Kellogg's Global Politics

Kamala Harris's Foreign Policy and Russia with Angela Stent

• Anita Kellogg

Share episode

What a difference a month makes! The Democrats have a new Presidential nominee in Kamala Harris. But what are her views on Foreign Policy? We talk about the potential differences between her policies and those of the Biden Administration.

Also in this episode, Anita had the pleasure of speaking to Angela Stent, a senior non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution and Senior adviser to the U.S. Institute of Peace. We covered a range of topics, including how the U.S. elections might affect Putin’s execution of the Ukraine war, the current domestic situation in Russia, and Russia’s relationships with the large number of neutral countries that haven’t bought into the West’s story of the Ukraine war as an existential threat to democracy and the global order. We also discussed the far-right’s white nationalist dream of allying with Russia against China.


Topics Discussed in this Episode

  • US Election Madness
  • 18:00 - Kamala Harris Foreign Policy
  • 39:00 - Interview with Angela Stent


Articles and Resources Mentioned in Episode


Kamala Harris Foreign Policy


Interview with Angela Stent

Send us a text

Follow Us

Anita Kellogg: [00:00:00] Welcome to Kellogg's Global Politics, a podcast on current events in U. S. foreign policy and international affairs. My name is Dr. Anita Kellogg, an international relations scholar specializing in the relationship between economics and national security. I'm here with my co host Ryan Kellogg, an expert in energy investment and policy.

Ryan Kellogg: Thanks and glad to be back. So this is episode 48 and we're recording this on July 27th. [00:00:30] 2024. 

Anita Kellogg: On this episode, I had the pleasure of speaking to Angela Stent, a senior non resident fellow at the Brookings Institution and senior advisor to the U. S. Institute of Peace. We covered a range of topics, including how the U.

S. elections might affect Putin's execution of the Ukraine war, the current domestic situation in Russia, and Russia's relationships with the large number of neutral countries that haven't bought into the West's story of the Ukraine war as an existential threat to democracy and the global order. We also [00:01:00] discussed the far right's white nationalist dream of allying with Russia against China.

What a difference a month makes. The Democrats have a new presidential nominee in Kamala Harris. But what are her views on foreign policy? We talk about the potential differences in her policies from the Biden administration. So, can you believe in our last episode we were bemoaning the Biden debate and just feeling like so depressed about the election and now we have a totally new nominee.[00:01:30] 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, no, it was absolutely insane, pretty much unprecedented in terms of like what's happened in the last month. And then isn't 

Anita Kellogg: it? And the fact that when is anything similar? 

Ryan Kellogg: Well, I mean, the only thing is the 1968 election or that whole year in terms of the chaos, successful assassination attempts. I'm like, you know, fortunately what we, we saw with Trump's near miss, but yeah, just the general chaos of that year.

Um, [00:02:00] that's, that's been the biggest analogy, I think, but yeah, who would have thought that a debate, you know, heading into that, that it would have such huge consequences at the end of the day, 

Anita Kellogg: it's impossible to predict that because debates never have huge consequences, right? 

Ryan Kellogg: Nobody's ever blown a debate that badly, though, in all of political history.

I think so. 

Anita Kellogg: I definitely do. I'm not so sure about that, but I think. No one's come across as so old before. 

Ryan Kellogg: [00:02:30] Yeah, certainly not since television has existed. Maybe there were some debates pre television or pre radio where you had a candidate that was that out of it. Of course, you know, we've never had a candidate that old.

We're as old as Donald Trump is now. So yeah, just, just absolutely mind boggling and then seeing the shift that that happened from the assassination attempt on Trump and him emerging out of that and looking absolutely [00:03:00] invincible with that just having the, I guess, the poise and the understanding of the PR value and, and kind of the adrenaline and, and emerging, you know, with this epic photo heading directly into the RNC a couple days later.

And they basically were treating it like a coronation, you know, the election was effectively over. With Biden, his poll numbers collapsing, an absolutely triumphant, Christ like [00:03:30] Trump emerging from his near death experience. It seemed like, yeah, the Republicans were going to cruise and we should be spending this whole time talking about future Trump administration, which may very well still happen.

But then seeing the whiplash of Biden then dropping out and then the surprising consolidation behind Harris. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, and the fact that The Democrats were able to persuade a presidential nominee to drop out of the race for that reason, [00:04:00] that is unprecedented. And there is this book that this professor at UCLA wrote right before 2016, I think came out called the party decides, and then everybody was like, well, it doesn't look like the party decided when it came to Trump, but certainly.

You saw that happen this time with the Democrats, just seeing their chances slip away and not giving up until they could reinvigorate those chances with a new candidate. [00:04:30] 

Ryan Kellogg: No, absolutely. And I think this is the second demonstrate. I mean, it shows that Democrats, unlike the Republicans, which have completely collapsed as a party institution itself, exist only.

To support Trump at this point in his call to personality, but the Democrats still function as a real political party. And this was the second major incident. This was more dramatic than what we saw in 2020, where essentially had a very crowded primary field. Biden was struggling. [00:05:00] Bernie Sanders was surging, but essentially the, the party leadership.

Determined, you know, the ones that were more towards the center or the center left forced all of the candidates that were not Biden to drop out, which they effectively did after. I don't know if that was before Super Tuesday. It was it was fairly early in the primary process and all of that support consolidated around Biden.

And he won. And that's something. The Republicans could have easily done if they were still a functional [00:05:30] party back in 2016. And Trump would never would have won. He never would have come to power if they had been a functioning party. But by then they were so rotted out and so divided that they could no longer function as a party effectively.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, true. So pretty remarkable events. What do you think about Harris's chance? 

Ryan Kellogg: I was very skeptical heading into it. I was actually more proponent for an open competitive mini primary process. This [00:06:00] is something that had been proposed by James Carville and a bunch of other, I mean, cause the New York times I felt like was just on an absolute blitz from the end of that debate to Biden stepping down in terms of putting pressure on the administration.

And during this time you had a number of high level, Democrats coming out with different supports of different systems. But yes, I was, I was more supportive of that because I, and this may still be the case, but you know, I'm [00:06:30] more hopeful now, but I did not see America, particularly when we're talking about the swing states where this election is going to be cited, being able to support a black woman for president.

Anita Kellogg: You've been telling me for years that the country can't support a woman for president, let alone a black woman for president. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I know. Yeah, that was certainly that was certainly how I felt in 2020. And I think that that held true. I mean, I guess we don't know, but I think that held true [00:07:00] because it had been so soon because the only the only experience we've had is with Hillary.

Hillary, I think, is a unique candidate in that she had so much baggage. From the Clintons. She was so hated by a huge part of the population. So it probably is not fair to women candidates to judge them by how like Hillary performed because Hillary came with all that baggage and the Clinton legacy and all of that.

But I don't know, it's real early on, but seeing the surge and enthusiasm, particularly, I mean, you kind of would [00:07:30] expect that with. The African American population, especially with black women. I didn't know what to expect with young people, but it's young people that have been really surging. Her, her presence online on TikTok has been really surprising.

So it seems like the impossible has happened where the enthusiasm gap. Like between the republican base and the democrat base is now a lot more even which you thought there's no way under biden That that would have ever ever happened. [00:08:00] No, but at least and maybe maybe it's just relief But I don't think it's just relief of biden finally dropping out I think it seems it seems legitimate.

So I i'm now kind of 50 50 that maybe Maybe America can do this. I don't know. But again, it comes down, it comes down to a handful of states. So it doesn't matter what we think sitting here in deep blue Maryland. It matters what Wisconsinites and Michiganders and [00:08:30] Pennsylvanians think about it ultimately.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I think it's still an uphill battle for her, but the energy has been kind of amazing to see, and hopefully she can keep that up. I was listening to CNN and they reminded, like, she actually had a lot of energy when she first came out in the primary that sort of petered out, but I don't see that happening because this energy is not just about her.

It's also about Democrats wanting to win. And I think just having someone more youthful though. I think so many people were so reluctantly voting for Biden [00:09:00] because the alternative was worse, but people weren't excited. And I think bringing some youthful energy to it, which they have fully embraced, as most of us have learned what a brat is for the first time being, as I was told, somewhat a little bit messy, but wants to have fun and what that has to do with the vice president.

I don't know, but certainly I think like, Being turned into a term like she's cool like us or something like that, you know, just that, that energy that's really been carrying her and that [00:09:30] enthusiasm and what most people have said, like the artistic side of it, not just endorsements, but the embracing, you know, Beyonce song and all that is more akin to Obama and 

Ryan Kellogg: yeah, the cultural support, the cultural energy.

Behind the campaign right now is enormous. Yeah, so I 

Anita Kellogg: don't know if that was enough for her to win, but it's been kind of a relief for me to see as someone who thinks sort of her as uphill. And I think a lot of people who are pretty skeptical of Kamala [00:10:00] being the nominee have been pleasantly surprised by that.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, definitely. I think the way that she's handled herself One in the, in the run up to the pressure campaign to being put on Biden, she had to thread a very thin line, but then yeah, just the, the, you know, the speech that she made going to the Biden campaign headquarters, because essentially all of his staff became.

Her her campaign staff. I mean, it's very seamless kind of transition, but the way she's handled that the way that she's handled [00:10:30] her couple of speaking engagements and rallies since then, it's certainly I mean, she had been defined maybe largely by the right wing media. As incompetent as basically not capable very of one of the weakest vice presidents essentially that the country has ever seen and because you don't see your you don't see your day to day.

It's a vice presidency role. You, you know, they've never, except for Dick Cheney, has [00:11:00] never been like a big role . 

Anita Kellogg: Well it's funny 'cause on Facebook, one of the Trumpers that I know was like, can somebody tell me what Kamala Harris has ever done in the vice presidency? And I wanted to reply that. I don't engage in Facebook.

That's way anymore. What does any vice president do? You know, like you can't usually pin to they, they're the support the president not to have personal achievements. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, exactly. I mean, their constitutional role is very limited. They're there in case something happens to the president and to head up the Senate if [00:11:30] there's a tie breaking vote that's needed.

Yeah. That's pretty much it. Yeah. And here's not to say that she hasn't learned a lot. And become a lot more experienced over the last four years in terms of communication and being able to step into those roles. And then I think maybe part of it is just the contrast where we saw, I mean, as bad as Biden was, I mean, it's not like Trump was every 80 percent of what he said was a lie.

Uh, but yeah, he, and then his disastrous convention speech, [00:12:00] you know, he should come out of it. Just absolutely unstoppable having survived an assassination attempt, but he gave a typical meandering Trump speech, just talking about whatever random thing that bothers him from sharks to electric vehicles to the wind energy to hyping up Hulk Hogan to the personal travels of the UFC.

Uh, Dana Cooke, who gave, [00:12:30] I mean, again, it was a, it was a circus that whole convention, but it was a triumphant circus up to that point where I think he really, he had this chance to reintroduce himself, reset the stage. said he was going to be more unifying. And if he had actually been able to muster some statesmanship, I think he would have actually at least seen a boost.

And honestly, it's shocking where polls stand now, given the fact that the dude was almost assassinated. That should be, [00:13:00] create a lot of sympathy. Two, it's coming out of the Republican National Convention. There's always a boost from that, but no boost. And his entire lead appears to have been wiped out with the entry of, uh, of Kamala.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, it's pretty early days for the polls. What polls have come out have shown that lead having vanished, and you're right. That's being able to switch candidates has really been able to take away any momentum that they might have had from the convention. But as you said, [00:13:30] there was little momentum spurred by the convention because Trump wasn't able to shift tones.

I mean, it's not surprising that he wasn't able to shift tone because he's Trump. And when it's Trump, you're like, show some statesmanship. And I'm like, every time everybody 

Ryan Kellogg: falls for it, the media. Some group of pundits, they all, I mean, it was the same thing after his first State of the Union. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. 

Ryan Kellogg: He gave a good, normal for him, normal [00:14:00] set speech, and it was like, okay, this, this is the start of, the office is weighing down upon him.

And he's going to become more statesman like and less severe. And it was the same sort of thing. It was like, oh, he's, He was nearly killed and that changes a man and a lot of people are reading things in, you know, he came in, he watched a lot of the convention speeches and he didn't say anything. He just looked and people interpreted.

This is like statesmanship and state. That's like, oh, yeah, he's going to do do this and that. But nope. [00:14:30] Nope. Just got it there and deliver the same meandering garbage that. So I think it'll be interesting to see if there's a lot more, and I know this is what Democrats are pushing. It's like, well, now he's the old guy.

Yeah. Let's concentrate. And, uh, and have a fine tooth comb through every stupid thing that he says. Yeah, 

Anita Kellogg: and they're able to, you know, yes, he is an old guy and they couldn't make much of, I mean, he's the oldest presidential candidate so far. And now that Biden has dropped out of the race, no one this old [00:15:00] has ever run for president before and you can make a real contrast.

And I think that that definitely shows up when you look at Kamala to Trump, I mean, there's a big age gap and sort of what Nikki Haley certainly really wanted for the Republican Party to be able to do against Biden is what the Democrats have now shifted to accomplishing themselves. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, so speaking of Nikki Haley, do you think there's a lot of buzz going around that Trump's having buyer's remorse [00:15:30] around J.

D. Vance? You think there's a chance that he'll swap him out or put so much pressure on J. D. Vance that he'll be forced out? I don't see them actually put in Nikki Haley, because I think there's too much animosity. I mean, that would be the smartest thing by far, politically, is to put Haley in as VP. But to go back, because apparently, J.

D. was pushed by Don Jr., because those two are close, over Trump's objections, because he wanted to go [00:16:00] with Doug Burnham, the rich governor from North Dakota. 

Anita Kellogg: No, I don't see him changing vice presidents. 

Ryan Kellogg: You don't think so? I don't think so. He's, I mean, I don't know if you've ever read it, uh, Danny Vance has been tanking out.

And normally a VP shouldn't even get that much attention, but he's been a big time net negative to Trump and everything that he's said and obviously the, The cat lady comment, I think, has been, been the biggest one. 

Anita Kellogg: [00:16:30] My casual perusal of Twitter certainly has shown that sentiment that many people think that, that Trump will dump fans, but I don't think so.

I mean, again, there's lots of unprecedented things that are going on. It'd be a surprise to me. 

Ryan Kellogg: I mean, remember 

Anita Kellogg: different, you have a different, you think he'll dump Vance. 

Ryan Kellogg: I think he is treating this as, as an act of survival. And if he feels cornered at the polls, I mean, I don't see it. People are so fixed.[00:17:00] 

So the polls can only change so much But yeah, maybe there's there's a chance if he feels like he's getting boxed in and this is the one thing that keeping him out of jail then Yeah, but I I don't think I don't think he can fire them per se I think you have to convince them to resign So I don't know what it and then jd vance has to accept his political career is effectively over 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, because 

Ryan Kellogg: he no longer the only reason he won.

Ohio is because he had the blessing of trump and without You [00:17:30] The blessing of Trump. I mean, ask Mike Pence. You're, you're done. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. I don't know. I don't see it happening, but a lot of people do. That's all I have. I've been reading a lot of people are like, oh, it's going to dump fans. It's going to happen anytime.

But that's not, I don't know. Yeah. Well, should we pivot to talking about Kamala's foreign policy? 

Ryan Kellogg: Absolutely. 

Anita Kellogg: Okay, so switching to that, she hasn't had a lot of foreign policy experience herself. She spent two [00:18:00] years as a senator and then as vice president. Biden is considers himself the foreign policy expert.

So there hasn't been really a role for her. Unlike there was more of a role for him under Obama because Obama had only had two years of a senator experience too. And you couldn't say from that, it's really hard to say what a person's foreign policy is going to be. So Kamala though does bring more experience than Obama did because she has had these four years under Biden to be able to meet with leaders and engage [00:18:30] on that level and to learn a lot.

So we wanted to go in and just kind of tease out some of the differences and even similarities between her and the current administration. 

Ryan Kellogg: For the most part, I mean, everything that I've read is largely expecting them to have similar foreign policy views. In contrast to a Trump Vance administration, you know, it's gonna be that post war, rules based, world [00:19:00] order, internationalist.

I think almost no gap in terms of our Ukraine policy, in terms of the support for Ukraine. I think little gap on the China policy, in terms of building up alliances, and Taking a, uh, aggressive approach around economic trade with China and on strengthening military and diplomatic ties, both regionally within Asia and, and with [00:19:30] Taiwan.

Anita Kellogg: One thing though, I thought that was really interesting. There was an article in the Washington Post that was kind of trying to capture the Russian view of the presidential debate. And it was interesting that they saw Kamala as worse than Biden as being more uncertain than Biden. And I thought that was really interesting.

About exactly how she would act and the argument seemed to be that Biden was a known quantity came out of this post cold war defined in those earlier terms, but where Kamala might be more of a [00:20:00] wild card having been more influenced by the last 30 years. Rather than the initial, I don't know. That's certainly the view that they were expressing from the Kremlin.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, and they also expressed it in the most racist, misogynist way possible. Well, Russia did, yes. Yeah, Russia. So I almost dismissed out of hand that I think Russians In general, they're policy makers and think tanks and when they put out like views on the US, I [00:20:30] mean, I like they put out a view on the potential civil war within the US where about our internal politics, they have almost no understanding of our society that at a root level, they take it, whatever, you know, works within Putin's Russia, they try to extrapolate that sort of thought process.

I'm not saying that we're not guilty of those exact same things. in terms of understanding the internal dynamics of other nations. So I think it's just that they view it that way. Also, they cannot, in their minds, [00:21:00] imagine a Black woman having any sort of competence around the area. And that's more what their wild card is coming from, rather than an interpretation of, you know, Oh, yeah, she was.

She's a different generation. She didn't grow up in the Cold War. She doesn't have sufficient respect for the nuclear arsenal of the Russians and their rightful place, you know, within the world and this balance of power, I would think, you know, more than anything. And we'll talk a little bit later about her potential advisors that in [00:21:30] general.

She's going to have more skepticism probably around U. S. power and it's the limits of U. S. power and on this issue, I don't think, you know, there'll be like this more aggressive posture around letting Ukraine strike at will. You know, within Russia or expanding the role of NATO, having no fly zones within Ukraine.

I do not, I don't see those things transpiring under, I see it almost like [00:22:00] as a direct continuation of what NATO policy currently is. 

Anita Kellogg: I agree with that, but I just thought that was an interesting article. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, well, it's good that they're, I guess, I mean, they're off, they're caught off guard and they don't like it.

And that seems like a positive. Anything that upsets Putin, I think is generally a positive. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, definitely. Definitely. 

Ryan Kellogg: The main issue where there may be a gap and maybe a change is [00:22:30] around the Israel Hamas conflict. And again, Harris has been very aligned with the Biden administration in terms of the support for Israel, but where she has kind of differentiated herself is around very vocal sympathy for the plight of the Gazans and the unacceptability of the humanitarian crisis, just both in terms of her word choice and from what I'm reading in her articles, also some of the discussions internally and trying to advocate for a [00:23:00] tougher stance on the Netanyahu administration.

Towards the ending of the war. Did you catch 

Anita Kellogg: any of her speech at the end of her meeting with it? 

Ryan Kellogg: No, I did not. 

Anita Kellogg: I thought it was good just to reiterate all the points you made it was here's this horrible thing that Happened to israel. We stand with israel but there's now this huge humanitarian crisis In gaza and we can't look away from these terrible images that we're seeing and she listed some of the [00:23:30] atrocities and and I liked it.

I thought it was good. It was something certainly that I was looking for or hoping for something just this bring this really empathetic tone to the story. Humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the fact that we can't ignore this in our support for Israel, we can't ignore what's going on in the Gaza Strip. And, you know, it definitely doesn't really necessarily reflect a change in policy, but I think [00:24:00] having a switch in tone is really important.

And as we've talked about with Biden, it's this very hard place because you don't want to lose the Jewish vote. You don't want to seem like you're not standing. firm with Israel, you don't want to seem like you're ignoring the very, very horrible thing that Hamas did to Israel. But at the same time, you can't ignore the humanitarian side of what's happening in Gaza and to show [00:24:30] true empathy for that was important for her to do.

And she did it successfully. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And I think it is, I think it is a legitimate thing and going back to the China and some of her experience on the Senate and some of the committees there, she did sponsor bills that specifically were, you know, when the Hong Kong protests were going on around human rights and then the Uyghurs.

So I think she has a history and I think it is like legitimately felt kind of this empathy for various crisis like that. And I think it is, [00:25:00] I think it's all that she can do at this stage is, is to change that tone because that was something Biden did not explicitly do. And in terms of the sufferings of people within Gaza, I don't see her doing something like announcing a policy change.

Yeah, basically saying to Netanyahu, if this isn't done by January 20th of next year. We're cutting you off from offensive military aid. Because then maybe that has a, that's a good question. Maybe, although [00:25:30] he would, he would leak that. I mean, he would go on Fox news and just basically say that, I mean, not that that's.

I guess, I mean, maybe some swing voters are watching that, but then I think it would probably be made up by more engaged Muslim voters in Michigan. Yeah. If they heard that, like Netanyahu saying, this is outrageous. Yeah. So, I don't, I don't know. No, I don't think she said that. Yeah. I don't think she's quite confident enough to do those sort of games yet, where you're like threatening [00:26:00] future leaders.

That's probably not a spark. 

Anita Kellogg: I don't think it is, but I just wanted to throw it out there. 

Ryan Kellogg: Now Trump, I know he's making back deals constantly, you know, during, um, during these things, but. And the articles I read, they're just so constrained in terms of what, once they become president or in that office that they're constrained, you know, maybe you do want to work towards that, that two state solution, but we've talked about it before.

It's [00:26:30] constrained by Israeli domestic. politics. Netanyahu coming here, giving a speech to Congress at the invitation of Republicans within Congress. That was all for domestic consumption back in Israel. It's to help him show that he's the only one that can wrangle the Americans that knows how to play them and get What is needed for Israeli security, and it's just a way for him to preserve because he's under the same [00:27:00] sort of time clock, probably even more severe than Trump.

As soon as. The election, as soon as he's put up for electoral forces within Israel, he's going to lose. And once he loses, he's going on trial and will likely spend a good part of the rest of his life in jail. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, that's a really interesting perspective that I hadn't considered to what extent. All of this was about Israeli domestic politics.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, and I didn't dream it. I've listened to a couple. I mean, it makes sense given what we've [00:27:30] talked about before with Netanyahu and some of his legal proceedings. But yeah, no, there's, there's definitely been other takes and it's the consensus has kind of been, yeah, this is about Israeli domestic politics.

This is for visuals for, for his. Enemies and for his supporters because I mean obviously the we're not obviously, but the I think since we last talked about it. I mean their Bipartisan war council has fallen apart. You have this [00:28:00] big movement around the hostage The families of the hostages still going on net.

Yahoo Has like a I don't know 30 20 percent 20 30 approval rating. I mean he's under a tremendous amount of domestic pressure and and I think it serves in big contrast, the way that he was received because the last time he did this was he came to Congress and he spoke out when Obama, remember when Obama was in the white house and they were getting ready to sign the Iranian [00:28:30] nuclear deal.

Oh, that's when he came. And Netanyahu came again at the invitation of Republicans and gave this device to speak but it was a much different atmosphere than now and obviously with this Kamala didn't attend. Um, She had other 

Anita Kellogg: things to do. 

Ryan Kellogg: She had other, right. She had other things to do. But the part that I didn't think about it was the visual.

And I think this is probably even more of like, how well her campaign's being run currently. Is during that speech, the head of the Senate sits right next to the [00:29:00] Speaker of the House. So that visual of seeing like you're supporting Netanyahu, The impacts of that domestically, everybody's doing these things for domestic.

That's why I always go back to the understand international politics. You have to understand the individual domestic politics. Of 

Anita Kellogg: course, of course. No, I mean, so no, I thought, thought that too. That's why she did it. She didn't want to have that visual. Yeah, but it was part of not her particular actions, but at the speech, many Democrats did not [00:29:30] attend the speech.

I don't know. I don't think that that was the case. When he came during Obama, 

Ryan Kellogg: yeah, well, you maybe had a little bit I don't, yeah, I don't think so. I don't think you had nearly that many defections from it. 

Anita Kellogg: And then of course, there are pretty extreme protests in DC. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, yeah. And at least the visuals I saw emerging from that did not help the cause of the Palestinians at all.

I mean, the burning of the American flag, the defacing of monuments. Pro [00:30:00] Hamas materia just Not helpful at all. 

Anita Kellogg: No, it's, it's kind of a frustration that it seems like protests get taken over by the pro Hamas people rather than people who just want to bring more focus on the issues of the, the plight of Palestinians.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Cause I think the majority of protesters out, and you would see, you'd see people that are Jewish or support Israel. Otherwise they would are out there supporting the people [00:30:30] of Gaza. But the inability to police internally the movement and to kick out bad actors like these people that are, are pro Hamas really hurts it.

Cause obviously what gets featured in the media is the burning of the American flag, the defacement of those monuments and the, uh, pro genocide of the Israeli people. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, definitely. They were creative though in the maggots in the conference room [00:31:00] of the hotel that he was staying at. That was a creative protest.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, at the Watergate where they were, where they were at dumping maggots and crickets and all sorts of it and basically create a big inconvenience for the housekeeping staff and yeah, people. Unfortunately, 

Anita Kellogg: not that people, you know, they're sort of targeted like Netanyahu do not to clean it up, but I was creative.

So I think there is the question of Saudi Arabia, [00:31:30] there's this question of whether Harris will pursue as much as Biden has seemed to pursue behind the scenes, sort of a normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia in exchange for a security agreement between the U. S. and Saudi Arabia. She has shown more skepticism about that.

She also was one of those who supported legislation restricting arms sales to Saudi Arabia [00:32:00] during Yemeni civil war. So I think there's reasons to think that there might be Some hesitation. She might not embrace this as much. But I think regardless who's in office that they're going to continue to pursue this deal.

Ryan Kellogg: I think so. And I think, I mean, I certainly think in the remaining time available to Biden and his staff that they're going to push hard, you know, I think it was blinking that gave the football [00:32:30] reference that they felt like they were on the 10 yard line, which anybody knows football 10 yard line. I mean, that's the red zone.

Defense gets tough. That definitely does not mean you're going to score even if you are. I mean, if you're on the one inch, you know, the one yard line, then okay, maybe you're close. So 10 yard line. I don't know how to interpret that. It's still difficult to go. And I don't know how they get that because there's so much the domestic and the Netanyahu administration has all the incentives to not do [00:33:00] this.

But I'm saying if they were able to get that, at least heading into a Harris administration, she would have a framework. Towards presumably a two state solution towards normalization. So then it would be more like Biden is already set a pathway for what the Harris administration basically has to has to follow.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, 

Ryan Kellogg: I 

Anita Kellogg: definitely see that. Yeah. One of the areas where there's not maybe a huge difference in actual policies, but in [00:33:30] sort of tone for sure, is she's left of Biden on free trade. Biden actually, under Obama, seemed, you know, he supported the TPP, was more generally a free trader. That shifted in the election because of wanting to make sure that they kept the union vote or got the union vote didn't completely see that Trump and has not pursued any trade deals since he was president.

But I found it really interesting that Kamala was one of only 10 senators [00:34:00] that voted against the replacement of NAFTA under the Trump administration, and that she adamantly voiced opposition to the TPP. under Obama. So obviously this is an area less happy about. She has tied the environment and climate change to our opposition and free trade.

And some think that maybe there might be some smaller trade deals if they address climate change, 

Ryan Kellogg: it seems possible. I mean, it seems like she's more in line with, I mean, in general, we've talked [00:34:30] about this for, I mean, Big trade deals are dead. Yeah. Ne neither party is, has any appetite for those. She kills it off for different reasons or additional reasons than what the right now kills it off for.

Anita Kellogg: Mm-Hmm. . 

Ryan Kellogg: But, you know, essentially it doesn't seem like a big, 

Anita Kellogg: not a difference in policy, but I think just it's a difference in philosophy or, yeah. Mm-Hmm. . 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I 

Anita Kellogg: think it's just worth noting for that. It's always disappointing to me. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I mean it. It'll [00:35:00] come back around, but it may be 20, 30 years. I 

Anita Kellogg: mean, I would certainly feel better about all the U.

S. industrial policy if we were also pursuing trade agreements at the same time. That makes more sense if you're going to say industrial policy is not protectionism. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, the whole, the whole concept. Going back to like French or, and at least we're having these, I mean, we don't even have the free trade deal with the UK and they were bragging about that as a reason for the Brexit is they're going to sign, you know, a big deal with us [00:35:30] and with all the Commonwealth countries and.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, that didn't pan 

Ryan Kellogg: out. That didn't pan out very well. No. 

Anita Kellogg: So it's not like, as you said, that there would be a trade agreement anyway, but certainly her predisposition to it is, I think, still notable. So finally, the only other thing that we have to really suss out her positions are her national security advisor being Philip Gordon.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I think he's been, he's noted on several different articles. So he's being [00:36:00] seen as the one most likely to head up. I think the, the, the general consensus is that the current, Heads of Biden's foreign policy, Jake Sullivan and Anthony Blinken would both not continue on under a Harris administration.

So the only person that the people have been really looking towards is Philip Gordon, who's the current national security advisor to the vice president. He served previously in the Obama and Clinton administrations and is [00:36:30] seen as a Europe. European expert with good extensive experience and in the Middle East, and I think that's where people are most focusing on because he was in charge of U.

S. Middle East policy during the second term of the Obama administration. And this is during a very tumultuous time in the Middle East following the tail end of the Iraq war. Then the beginning of the Syrian war, the famous red line. So he was a strong advocate for avoiding [00:37:00] military engagement and was pushing internally actually to strike a deal with the Syrian government led by Bashar to end the war.

So I think all of this made him for his generation. A lot more skeptical of us power and a lot more pragmatic in terms of its limitations within the middle east I don't think that's a big departure. I think everybody Certainly maybe outside of a certain [00:37:30] kind of remaining subset of neocons on the republican side with like lindsey graham and marco rubio or mike pompeo That would still advocate for military conflict with Iran, that the general consensus is that we want to avoid military confrontation.

And obviously that's been a huge part of the Biden administration, it's extreme, overly cautious approach around Ukrainian aid. Yeah. But it's still [00:38:00] in every other way, you know, internationalist, you know, believes in a central role of the U. S. within the alliance system, but is pragmatic in the sense that has seen the limits of, of U.

S. power and the ability to reshape countries. But again, I don't think that should be a controversial decision that that's fallen so out of favor. Amongst most foreign policy professionals that it's hardly worth noting. So, yeah, I think it's basically experienced [00:38:30] people from Obama from Clinton that would be central to shaping a continuation essentially of Biden policy going forward.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, so I think that's about as much as we can really say about her foreign policy positions at this point. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, it's it's limited information. Obviously, her experience as vice president, I think, is. The central part of what she's going to bring into the role in terms of like foreign policy. [00:39:00] And in that way, she's more experienced than a lot of incoming presidents because of that experience.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, definitely. I want to move on to my interview with Angela Stent, who is an expert on Russia and has written several books on the topic. And I thought we just had a really interesting conversation. As I said, in the introduction, we talked about Putin's execution of the Ukraine war, how US elections might affect that, just another range of issues talking about Russia's relationships with [00:39:30] Iran and North Korea, but then also countries like India.

And many of the other neutral countries that have not taken a side in the Ukraine war. And as I mentioned, again, in the beginning, we also discussed what the far right is saying, their sort of white nationalist dream of allying with Russia against China, that you hear out of people like Bannon. This big promoter of this.

So it was really interesting conversation. Like I said, covered a breadth of topics on Russia, and I know that I learned a [00:40:00] lot from it, and I hope everyone will find it both engaging and educational. I'm here with Angela Stent, a senior non resident fellow at the Brookings Institution, senior advisor to the U.

S. Institute of Peace, and author of Putin's World, Russia Against the West and With the Rest. Hi, Angela, thank you so much for coming on the show. 

Angela Stent: Well, I'm glad to be on your show, Anita. 

Anita Kellogg: So to get started How do the upcoming U. S. elections, as well as the [00:40:30] recent elections in the U. K. and France, affect Putin's calculus regarding Russia's execution of the Ukraine war?

Angela Stent: So, Putin is playing a waiting game. He doesn't mind waiting. He's in this for the long haul. And he has believed, I think, right from the beginning, when the invasion didn't go the way he thought it would in February 22, that if he waits long enough, Western resolves to push back against what the Russians are doing to deny them a victory that that will weaken.[00:41:00] 

And he has seen now in France with the elections, it's unclear what the next government will look like. It's not the far right now. It'll be the left that will have more power, but it may be paralyzed. We don't know whether President Macron can put together. A government and my problem has become a very staunch supporter of Ukraine.

So that's one major European country. In Britain, we have a Labour government. This Labour government appears to be committed to supporting Ukraine. And so that won't change [00:41:30] very much. But the big question for the Russians, of course, is what's going to happen in the US election. We don't know what would happen if Donald Trump were elected, what his policy would be.

Exactly, toward Russia and Ukraine, he has said that NATO was partly to blame for the outbreak of the war. He has said that he would end the war in 24 hours. He hasn't really told us how he's going to do it, but what the Russians would like is for Donald Trump to win the election and for there to be more chaos in the UK.

[00:42:00] US and they would hope then for a more Russia friendly policy and less support for Ukraine. So I think all of these things Putin himself said just the other day, nothing's going to change until after November of this year. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I definitely agree with all those points. So short of taking all of Ukraine, how does Putin define victory in Ukraine?

And what are the odds he will accept negotiations for something less? 

Angela Stent: I mean, he's had different definitions of victory. We know that [00:42:30] his overall goal is to change the government in Ukraine, have a Russia friendly government in Kiev, a government in Kiev that eschews NATO membership. Putin has now softened a little bit on the European Union and has said, well, if they want to join the European Union, they can, but we know that that's a very long way off.

That the ultimate goal is regime change and If not occupying all of Ukraine, at least controlling it, first of all, the four areas that Russia claims to have annexed, [00:43:00] none of which it fully controls, controlling those, making sure that Ukraine will never really be whole again. And if he were to succeed in that, then if Russia regrouped, then I think he set his sights further west as well on the Baltic states, possibly Poland, but that's that's far off.

But certainly. I think his goal remains regime change in Kyiv. 

Anita Kellogg: So definitely a difficulty in ending the war, for sure. 

Angela Stent: Yes. So he, yeah, I [00:43:30] mean, he's not interested in negotiations every so often. He says that he is. He said that just, I guess, last week because he knew the NATO summit was coming up. I'm sure that he wouldn't mind beginning negotiations, but with no real, uh, commitment to ending them.

And he said that the minimum for those negotiations would be the Ukrainian recognition of, of the Russian annexation of those four territories. And of course, Crimea. 

Anita Kellogg: Does Russia have any [00:44:00] sort of timeline or does it feel like it can wage this war almost indefinitely, as long as it can outweigh the Ukraine and the West?

Angela Stent: Well, so you could ask, does Putin have a timeline? Uh, he's about to turn 72, but, um, he seems to be quite patient and Russia now has stepped up its own production of weapons. It's the economy is on a war footing, so it can produce some of what it needs. And then of course it has Iran. [00:44:30] Providing it with drones and North Korea providing it with ammunition with missiles.

So as long as it can get these weapons and China indirectly, at least boosting the Russian military industrial base, exporting components to Russia that can be used in this war. So as long as he has these outside sources of support, he can continue fighting the war. He also has enough men. Even though hundreds of thousands, we now know [00:45:00] have either been killed or severely wounded, but you know, he still has enough young men who we can draft and they're drafting people from other countries.

So manpower is not so much of a problem for him, whereas it is a huge problem for Ukraine. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, definitely. Going to the economy, the West has tried various measures to damage Russia's economy in order to hurt its ability to wage war and turn the population against Putin. What is the domestic situation in Russia today?

So 

Angela Stent: the [00:45:30] sanctions that we have imposed have impacted the Russian financial sector. They have impacted the Russian economy, but not to the extent that the average Russian Really feels it. And in some ways many ordinary Russians are better off now. They were than they were at the beginning of the war. If you do join the army, if you go and fight, you are paid quite high salary, more than you'd be paid if you were trying to get a job, you know, in a factory.

And if you die, your family is given financial [00:46:00] compensation. So. The average Russian has not felt the pinch yet of all the Western sanctions. And I think there was maybe some kind of miscalculation there. Uh, if you go to the main cities, like Moscow, the restaurants are all open. The stores are stocked with goods, not with American or European goods, but from other countries.

And then those Russians that live in the poor benighted areas of Russia. They don't feel any worse off because they weren't really any better off before. And so you're not [00:46:30] going to get people out in the streets because they're hungry. Now, the other thing that's happened domestically in Russia is that under Putin, we've had increasingly greater repression, particularly in the last year.

You have, of course, the death of Alexei Navalny, the really major opposition figure who was, you know, poisoned and essentially denied medical care. You have another Russian critic dissident, Vladimir Karamurza, who is also poisoned by the Russians, who is in Russia, who's [00:47:00] just been moved from his prison to a hospital facility, his health is bad.

And you have a number of leading, other leading opposition figures jailed for a very long time. And there's such a huge disincentive now. To make your views known if you will post the war that very few people do it. And those Russians who opposed the war, many of them left right in the beginning. And so we think up to a million people left Russia, including those who didn't want to be mobilized.

So the economic situation is okay for most Russians, [00:47:30] but the domestic political repression has really increased. And for Putin, this is his way of waging the war and making sure that he can continue to do it. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, very interesting. So Russia's special relationship with China has been crucial to its ability to wage war against Ukraine.

What is the single most important thing that each gives to the other? And are these contributions symmetrical? 

Angela Stent: So Russia would not have been able to [00:48:00] continue or even start this war. Putin would not have been able to, had he not understood that China would support Russia. Now, he was in Beijing in February of 2022.

It's quite possible that he didn't tell. Xi Jinping, what Russia was going to do, that's what the Chinese say. Or they thought that there would be a limited military operation in the Donbas region. But ever since the beginning of the war, China has repeated the Russian narrative, blaming NATO and the West for the war.

Even though it's come [00:48:30] out with its own peace plan, it really hasn't done anything to promote it. And it increasingly looks as if it's supporting Russia. Our own government has said, the National Intelligence officers and things like that have said, the Director of National Intelligence, sorry, the Director of National Intelligence has said, China is Supplying Russia with sophisticated components that it can use in its weaponry and for its military industrial base.

So for Putin, China is the [00:49:00] lifeline. Without China, I don't think that this war would be continuing. Now, what does Russia bring to China? Of course, the energy side of it, oil and gas, although the Chinese are reluctant to sign yet another gas deal with the Russians, the power of Siberia, because they want to get a lower price and because they want to diversify.

But still, from an economic point of view, the energy that they get from Russia is important for their economy. But also, Putin supports Xi Jinping in his quest [00:49:30] for A post West global order is what they both call it. I think they have different ideas about what they would, that would look like, but in China's attempt to wrest control really of the global system from the United States and have one dominated by countries like China and Russia to make the world safer authoritarianism.

And so in that sense, Russia is very important for China. And the other part of that is. The Chinese fear [00:50:00] would be if Putin were defeated in this war for he was somehow to exit the political scene that a new Russian leader might recalibrate Russian foreign policy and might seek an accommodation with the West that would not be in China's interest.

Now, we can look at that and say this is highly unlikely, but that is the Chinese fear. They want to make sure that they have Russia in their camp, in their quest for much greater global dominance. 

Anita Kellogg: Right. So are these [00:50:30] contributions symmetrical or is Russia kind of the junior partner in this relationship?

Angela Stent: So, I mean, Russia is the junior partner in as much as it's very dependent on China, again, to continue conducting the war. But I wouldn't downplay the importance of Russia for China for these other reasons that I gave. 

Anita Kellogg: Sure, definitely. So Putin has also been tightening Russia's alliances with rogue nations like North Korea and Iran.

You mentioned how they're supporting the [00:51:00] war themselves. And recently he signed a mutual defense pledge with North Korea's Kim Jong un. Does this represent a fundamental change to the existing order? Having these countries having such a powerful ally in Russia? 

Angela Stent: So, as I said before, I mean, Putin definitely says that we need a multipolar world, a world order, a post West order.

The era of quote unquote American hegemony is over. And so, in that sense, he is now forming alliances or an [00:51:30] axis of resistance, I like to call it, with countries like Iran, like North Korea, uh, China obviously also as well, um, that challenged the U. S. dominated system. And so, you can already see The beginnings of a change in the world order.

And one of the thing that's things that's happened since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine is that increasingly the countries in what we call the global South have refused to sanction Russia, have refused to condemn Russia and tend to [00:52:00] side with Russia on a lot of these issues. You just had the Indian Prime Minister Modi visit Russia.

In fact, the very day that the Russians bombed the children's hospital in Kiev and wreaked such civilian damage on different parts of Ukraine, he visited Russia because for India, for instance, Russia is an important partner to balance against China. The Indians and the Chinese obviously have their tensions.

And the Indians are very concerned about Chinese ambitions. [00:52:30] So for its own reasons, India, which is also improving its ties with the United States, wanted to cement again, these ties with Russia, it's importing an enormous amount of Russian oil at the moment. And so a country like India, the, the BRICS countries, even the democratic BRICS, South Africa, India, they also agree that you have to have a new world system, one, one, which the U.

S. doesn't dominate so much. And so it's the Ukraine war. And then plus, I would [00:53:00] say, uh, what's happened since October the 7th in the Middle East, the Israel Hamas war, where these countries have also strengthened, if you like, their support for Russia because of what Russia said, not that Russia's doing very much in that conflict, but all of these things have helped strengthen the U.

S. Putin's claim that you have to have a post west order, world order, where countries in the global south have more of a say in how the system is run. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, so [00:53:30] that's exactly what I definitely want to ask you about. In sort of these neutral countries such as India and South Africa and other countries, like, how important are these relationships to Russia and do they signify that the emerging world order may be multipolar rather than the Cold War bipolarity that is often described?

Angela Stent: Yeah, so those relationships are very important to Russia. Last year, I, with a colleague of mine, we did a study for NATO's European [00:54:00] command. We did a number of dialogues with countries in the global South. And what we heard from them, whether it was India, South Africa, Brazil, another democratic group. We talked to the Brazilians, the Mexicans, Indonesians, and even the Turks, although I put them in a, in a different category, was that, why should they care about us?

Europe's problems when Europe and the US don't give enough attention to their own problems. And many of these countries also harbor hostile feelings [00:54:30] towards the United States. And they take a kind of relativistic view of what's happening. You talk with them about what Russia is doing in Ukraine. And they say, well, what about the Vietnam War?

What about the Iraq War? You know, you name your conflict. The US isn't any different from Russia. So you start off with this kind of overlay of resentment towards the United States in a lot of these countries. Now, do we have a multi polar world order? I wouldn't say we're quite there yet. Clearly, you do have rising [00:55:00] powers.

You have China as the main one, but also India, you know, whose economy is strengthening, which has the largest population. That is certainly a rising power. You have these countries and they want to have more of a say in the rules. That govern the world. And by the way, I think the Russians, when they talk about a post world West order, they're not talking about a system with rules.

They're talking about a much more anarchic, disruptive system. But let's say for the rest of the countries, including China, it's one where they want to have more of a [00:55:30] say. So I do believe that as things are unfolding now, and once yeah. hopefully the war in Ukraine is over, and Ukraine is still standing as a, as an independent sovereign country.

And also, all the conflicts in the Middle East when they wind down, you will have, I think these have strengthened let's say the say of some of these leaders. Larger countries in the global South, but still the U. S. We still have the largest economy so far. China, of course, is out there too. We certainly [00:56:00] have the strongest military and we have up till now a very strong alliance system.

Uh, we have the NATO alliance, which has is probably the most successful. Alliance in history. We have strong alliances with our Asian partners, with the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians and New Zealanders. So I'm not going to count the U S out. Certainly not, but I think it will look different in a few years.

And I think if Donald Trump becomes president, that kind of process will accelerate. Do you 

Anita Kellogg: have a [00:56:30] sense of what. sort of how these countries want the world, the rules of the world orders to change? 

Angela Stent: Well, I mean, I think they certainly want more say in the global economy. Um, I mean, this is, you know, you have the G7, you have other kind of Western based alliances and somehow the G20 didn't ever quite work out maybe the way that people had hoped.

So they would like to certainly have more of a say in the rules of the global economy. And [00:57:00] They would like to have more of a say regionally. I think that's the other thing that emerged from this project I did last year. If you talk to the countries in Latin America, they would like to have more of a say about what happens in their region.

And, you know, Latin America, obviously those countries still feel very dominated by the U. S. for historical and economic and all those other reasons. And I think that's probably true in other parts of the world as well. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, that that makes a lot of sense. You mentioned the Modi's [00:57:30] visit and the relationship between Russia and India, but at the same time, an important counterweight to China, the U.

S. is pursuing closer ties with India. So do you think that Russia is able to count on its friendship with India in the long term? 

Angela Stent: I think for the time being it will. I should note that India. used to be and probably still is the largest single purchaser of Russian arms, but those are declining. The Indians, one of the things that the U.

S. has rightly done is to be willing [00:58:00] now to have greater defense contacts with India and to share, uh, to be in the weapons business with The Indians, I think that's important. But I think from the Indian point of view, first of all, India and the Soviet Union were close partners. You know, India was the leader of the non aligned movement during the Cold War.

It does. And right now, from an energy point of view, Russia is very important to India. And as long as China is seen as an adversary in India, [00:58:30] largely, even though again, trade, Indian trade with China is very important. Then I think Russia will fall. count as a balancing power. But I also do see Prime Minister Modi, and this has been going on for a few years now, certainly strengthening ties with the United States and seeking stronger ties with other countries.

So Russia may become relatively less important, but it will still be important. 

Anita Kellogg: You mentioned that Russia, India sees Russia as a counterweight to China, [00:59:00] but That's a little confusing to me given the Russia's sort of alliance with China. So do they see that relationship as a problem? 

Angela Stent: Well, they do see the relationship as a problem.

And you're quite right. It's a little bit contradictory. So Russian, the Russian officials, when they talk to the Indians, apparently say things to them about China or present themselves as a country that can help the Indians with China. Well, what we did see is they were successfully mediated a few [00:59:30] years ago in a Chinese Indian border conflict, but the Indians, and I think this is one of the reasons why Modi.

went to Russia this week. They also understand that they want, that they need to try and maybe impress on the Russians that for them, China is a threat and not that they believe they can distance Russia from China, but just to kind of solidify that relationship with Russia and the support that Russia would give them against China again, if they had another [01:00:00] border issue.

Anita Kellogg: Oh, that's really interesting. Russia developed close ties with many African countries through the activities of the paramilitary group Wagner. Now that this organization no longer exists, what is the status of these relationships? Has Russia simply taken over these operations? 

Angela Stent: So I would say it's maybe not quite accurate to say that Wagner no longer exists.

I mean, parts of Wagner do exist, particularly in places like [01:00:30] Africa where obviously Wagner supported a number of dictators there and gave them security assistance and then benefited from their rich raw materials, made a lot of money in Africa too. Now, Most of Wagner has now been absorbed by something that the Russians now call the Africa Corps, which is quite ironic when you think that Hitler, of course, that was what he called his army that was fighting in Africa.

Anyway, the Russians call it the Africa Corps. So it is. [01:01:00] nominally, at least, controlled by the Russian government. I would say even when at the heyday of Wagner, when Yevgeny Prigozhin wrote High, the relationship between Wagner and the Russian government, the Ministry of Defense, was complicated. So these elements of Wagner certainly still exist in a place like Africa, in Libya, in Syria.

They're not called Wagner anymore, but although they still have, I think, a telegram channel where they broadcast, but their [01:01:30] activities and the money they were making, that's something, uh, that the Russian government, the Kremlin's very interested in. You also have now, uh, a proliferation of a number of different private military companies, uh, in Russia.

I mean, Gazprom has its own private military company and a number of other companies and oligarchs do. And so they kind of blend in with the Wagner people, but the people who were fighting for, for Wagner mainly are still there in many of these countries. It's [01:02:00] just that they're not controlled or they're not, um, answerable anymore to Prokhorchin and his deputies.

Anita Kellogg: Oh, that's interesting. So here's a question I have for you. It's a little out there, but the far right in many countries in the West, including the U. S., advocates for a white nationalism that would embrace Russia as an ally, given that it breaks its special relationship with China. In this scenario where the far right has sufficient [01:02:30] political power to pursue this agenda, how realistic is it that Russia would agree to this alliance?

Thank you. 

Angela Stent: Russia is not going to break its ties with China anytime soon. I mean, China, as I said, is its lifeline. It's been getting closer and closer to China. Yes, it's the junior partner. It's an asymmetrical relationship, but it wouldn't break that relationship unless it got something in return. that it really wanted, and far right nationalist groups aren't going to give it that.

What you do [01:03:00] have is that, and you know a number of far right groups in this country, in Europe, um, and I'm going to quote Steve Bannon here, on close confidant of Donald Trump, who said a number of years ago, Putin is the last savior of the white race. Now, of course, that's quite ironic. Uh, Russia has, uh, more than 20 million Muslims living in the Russian Federation, but he and Putin, the Kremlin, have to be very careful balancing their relations with Putin.

the [01:03:30] different Muslim populations in the North Caucasus, in Tatarstan, in other parts of Russia. But what the Russians are doing, of course, is they certainly appeal to the far right and the far left in democratic countries. They have conferences every year where they unite some of these people. They've even had, you know, Texas separatists go to these conferences.

So they certainly have links with these groups, but They're not going to break a relationship with [01:04:00] China just to please one of these far right groups. And so far, it doesn't look as if any far right white nationalist group is going to come to power in any Western country soon. I've seen stories of where some of these people have moved to Russia from the U.

S. and from some other European countries, again, getting, hoping to get away from, you know, what they would think is, is wokeness and all the things they don't like about the U. S. and [01:04:30] about Europe. And I'm not sure how well they're getting on there, but, but I think that's a pipe dream for these, uh, far right groups if they think that Russia would break with China, as I say, without, it would have to get something.

enormous in return, both economically and in terms of, you know, Xi Jinping never criticizes Putin for what he does domestically. Putin never criticizes Xi Jinping for what happens in China domestically. Neither of them criticize, you know, Iran, North Korea, whatever [01:05:00] country you want to name for what they're doing domestically.

And I think it's going to be, it would be very hard for him to find a substitute for that somewhere else. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, going to a more realistic scenario that Perhaps Donald Trump becomes president of the United States. Do you think that he desires a closer relationship with Russia, maybe influenced by some of this white nationalism?

And do you think that he would be able to accomplish that? 

Angela Stent: Yes. So first of all, [01:05:30] again, the thing that A lot of Trump, and we know that a lot of people who support Trump, support Russia in this war against Ukraine, you know, blame previous democratic administrations for what's happened there, you know, particularly the Biden administration.

When Trump first came into office in 2017, he certainly did want a closer relationship with Russia, and I think he'd so like to have a closer relationship with Russia. He admired, he admires strongman leaders, we know that, and we know from [01:06:00] when he was in power. Uh, the infamous press conference that he had in Helsinki with President Putin when he was asked whether he believed his own intelligence officers about Russian interference in the 2016 election and standing next to Putin, he said no, he believed Putin.

That was, uh, you know, obviously a shock to any of his, uh, colleagues too. So he would like a closer relationship with Russia. I think he would have liked to have some major Arms [01:06:30] control agreement with Russia, for instance, and that was one of his goals in his first term, but that right now the Russians aren't interested in a major arms control agreement.

And indeed, the Trump administration pulled out of a number of arms control agreements with Russia. I'm sure that he would like A closer economic relationship with Russia. We know that for years, he was trying to build a Trump tower in Moscow and to have construction projects there. Well, as long as you have all these sanctions, that's not going to happen.

And by [01:07:00] the way, a lot of the sanctions that now exists were first introduced in the Trump administration. Obviously, it's gotten much. tighter and the sanctions have grown, uh, since the invasion of Ukraine. So the question is, how would he get a closer relationship with Russia? If the Trump administration stopped support for Ukraine, um, that clearly would be a major element in it.

Could the Trump administration persuade the Ukrainians to sit down and concede what the Russians want, at least the minimum of what the Russians [01:07:30] want, which is recognition of the annexation of the four territories in Ukraine? issuing, trying to get back Crimea, I'm not so sure that he'd be able to do that because I think the Ukrainians will continue fighting as long as they need to, and a number of their European backers will continue to assist them.

But I'm sure that what he would seek were he to be elected president would be a summit with President Putin, but I don't know how really clear or well out his [01:08:00] ideas are. I've looked now at the Republican platform for the convention this week, which is very short and has practically nothing on foreign policy.

It's mainly about domestic politics. So I really have no idea what he would do. And I don't really know whether anyone else does either. 

Anita Kellogg: So on that, and like I said, you said you weren't sure, but there's a lot of concern that he would pull back U. S. support for Ukraine. And of course, there was a lot of difficulty in [01:08:30] passing this latest Ukraine aid package.

Do you think that's really threatened by a future Trump administration? Or do you think there's enough support in the Republican Party that he will go along with and still maintain? the kind of trajectory the U. S. has been on in supporting Ukraine? 

Angela Stent: Well, I think part of that depends on the makeup of the next Congress.

I mean, right now, Congressional Republicans, by and large, in both houses, with some exceptions, [01:09:00] favor continuing support for Ukraine, including Speaker Johnson, even though it took them so long to agree to get this package of aid passed because of these other domestic issues. So, if you had a similar makeup, Of the U.

S. Congress. And I think it would be very difficult for him to cut off assistance to Ukraine. Timmy, he has executive power. We've seen with President Biden that he's used his executive power to send more assistance to Ukraine. Now, if you have a different composition for Congress, [01:09:30] if you have had a larger Republican majority in the House and maybe also in the Senate, and you had more Senators and representatives from the Republican Party were skeptics about Ukraine, then I think would be easier for him to do it.

So I think a lot of that will depend. He can't do it single handedly. A lot of that will depend on the on the makeup of the Congress. 

Anita Kellogg: So what do you think is the most important thing the West needs to understand about Russia? 

Angela Stent: I think [01:10:00] it needs to understand that for whatever reason, and because, you know, we did deal with Putin, uh, before 2022, even after 2014, but for whatever reason, Putin has now reached a point where he's very intransigent.

He does not believe that Ukraine is a separate nation or state, and he is not going to be willing To recognize Ukraine as an independent country, irrespective of its borders. He sees [01:10:30] the West as the main enemy. He believes that Russia is at war with the West and he believes that Russia can prevail and therefore he doesn't have to make concessions.

And he's doing this at a time when domestic dissent is really crashed when the repression that's happening in Russia is on a par with what happened under Stalin, not even with what happened, certainly in the Gorbachev era, or probably in, in the late [01:11:00] seventies, early eighties in the Brezhnev and then his successors.

So he really has a very, has very tight control. As far as we know, there are no serious threats to his hold on power. For 24 hours when Prigozhin had staged his mutiny, there was some question about what would happen and we saw then that very few of the elites came out and showed their hands which side they were on, but right now he doesn't seem to have any major opposition to him.

Having [01:11:30] said all of that, of course, we've all been run about Russia before and we can be surprised But I think at the moment, you know, the what people need to know in this country with in with their allies going forward is that we are dealing with. a ruler who sees us as the main enemy, who for whatever reason believes that we're out to weaken Russia, to quote unquote, you know, take parts of Russia back.

All of these things he said to justify his quote unquote special military operation in [01:12:00] Ukraine, and that he doesn't really appear to be willing to compromise on anything. So I think it's going to be very, very difficult. For the next few years, and we shouldn't assume that if he weren't in power anymore, that his successor would be that different.

Maybe somewhere down the road, things will change, but he's now been appointing the next generation of president. people who he assumes will take power. These are the sons and daughters of people who are already in the elite. [01:12:30] He's appointed his first cousin once removed, a woman as a deputy defense minister, and then the sons of a number of his key aides in top positions in the Kremlin.

So he's trying to prepare a succession where, first of all, his own family's safety, security would be guaranteed, but where you will have people who share the worldview. As far as we know of their parents generation, and they're supposed to continue and perpetuate that. So it's, it's a, I would say it's [01:13:00] a pretty grim outlook, at least as far as we can see in the future.

Anita Kellogg: See, just one last question, I think about what you're talking about, and it keeps. I keep thinking, is there any hope for an end to the Ukraine war anytime soon, or do you think it will be a very long-term stalemate or even Ukraine losing its ability to resist Russia? 

Angela Stent: So I don't see any end to the war in sight at the moment.

It's certainly gonna go on, um, through [01:13:30] 2025. The Ukrainians so far. Even though they've lost all these people and the poor civilians are subject to these constant bombardments. And again, we saw the tragedy with the children's hospital. And, you know, you've had children who've been learning in school and underground shelters for the past two and a half years.

So the civilian toll is terrible, but the will of the Ukrainians to fight on is still there. Even though we, we can also see instances of Ukrainians who do not want to be [01:14:00] mobilized, that will is still there. If that will weakened and Zelensky, his support is less than it was when the war broke out, but he still has a majority of the country supporting him.

So as long as that happens, the Ukrainians will continue to fight because for them, it's an existential question. It's the existence of Ukraine as a viable state. Whatever its borders are, and we really won't know what that will look like. And the Russians can continue fighting because, [01:14:30] as I said at the beginning, they have the men and they do have the weapons.

And it's, it's very hard to see what would induce Putin to stop fighting. He doesn't care about the casualties. So the, the war could go on for some time. If you have a Trump administration and if there's no more support for Ukraine and if you were to have governments come to power in Europe that would lessen their support for Ukraine, then it would be much more difficult for the Ukrainians continue [01:15:00] to continue to fight and they might have to sit at the negotiating table at some point, but at the moment it looks as if it will certainly continue at least through 2025.

Anita Kellogg: Well, thank you so much for coming on the show and sharing your insight with us. I definitely learned a lot and I think the listeners will too. Thank you. Well, I think that brings us to the end of this episode of Kellogg's Global Politics. You can visit our website at [01:15:30] www. kelloggsglobalpolitics. com and follow us on X, formerly known as Twitter, Take care.

At global Kellogg or me, AR Kellogg, 

Ryan Kellogg: you can also reach us by email. So need at Kellogg's global politics. com and myself, Ryan at Kellogg's global politics. com. As always, please see the show notes for the articles we discussed in this episode. And if you like the show, please take time, tell your friends, share it on your social sites.

It's a simple, quick, and free way to support the show. 

Anita Kellogg: Thanks, [01:16:00] everyone. 

Ryan Kellogg: Thanks. Bye.