Adam (00:00.494)
Welcome back to Simplifying the State. I’m Adam Watson. 

Nicholas (00:03.31) And I’m Nicholas Perron.

Adam (00:5.568)
Okay, so today we have a little bit of a special episode. It’s special for two reasons. First, this is not our weekly episode—this is sort of a breaking-ish topic episode. Second, in our usual episodes, we have a nonpartisan, factual, informative format. In this one, it’s going to be  like an opinion piece, but in podcast form. So we’re going to be sharing our opinions on the issue. Obviously, we’re still going to keep it civil and all that, but this will be a more opinion-centered episode.

Okay, so today we’re talking about the press conference that just occurred between former—well, not former—President Trump, currently Vice President J.D. Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and how that might tie into future U.S.-Ukrainian relations.

I think, right off the bat, this press conference was just an unmitigated disaster for both sides. It broke down into a shouting match between the U.S. president, the Ukrainian president, and the U.S. vice president. Nicholas, what do you think?

Nicholas (01:25.714)
Yeah, I watched it, and even though it was only like five minutes long, I found it really hard to watch. You could tell just how much fire there was on each side, but I felt it especially from Zelensky. Overall, I think he kept it together pretty well, considering the situation, but there was a lot of talking over each other.

At the beginning of the video, I couldn’t tell who instigated it, but in the second portion, Zelensky started talking, then Trump started talking over him, and they just kept fighting for dominance. Eventually, I think Zelensky relented, but yeah, it was awful.

Adam (02:07.458)
Right, so the overall press conference wasn’t super short—these things are usually quite long—but this particular part was pretty short. From what I saw, it seems like J.D. Vance might have been the one who instigated it, at least from the clip I watched.

It looked like it started when Zelensky and Vance were disagreeing over security guarantees. Zelensky was there to sign a mineral agreement between the United States and Ukraine. We can talk about that more in-depth in the next episode or later on. But basically, the deal was either to pay the U.S. back for the aid provided or to guarantee future aid. The exact terms were unclear. Zelensky seemed to view it as a “we give you this, and you continue to give us military aid in the future” arrangement, whereas Trump saw it more as “we gave you all this military aid, so we want half a trillion dollars worth of natural resources from your country.”

Nicholas (03:37.87)
Yeah, that whole “you owe us” vibe coming from Trump was really strong—not just with the mineral agreement but with the entire discussion. One thing Trump kept repeating, or maybe it was Vance specifically, was that Ukraine hadn’t shown enough gratitude.

Adam (04:01.08)
Yeah, it was Vance who said that.

Nicholas (04:07.288)
Right. That whole vibe of “you owe us” was super strong. It really felt like Trump was trying to get back what the U.S. gave Ukraine instead of continuing U.S. support for Ukraine, even though he claims to be offering that.

Adam (04:38.734)
Right. Before we continue, I think it’s important to do a little bit of a history lesson. At the end of the Cold War, Ukraine had about 1,900 nuclear warheads stationed in its territory. They weren’t Ukrainian warheads—they were Soviet warheads that had been stationed in Ukraine. During the collapse of the Soviet Union, things were chaotic, and the Soviets didn’t really have time to take them back before the union dissolved.

Ukraine had these warheads, and Russia wanted them back because they made up a significant chunk of Russia’s arsenal. Ukraine, however, didn’t want to give them up because they were concerned about a future Russian invasion. Looking back, that concern seems justified.

Eventually, Ukraine signed a deal with the U.S. and Russia, agreeing to give up its nuclear warheads in exchange for guarantees of its independence and sovereignty from the U.S. and the West. It wasn’t a binding NATO-style agreement, but it was a basic understanding that the U.S. would defend Ukraine’s sovereignty if it was invaded by Russia. And at the start of the war, it seemed like we broke that agreement.

To me, this feels like a betrayal of Ukraine by the U.S. What do you think?

Nicholas (06:33.178)
Yeah, I think that sums up the situation pretty well. However, I think it’s important to note that the document was also signed by Russia, and it was more about territorial integrity than an ironclad security commitment. Technically, it was already broken in 2014 when Russia invaded Crimea.

Adam (07:04.066)
Right.

Nicholas (07:29.728)
And those Russian nukes were still operational.

Adam (07:32.446)
Exactly. Obviously, I’m not saying we should have sent troops into Ukraine. But I think the U.S. response after the Russian invasion—mobilizing global support and providing Ukraine with military equipment—was the best way to uphold our agreement while avoiding direct conflict. A war between NATO and Russia could easily turn nuclear, and nobody wants that.

Moving to Putin real quick—Trump said something interesting. He told Zelensky, and I’m paraphrasing here, “You have a lot of hostility and hatred toward Putin. I don’t know if I want to make a deal with a man who has such hatred and hostility.” Later, after the conference, he suggested that Zelensky doesn’t want peace while Putin does.

Nicholas, what do you think about this? Because it seems like Trump is breaking away from Ukraine and aligning more with Russia—the aggressor in this war.

Nicholas (09:32.57)
Yeah, I think we already saw some evidence of this in Trump’s first term, but it’s even stronger now. On the surface, it might make sense—Russia holds more Ukrainian territory than Ukraine holds Russian territory. But Trump is still favoring the aggressor. If a similar war happens in the future, will he do the same thing?

Adam (10:42.328)
Right. And I think this sends a global signal. Putin was probably watching this and loving every second of it, thinking, “Maybe I can invade a NATO country, and the U.S. won’t intervene.” Or China could be thinking, “Maybe I can invade Taiwan without suffering major consequences.”

To recap, the press conference was heated. Trump told Zelensky, “You’re not in a very good position. You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position. You don’t have the cards right now with us.” Zelensky responded, “I’m not playing cards.” Trump then raised his voice and said, “You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III.”

Some think this may have been staged—an ambush for Zelensky. What do you think?

Nicholas (12:37.57)
I haven’t heard that theory, but it doesn’t make much sense to me. I guess they might want to portray Zelensky as weak or uncooperative, but Trump and Vance are clearly the ones escalating things.

Adam (13:43.951)
Yeah, I don’t see how it benefits U.S. foreign policy. But looking at the bigger picture, do you think Europe might step up its aid, seeing the U.S. as an unreliable partner?

Nicholas (14:41.24)
Some European nations might, but others might see it as a sunk cost. Countries like Poland will probably step up, especially if the U.S. pulls back.

Ukraine in this, think those countries will absolutely step up and help support especially against a more aggressive U.S. and I think that that would also be an opportunity for them to improve their weapons, tactics, and whatever else they may need to fend off Russia in the advent of a sleeper United States.

Adam (15:35.736)
Right. Okay, so looking at European leaders’ responses, most have been either pro-Ukraine or focused on diplomacy. Macron said, “There is an aggressor, which is Russia, and an attacked people, which is Ukraine.”

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson said he spoke to both Trump and Zelensky today. He said, “He retains his unwavering support for Ukraine and is playing his part to find a path forward to a lasting peace based on sovereignty and security for Ukraine.”

The top diplomat for the EU said in a statement, “It’s clear that the free world needs a new leader.”

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a key Trump ally in Europe, proposed holding a summit with U.S. and European leaders to discuss the war in Ukraine.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said, “Dear Zelensky, dear Ukrainian friends, you are not alone.”

The Spanish prime minister said, “Spain stands with them.”

Lithuania, Estonia, and Hungary also issued statements. Hungary, however, stood with the U.S. president, saying, “Strong men make peace; weak men make war. Today, President Trump stood bravely for peace, even if it was difficult for many to digest.”

So, I mean, the typical responses you would expect from the typical nations. Obviously, Hungary and Trump—well, Orbán and Trump—seem to have a pretty good relationship. What do you think of the European leaders’ responses?

Nicholas (17:24.748)
I mean, I think it was largely expected. Now that I think about it, I should have expected the new U.K. prime minister to support Ukraine, as he had even before his time in office.

Yeah, the large and unwavering support for Ukraine is very expected, and it’s heartwarming as well. It’s good to see European solidarity in the face of potential U.S. abandonment of Europe, which might be what we see, unfortunately.

Adam (18:07.726)
I mean, obviously, the Europeans recognize that it’s in their national security interests to make sure Ukraine either wins this war or is not totally annexed by Russia.

Let’s be honest—Putin wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union. He’s said that. He wants to remake the Soviet Union/Russian Empire. If he takes Ukraine, then pretty much all he has left bordering him is Belarus, some Caucasus nations in the south, and then the rest are NATO members.

Nicholas (18:47.386)
And Central Asia.

Ada (18:50.834)

 I mean, the Soviet Union didn’t really lose any land in Central Asia.

Nicholas (18:54.938)
What? What are you on about?

Adam (19:03.724)
Oh I thought you said Far East Asia, I’m trippin’.

Obviously, they lost Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan—most of the -stans. But yeah, they recognize that it’s important for them to stand with Ukraine because if not, the next country Russia comes for could be one of those NATO members.

And if the U.S. seems like it’s not going to defend Europe from possible Russian aggression, then that means they’re on their own. And I think they’re probably concerned about how they can win that war because Russia doesn’t have the modern weapons that Western Europe has—and now Eastern Europe is getting its hands on.

Like Poland, they’re ramping up their military exponentially. But Russia has a lot of manpower they can just throw at the enemy. They have a lot more troops.

Nicholas (19:53.17)
I would like to say, though, they don’t have as many troops as you might think because their recruitment numbers are low and their birthrate is in the gutter. They really can’t sustain this war—or any war—long term now.

Adam (19:58.456)
Yeah.

Nicholas (20:06.306)
Right.

Adam (20:06.306)
I mean, obviously, they don’t have Soviet Union World War II–style mass charge doctrine numbers, but they still have a large amount of troops they can pull from, at least temporarily.

Obviously, given the casualties in Ukraine—I think it was something like 700,000 soldiers and civilians killed or wounded now? I think that was the number.

If Russia saw something close to that in a war against Europe, they wouldn’t be able to sustain that for long. They probably can’t even sustain this war for long with their equipment deficits.

Obviously, both sides are bleeding manpower now. Ukraine would probably run out first, given that they have a smaller population. But yeah, what do you think?

Nicholas (21:04.504)
I mean, yeah. Long term, in a drawn-out war between Russia and Ukraine, even with Western support, if China starts aiding Russia with a lot of equipment, then I think eventually Russia will come out on top.

But the issue then won’t be trying to one-up NATO—it’ll be trying to contain Ukraine. Ukraine, even now, is still a very populous country with very resilient people who would not be too kind to Russian occupation.

Adam (21:50.606)
Right, right. So yeah, I don’t see this war ending even if Russia were to take Ukraine. I think they’d launch a guerrilla campaign. It would be a complete nightmare and disaster for Russia.

Obviously, in his perfect world, I’m sure Putin would like to annex all of Ukraine. He’d like to annex all of Eastern Europe—maybe even take all of Western Europe. I’m sure he wants to do that.

But my guess is that right now, he’s looking at his options and figuring the most he can get is to hold onto the land he’s taken so far, reconstitute that into his Russian Empire, take all the land’s worth, conscript people into the military, and extract resources.

That’s what I see as the most likely Russian victory—holding onto the land they have right now and taking it for all it’s worth.

Then, maybe in five years, if the U.S. continues down a more isolationist path, Russia might roll into the Baltics, cut off the corridor between Poland and Lithuania, and try to take the Baltics.

Nicholas (23:18.65)
Yeah, and the longer this war goes on, the more Russian industry won’t be enough. I think Russia will become more dependent on China just to maintain its integrity—and Putin’s integrity as leader of Russia.

Because, you know, who knows how popular Putin really is in Russia right now—especially if this war goes on much longer?

Adam (23:52.598)
I mean, the Russians do have a history of removing leaders after unpopular wars—Afghanistan, World War I, etc.

China’s been playing this very close to the chest. They don’t really want to side with either, mostly because of trade relations. They like Putin more than the United States, so they’re more friendly to him, but I’m not sure they’re ready to start sending him tanks and all that yet.

But if China feels like there won’t be massive consequences, they might be emboldened to do so.

What do you think?

Nicholas (25:02.998)
Yeah, pretty much what you said. I think China will get more comfortable sending aid to Russia if Trump continues his friendly policies toward Russia.

It’s uncertain whether he’ll maintain that same dynamic with China—especially in the case of a Taiwan invasion. But if the U.S. grows more friendly with both Russia and China, there could be a new world order, in a manner of speaking.

Adam (25:46.658)
Right. Yeah. All right—thank you for listening to Simplifying the State. This was slightly different than what we usually do, but I think it was a pretty productive conversation. Tune in next time for our next episode. See you then.