the economy, to transportation, their supply chain is going to have ramifications in other countries. And it's going to start trickling out this year and next year. You'll see it when people don't eat.

And they're starving, which is what's happening in Shanghai right now. We saw a video this morning in our group text of the guy in the street just yelling, saying, I'm out of food April 5th. I have no more money. That's all I do. And, you know, Shanghai is not like Phoenix where a lot of people have a yard and they can go grow something. Right. It's just this is what they get. They're in a 400 square foot apartment a lot of times there. Well, and I mean, I think realistically, when you're talking about modern cities, you

Without any sort of network for delivery and everything else, with everything shut down, you're going to start having real impacts from that. They've also shut down their hospitals to treatment for all sorts of other things. That's going to result in a lot of dead people. I really wonder if this is going to affect Xi's chances to win this next election because

even though it's an inter-party election, if there isn't someone else who is going to step up. I just haven't seen anybody's head pop up yet from what I've read. I mean, I'm not a China expert, but read enough of it that I just don't see it. But if you're in the United States, there'd be a lot of speculation right now on all your cable news programs. Well, same thing for Vladimir Putin, right? I mean, these guys are holding on via military power in their country's

If this was here, you would be very, very legitimately able to impeach either one of them. Well, great show today, Kylie. Jamie, as always, thank you very much. And everybody, we hope you have a great week and we'll talk to you soon. The political field is all about reputation. So don't let someone squash yours online. Secure your name and political future with a yourname.vote web address from godaddy.com. Your political career depends on it.