Joining us now on this Saturday is Bill Taylor, former US ambassador to Ukraine. He's currently

a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council. Ambassador, great to have you with us once again,

and let's start with this attack and sort of how you see it in the broader

sweep of of what's been happening in this war over the last few months. I know

that you were in Ukraine just a couple of months ago, and so much of what

we've heard in recent weeks on this show is that Ukraine has gained the upper hand

here, has had an advantage, has been pursuing more targets within Russia itself in Saint Petersburg

and and in Moscow. What does this latest round of attacks that we saw overnight tell

you about the trajectory of this war?

Well, David, this tells us that Putin is willing to fire at civilian targets, increase the

number of these ballistic missiles that he fires into Ukraine, into the capital, but not just

the capital. My sense is he's desperate to try to get the Ukrainians to quit, to

surrender, to stop fighting, and they won't. As you say, I've been there many times over

the past four years, and, and they are determined to last it out. They are determined

to maintain their independence. So this is just the latest version of what Putin's trying to

do.

Ambassador, I do wanna ask you. It can't be a coincidence that this, this larger attack

comes right after we heard from the president him backing away from that pledge to give

Ukraine interceptors. We have some sound, from the cabinet meeting I'm gonna let you listen to.

Now we have not agreed to that. We're we're talking about it, but it's a hard

thing to give away that kind of technology.

That's basically being asked if they have agreed, which it seemed like that agreement was going

forward to let Ukraine license Patriot missiles. We had Republican Mike McCall on the show who

said it was incredibly important, and he was gonna fight with the White House not on

the White House, but the defense contractors if they were in the way. Why do you

think the president has changed his mind on this, and how consequential is that to the

conflict at this point?

Well, the consequences for the conflict, Christina, at this point are fair frankly, small. That is

even if these license were granted as president Trump said they were going to be in

Ankara last month. Even if they were granted today, it would be a long time, months,

maybe a year before the Ukrainians could actually start pumping out these Patriot missiles. So the

immediate effect is is not great. What should happen, what needs to happen is other nations,

as well as The United States, we should provide the Ukrainians with the missiles that exist

right now. They are being bombarded, as you've just reported, every night, every night with these

long range ballistic missiles from Russia. And the only thing that can stop them right now

are these Patriot missiles. And there are Patriot missiles that are available. Yes. The stocks have

been drawn down by the war in Iran, but there are missiles in inventories that could

be used. And the Ukrainians are not waiting. Ukrainians are not waiting for these licenses that

may or may not come as the president has said. He may be backing off of

that. Ukrainians are making their own developing their own version of Patriots.

Just gonna cite something else that's happened here over the last few hours. So we had

those comments from president Trump, and then there was a tweet, a post on x from

president Zelensky about a conversation that he had with vice president Vance by telephone, called it

a good phone call. Quote, we followed up on our recent meetings with president Trump in

Washington, which was positive and productive as Russia's air attacks on our country continue unbated. Air

defense, specifically Patriot interceptors against ballistic missiles, remains a top priority. What is your sense of

the the quality of communication here between Ukraine's president and the Trump administration? We we could

go back to the NATO summit, which there was that meeting between president Zelensky and president

Trump, and I think a good deal of happy talk and good feeling about how that

went. Do do you feel like the president at this point in time from the comments

that he made at that cabinet meeting and and elsewhere, is is seeing this conflict in

a different light than he had before?

I think so, David. I think he is. And I think the reason is he's president

Trump recognizes that, as you've just reported, Ukraine is actually on the front foot. They have

the initiative. They are pushing back on the Russians, firing deep into Russia, with these long

range missiles that they make themselves, the long range cruise missiles that they make themselves, as

well as killing more Russians on the frontline in Ukraine, than the Russians can recruit. So

the Russians are having difficulty on the battlefield. They can't defend themselves against the Ukrainian missiles,

but they the Ukrainians are vulnerable to these ballistic missiles, and they need those interceptors. They

need the Patriot interceptors now even while they develop their own.

The attrition rate for Russian soldiers is really startling. We've got president Zelensky was talking about

that, on Fox News on Tuesday.

So now Putin is losing 30,000 his soldiers per month. It's I mean, this is a

big I mean, too much losses losses like president Trump says. It's many losses, but he

doesn't want to stop this war. So now initiative not in the hands of Putin.

The claim from Ukraine there is is that the Russians are losing 20,000 soldiers per month.

If this war turns into a war of attrition, logic would think the larger country will

last longer, but it's not really an even conflict like that. The other thing that comes

to mind is, you know, the USSR played this game in Afghanistan, and it precipitated the

fall of the Soviet Union. Is there a risk here to the security of Putin to

the Russian government if this continues at this rate?

Christina, you're absolutely right. There is that risk, and you're right to point out that the

that the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan led to the fall of the Soviet Union. That has

to worry Putin. That has to worry Putin as the pressure builds on him. And and

president Zelensky is right. The ratio of Russian soldiers to Ukrainian soldiers killed is eight to

one. Eight Russians for one Ukrainian. But that's that's not sustainable. Putin has to realize that

he cannot win, that he's losing on the battlefield. His economy is in very bad shape,

thanks to sanctions, but also thanks to the Ukrainian attacks. Putin's gonna have to end this

war soon, or or as you just pointed out, he's in trouble like the Soviet Union

was.

I wanna pull back if we could. I wanna ask you just about The US's attitude

toward Europe more broadly now, and I saw a piece this morning by Paul McClethwait of

Politico writing about how the Pentagon is giving up leadership of a US led NATO command

in V spot in Germany. This is the special the security assistance group rather. What does

that tell you? The the statement from the Pentagon that Paul McClethwait got is that SAGU

was always meant to be temporary. This effort is aimed at burden shifting within the alliance

to support Ukraine and to align US resources in accordance with the national defense strategy. Let

let's linger on that for for a moment here, and I'm curious what your thoughts are

about The US changing tack, changing position at a moment when it does seem like, there

is a lot of European, certainly, international interest in what's happening here in Ukraine and what

it means for for the continent more broadly.

There you're exactly right. You're exactly right. Europeans are stepping up. Europeans feel the threat of

Russia more directly than our Pentagon, apparently. The Europeans are stepping up financially. They provided a

$100,000,000,000 loan. It's gonna keep their Ukrainians going for a good two years with weapons as

well as their government. So the Europeans are also buying weapons from The United States manufacturers

and providing them to the Ukrainians. The Europeans and the European members of NATO are really

stepping up, and that is having an effect. That is having a real effect. It's too

bad for us. That is we're we're forfeiting. As you just indicated, we're forfeiting leadership. But,

you know, the Europeans are stepping up, and the Ukrainians appreciate the Europeans' leadership.

I think the president and this administration would argue that it's well past time for Europe

to step up to contribute more to their own defense, and that's an argument that even

president Obama agreed within his time. He was constantly frustrated with NATO allies. But is there

something The US gives up? Does The US lose control, lose influence, and lose the ability

to wield that large body of allies by pulling back and allowing Europe to take more

control of its own destiny?

Christina, both things are true. That is the Europeans are stepping up. They are developing they're

developing their own defenses. They are able to operate and increasingly able to operate on their

own, and that's a good thing. That's even a good thing for NATO, for the Europeans

to be able to do that. But you're exactly right. The United States, we need allies.

We see this in every conflict. We need allies. We need allies to deter the Russians.

We needed allies to deter the Soviet Union. We need allies in every conflict that we've

been involved in. And our leadership, The US leadership in NATO was extremely valuable. We're not

losing that totally because we do provide incredible amounts of of capability to NATO, but the

Europeans are stepping up, and Europeans stepping up is a good thing. It will make it

will make your it will make NATO stronger.

Ed, you've mentioned they have been providing more and more defense, aid to Ukraine. Before we

leave this topic, I did wanna get your take on the politics within Ukraine and this

cabinet shuffle that we've seen with Zelensky dismissing the defense minister Fedorov. Very controversial decision led

to street protests led to the dismissal in the end of essentially the equivalent of their,

you know, chief of the armed services. Was this a strategic blunder for Zelensky? Can he

recover from this, and do you think he's making the right moves following this?

So it was a mistake, by president Zelensky, but the the mistake was not a a

cabbage hole. The new prime minister knows a lot about getting ready for the winter. He

comes from the oil and gas industry. He knows how to prepare for the winter. The

new prime minister, Govzny, can can bring a big benefit for Ukraine. On the military side,

yes, the young defense minister, now now out of the job, but and, again, that was

probably a mistake on the part of Zelensky. However, he rectified it right away. I mean,

as you just said, the the Ukrainians came to the streets and protested that. They really

protested the leadership of the of the top general. Yeah. And president Zelensky listened and replaced

the top general with a new younger general. And so I think on net, Ukraine is

probably better off after this cabinet reshuffle even with the change in the defense ministry.

Bill Taylor, I wanna get in the time machine here. Go back to 2006. You were

working with the quartet. You were working on Gaza, and the effort to get Israel to

disengage from that that region, working with James Wolfinson on that among among others. What are

you thinking as you read the latest post from the president about the deal that he

says his board of peace has brokered here as you see the back and forth continuing

here between Israel and the Palestinians about who would do what first and and how this

could come to pass. Do do you read that news from the president as as positive?

Do you see it as indicating that there's any kind of deal in the offing here?

What would it take?

So, David, if you go back in in history, that's a that's a great question. Yes.

We did some good work. Tim Walt Tim Wolfinson, may he rest in peace, did some

very, very good work getting the Israelis and the Palestinians to agree on the Israeli withdrawal

from Gaza, and that was a success. It was it was very controversial, but they agreed

the Israelis agreed to withdraw from Gaza, and Jim Wolfensen and his team helped on that.

That's what's necessary today. That kind of working with the Israelis and the Palestinians to come

up with a a formula, which it probably includes a state for Palestine, in order to

get to a place where there's gonna be peace in that region.

And, Massar, given where Netanyahu is in the election cycle, given the viability of a Palestinian

state at this time, I mean, people aren't even speaking like it's an option anymore. Is

that a realistic goal at this point? And if not, what is the alternative?

But, Christina, that's the problem. That's the problem. There is no alternative that anyone has come

up with. There needs to be a there needs to be two states, Israel and Palestine.

There need to be probably different leadership in both, and that's possible because the current leadership

in in both is not able to come up with this. But that is the that's

the end goal. That has to be the end point. There's not an alternative.