Latest news with #Vindman
CBS News
18-05-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman confirms US Senate run in one-on-one interview
One-on-one with retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman Jim devotes the entire half hour to a sit-down interview with retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. During the interview, Jim breaks the news that Vindman is considering a run to represent Florida in the U.S. Senate as a Democrat. Vindman, who was the director of European Affairs for the National Security Council during President Donald Trump's first term, reported a conversation he heard between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in which Trump asked Zelenskyy to investigate the Biden family as a favor to him, while also threatening to withhold military aid. Vindman reported what he heard, and it was because of him that Trump was impeached by the House.. Jim and Vindman also discuss the war in Ukraine and threats at home. Guest: Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman/U.S. Army (Ret.)
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US overestimated its ability to deal with Russia over past 35 years, Alexander Vindman says
Russia's war against Ukraine is a continuation of Moscow's centuries-long goal to obliterate Ukrainian culture and statehood. Over the past three decades, however, the United States has, through missteps and inaction, emboldened Russia's aggression by failing to confront the looming threat — a failure which, under the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, could lead to a disastrous aftermath for Ukraine. This argument lies at the core of retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman's latest book, 'The Folly of Realism: How the West Deceived Itself About Russia and Betrayed Ukraine.' Vindman served as the director of European affairs for the U.S. National Security Council during Trump's first presidency. In his new book, he critically examines the flaws of a foreign policy that prioritizes short-term strategic interests over global cooperation and a moral foundation in politics, contending that the West's reliance on transactional geopolitics has undermined its credibility and emboldened authoritarian regimes. In an interview with the Kyiv Independent, Vindman shared his thoughts on the stalled progress of a U.S.-brokered peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, why the U.S. continues to view Ukraine through a Russian lens, how Russian President Vladimir Putin manipulates Trump, and why Vindman thinks a neo-idealist approach can triumph over realist geopolitics in our lifetime. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. The Kyiv Independent: During the presidential election, Trump claimed that he could put an end to the war between Ukraine and Russia immediately upon coming into office. And now we have (U.S.) Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying that achieving peace will take time. What do you think of the latest events in the ongoing peace process? Alexander Vindman: There's a saying that we started using with regard to Trump: 'You have a concept of a plan. You don't have a(n actual) plan.' There was always an illusion that a quick peace was possible. It was merely rhetoric for populist consumption — the idea that Putin would grant peace before Trump's inauguration or soon after. In reality, negotiating peace is not in Russia's interest. Russia seeks to subordinate all of Ukraine, and until it is proven that they cannot achieve that — meaning there must be more robust support for Ukraine to counter those aspirations — there is little hope of convincing Russia to agree to any kind of peace settlement. On the other hand, Ukraine is desperate for peace in some respects, but not at the cost of its sovereignty, territorial integrity, or national unity. There is currently no real prospect for lasting peace, and the approach Trump is taking is the worst possible one. By granting significant concessions to Putin early on, he allows Russia to bank those gains while continuing to advance its objectives at no cost. This only delays any real chance for peace. Rubio seems to understand this, but the key question is when the broader realization will come. It will likely take time — ultimately, Putin will have to convince Trump himself that peace is not possible. Only when it becomes undeniable that Putin is acting in bad faith and has no intention of delivering on peace might the U.S. change its approach — but it's going to be some time before we get there. The Kyiv Independent: Why do you think the Trump administration is so eager to appease Russia? Alexander Vindman: It's some theater of the absurd. Rubio understands that tough language and strong actions are necessary, but he also knows that Trump has a deep, long-standing desire to be friendly with Putin. This pattern has been evident for years. In some ways, this approach will have to run its course. Russia will need to repeatedly prove itself as an unyielding bad actor — demonstrating, yet again, that it cannot and will not deliver on peace. Yes, of course, Russia sounds very friendly and accommodating — because they understand that the easiest way to get something out of Trump is to flatter him. The Ukrainians can also be accommodating in certain regards, using polite language and expressing gratitude. However, where they refuse to compromise is on their sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the need for guarantees. They have the clearest understanding of Russia's repeated violations of agreements, whereas Trump's perception of Russia remains deluded. "Trump's perception of Russia remains deluded." So now there's pressure on the EU, but it's unlikely to yield significant results. Over the past 70 days — a very brief period in the Trump administration — the U.S. has proven to be a bad actor, friendly to adversaries while being adversarial to allies. It has pressured friendly economies, broken with common threat perceptions, and abandoned shared democratic values and interests. Because of this, I don't think the pressure on the EU will work. Instead, we'll likely see more manipulation of Trump — things that sound good on the surface but ultimately lead nowhere. This will be especially true with Russia. I also think the Ukrainians may adopt some of that same diplomatic, nice-sounding language. Sure, people are happy to say they'll do something, but there's no real follow-through — Europeans included. This is the unfortunate reality of dealing with Trump: it's not about substance, but rhetoric. What matters is what sounds good — political announcements rather than concrete action. That's the transactional nature of Trump. I hope the Ukrainian leadership recognizes that there's little they can do to win his favor or change his stance toward Russia. Unfortunately, Ukraine will have to stand firm, and there's a strong chance that U.S. support could be suspended for an even longer period. The real urgency lies with Europe stepping up in a bigger way to fill some of those gaps. But they can't replace U.S. support entirely, America's absence just leaves too large a vacuum. Join our community Support independent journalism in Ukraine. Join us in this fight. Support us The Kyiv Independent: Amid all this we have seen some worrying comments from U.S. officials, most notably, Steve Witkoff telling Tucker Carlson that the Russian-occupied regions of Ukraine are Russian-speaking and therefore somehow want to be part of Russia, ignoring the fact that annexation occurs at gunpoint. We can even say this misunderstanding of Ukraine happened before the Trump administration. Former U.S. President George H.W. Bush was warned by Soviet officials about so-called dangerous nationalists in Ukraine who wanted independence. Former U.S. President Barack Obama wanted to have a 'restart' with Russia, and under his term we had the illegal annexation of Crimea and the start of the invasion of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. So why do you think the U.S. continuously looks at Ukraine from a Russian perspective? Alexander Vindman: This is the central theme of my latest book, 'The Folly of Realism: How the West Deceived Itself About Russia and Betrayed Ukraine.' The title should have been in the present tense because this isn't just a past mistake, though — it's an ongoing pattern. For 35 years, across six U.S. administrations — dealing with (former Russian President Boris) Yeltsin, Putin, and various Ukrainian presidents — the U.S. has consistently overestimated its ability to achieve more with Russia than is realistically possible. Russia has its own worldview and interests. It seeks to be the regional hegemon, maintaining a privileged sphere of influence over its former empire, now independent states. For decades, it has used influence, coercion, and hybrid warfare — ranging from election interference to outright military aggression — to achieve this goal. This approach is fundamentally at odds with U.S. values and interests, at least historically — though that may not seem to be the case under Trump. The U.S. leadership has repeatedly succumbed to both hope and fear: hope that Russia could be engaged more constructively, and fear that holding Russia accountable — by condemning its actions or placing conditions on engagement — would only worsen relations. Because this cycle has played out repeatedly, Putin, who has been in power for 25 years, has grown increasingly emboldened. He has escalated from political manipulation to outright military aggression. In many ways, the West contributed to this by fostering a sense of impunity, allowing Putin to push boundaries without consequences. We also missed countless opportunities to support Ukraine, especially after the Orange Revolution, when Ukraine made a decisive shift toward the West, breaking from its historically Russian-leaning orientation. We could have invested in Ukraine — financially, through strategic partnerships to aid its transformation, and militarily to strengthen its defenses against Russian aggression. If we failed to act in 2004, there was even less excuse by 2008, after the Russia-Georgia war. And by 2014, when Russia first invaded Ukraine, our restraint was entirely indefensible. We have repeated the same mistakes time and again, and now, under Trump, we're seeing history repeat itself — only in an even more extreme and exaggerated form. It may look different, but it follows the same pattern: falling for Russian propaganda and buying into the myth of Russian exceptionalism. Witkoff, in particular, embraces this narrative wholesale — almost like a child parroting what he's been told. And I believe there are two reasons for this. First, he simply doesn't care about Ukraine. That much should be clear. The Trump administration also couldn't care less about Ukraine. They would gladly sacrifice Ukraine for nothing if they believed it would help normalize relations with Russia. That's not just malice — it's maximum malice. But it's also maximum ignorance, because they fail to grasp that this approach won't end the war. The entirely transactional strategy the U.S. has maintained toward Russia has been counterproductive, making the situation far worse. Instead of fostering better relations, it has led to an even more deteriorated bilateral dynamic. Had we upheld our principles and consistently supported Ukraine at key moments over the past 35 years, we wouldn't be in this position today. The Kyiv Independent: In your book, you advocate for an alternative ideology to realism called neo-idealism. For those in our audience who haven't had the chance to read your book, could you briefly go into what that is? Also, how realistically do you see a country like the U.S. adopting a neo-idealist approach in our lifetime? Alexander Vindman: Very realistic. So, let me start there: we will all (go into this thinking that we will) live long and prosperous lives, which makes it easier to make such predictions. The book, in fact, fundamentally rejects realism, which fosters a hyper-transactional approach. When countries pursue their national interests maximally, everything becomes about immediate deals. This is where someone like Trump becomes the ultimate embodiment of the folly of realism. Looking back at multiple points in history — whether it's Ukraine's independence, where the U.S. tried to suppress it with the infamous 'Chicken Kyiv' speech; the denuclearization efforts under (Former U.S. President Bill) Clinton; the missed opportunity after the Orange Revolution; or the failure to constrain Russian aggression during the Georgia War and the war that started in 2014 — it's clear that realism has consistently failed. Given that, we need to start looking for alternatives. We don't want to keep repeating these failures. My proposal is a return to core values in U.S. foreign policy — specifically, recognizing that values and interests are indivisible. In democracies, values should be central to our understanding of national interest. Does that mean we always sacrifice our interests for values? No, that's highly impractical. There are too many countries that are realists or transactional, and they control things the U.S. needs — like oil in Saudi Arabia. Sometimes, we have to be practical when dealing with adversaries, like negotiating strategic arms control agreements. These can be a net positive for the global community, and we've successfully managed to separate that approach from the broader deterioration of U.S.-Russia relations. However, what we shouldn't do is constantly and consistently sacrifice our values for our interests. If we do, we become overly transactional and repeat the mistakes of the past. So, my solution is practical: we need to rebalance. We should shift away from a hyper-transactional approach and place values at the forefront. This course correction is necessary to prevent further damage to U.S. foreign policy. We're making all sorts of mistakes and damaging important relationships. We need to rebalance, which means putting values first. From there, we can begin to focus on what truly matters. The most critical partners for us are our fellow democracies — they are the source of both security and stability. Europe, in particular, has been one of the most vital security arrangements we've had. Our fellow democracies, not empty promises from Putin to (Former U.S. President) George (W.) Bush about fighting the global war on terror, have stood by us when we've been under pressure — just as they did after 9/11. This isn't about superficial pledges; it's about the legitimate support we received from our democratic allies, even as we fought some misguided wars in the Middle East for 20 years. They were there for us, and it's not just about security — it's about prosperity and focusing on democracies. It's about strengthening and hardening our fellow democracies, many of which are under pressure and being attacked by aggressive regimes, especially through election interference. It's about supporting struggling democracies, including neighbors like Hungary and Slovakia, which are facing a shift away from democracy. It's about nurturing democratic institutions around the world as they come under increasing attack from authoritarian regimes. That's the core idea. It's not just theory — it's a very practical rebalancing. And I believe we have practitioners of this approach. Ukraine is often seen as an exemplar of neo-idealism, defending the democratic world against authoritarianism with its own blood and some Western support. But there are other examples in eastern and northern Europe, as well as pockets of neo-idealism in the U.S. The reason I'm confident we'll get there is that we're going to face so many challenges to our institutions over the next four years that a correction will be inevitable. Many people will be left behind. Too many will be the losers in this Trump-driven approach that enriches the wealthy at the expense of working people. That correction will give us an opportunity to focus on a values-based approach. I foresee significant challenges for Ukraine in the next six months. I believe the U.S. will scale back its support, and the Europeans may be too slow to increase theirs. But Ukraine is not where it was three years ago — it now has an industrial base that can withstand some of these challenges. Russia, too, is under immense pressure. So, I view this more pragmatically: this is where we'll end up, from a survival perspective. Hey there, it's Kate Tsurkan, thanks for reading my latest interview. It was a real pleasure for me to speak to Alexander Vindman about the themes relating to his latest book, not only because he's very wise, but also because he remains a great example of the embodiment of American values that my home country used to be known for. If you like reading this sort of thing, please consider becoming a member of the Kyiv Independent. Read also: What Russia really wants from the Black Sea ceasefire deal We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Former National Security Counsel Says Russia Has Played No One ‘As Hard as Trump' After Ukraine Ceasefire Call
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's call discussing an energy and infrastructure ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine is more proof to a former Trump administration national security counsel that the president is being played — again. Alexander Vindman took to his X account Tuesday to breakdown the White House and Kremlin's call about the latest possible ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. He called the possible plan a 'terrible deal' that disproportionately aids Russia. 'I don't understand how Trump, who has four years under his belt with Putin, constantly gets played,' Vindman wrote. 'Trump moves to normalize relations with Russia for trinkets. This ceasefire, if it starts and Russia doesn't violate it, disproportionately helps Russia, whose energy infrastructure is getting pounded by Ukraine. For 35 years, six Republican and Democrat administrations, has succumbed to manipulation. Russia has been extremely successfully dangling small wins and threatening terrible consequences to get the U.S. to compromise and capitulate. But no one has been played as hard as Trump.' Vindman continued, 'He consistently claims grand successes, for at best, token achievements. A phone call isn't an achievement. A watered down ceasefire in exchange for dividing our alliance is a significant cost.' MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace reacted to the proposed ceasefire on 'Deadline: White House' Tuesday by highlighting Vindman's takedown and pointing out there were not any concessions made by Russia in the proposal. 'Notably absent from these announcements made after the call were any signs of any concessions made from Russia, or any talk of any punishment for Russia,' Wallace said. 'In short, there were carrots but no sticks.' Watch the 'Deadline' segment below: Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky commented on the ceasefire discussion between Trump and Putin shortly after details were made public. He said Ukraine was open to a ceasefire but not unless they were also a part of those discussions. 'We support all steps aimed at the end of the war. We will support them. But in order to support them, we need to understand what exactly we support,' Zelensky said during a press conference translated by Reuters. 'When President Trump has time, he is a busy man, when he has time, he can call me any time, he has my phone number,' he said. 'We are ready to talk through further steps, with pleasure.' Watch the full MSNBC segment above. The post Former National Security Counsel Says Russia Has Played No One 'As Hard as Trump' After Ukraine Ceasefire Call | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump-appointed prosecutor pursues one of the president's longtime targets
Last summer, during a campaign event in Virginia, Donald Trump singled out 'the Vindman twins' as 'the worst people.' Pointing to Republican congressional candidate Derrick Anderson, Trump added, 'We got to win that race. You got to teach the Vindmans. We got to get them out.' He was referring, of course, to Eugene and Alexander Vindman, who played critical roles in the 2019 Ukraine scandal that led to the president's first impeachment. Trump invested considerable energy into trying to smear and discredit the decorated military veterans, but those efforts ultimately fell short: Eugene Vindman narrowly won a congressional race last fall, and the Virginia Democrat is now a couple of months into his first term on Capitol Hill. Now the new congressman has apparently captured the attention of interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin. The Washington Post reported: Interim D.C. U.S. attorney Ed Martin has sent another letter to a Democratic congressman and critic of President Donald Trump, demanding information in what Democratic lawmakers say is a potential abuse of his prosecutorial power. In a written statement provided to The Rachel Maddow Show, Vindman said, 'Since he's become President, Trump's been focused on weaponizing government and lying to intimidate and silence public servants like me, and it's not going to work.' The targets of Trump's 'dangerous and deeply disturbing' effort, Vindman added, are 'people who believe in democracy like my constituents — FBI agents, prosecutors, military officials, federal workers, and intelligence agency leaders who disagree with him.' The Democratic lawmaker added, 'Those who wrote and encouraged this weird attempt at intimidation are lying.' As best as I can tell, Vindman has not been credibly accused of wrongdoing, but Martin — who sent a letter on Feb. 4 that began, 'Dear Eugene' — said he's 'received requests' for 'clarification' about the Virginian's financial disclosures. The interim U.S. attorney did not elaborate as to who, exactly, had made those 'requests.' It might be easier to give Martin the benefit of doubt were it not for everything we've learned about the hyper-partisan prosecutor and former 'Stop the Steal' organizer. Indeed, his interest in Vindman dovetails with a lengthy series of similar efforts launched by the Republican lawyer, who has no prosecutorial experience. Martin's greatest-hits package features misguided fights with the dean of Georgetown University's law school, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia of California. During his brief tenure, Martin has also: demoted multiple senior officials involved in Jan. 6 insurrection cases; falsely described himself as one of the president's lawyers; weighed in on a civil case involving the White House, which had literally nothing to do with his office; intervened in a dubious Environmental Protection Agency investigation; made a dubious decision in the case involving Republican Rep. Cory Mills of Florida; launched the wildly unnecessary 'Operation Whirlwind'; also launched the wildly unnecessary 'Project 1512' initiative; made a creepy public vow to wield his prosecutorial powers against those who get in Elon Musk's way; engaged in brazen conflict of interest in a Jan. 6 case, in which he effectively took both sides of a criminal case; and kicked off a radically unnecessary investigation into Jack Smith and a law firm that gave the former special counsel pro bono legal services. In a piece for New York magazine, Elie Honig recently described the lawyer as Trump's 'dangerous and ridiculous pet prosecutor.' Martin seems to be going out of his way to prove his many critics right. What's more, The New York Times reported that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have asked the D.C. Bar's disciplinary counsel to investigate Martin, arguing that the Trump-appointed Republican has 'abused' his prosecutorial powers. Trump has nevertheless nominated Martin to be the permanent U.S. attorney in the nation's capital — one of the nation's largest prosecutorial offices — and his Senate confirmation hearing is bound to be interesting. Watch this space. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
The Guardian
09-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
The Folly of Realism review: Alexander Vindman on how US got Russia wrong
Alexander Vindman entered the spotlight in 2019. As a US army lieutenant colonel detailed to the national security council, the Ukraine-born officer listened to a 25 July phone call between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine's president. Vindman thought Trump's demand, that Zelenskyy find dirt on the Bidens or lose US aid, crossed a line. He formally reported the call. In that moment, he helped trigger the first Trump impeachment. In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, a move by Vladimir Putin that Trump described as 'genius' and 'savvy' while calling Nato 'dumb'. The swift victory contemplated by the Kremlin and Trump did not come. The war enters its fourth year. Sadly, US support for Ukraine frays. Joe Biden is no longer in the White House, the Republicans control all three branches of government. On 28 February, an explosive Oval Office meeting between Trump, Vice-President JD Vance and Zelenskyy left little doubt that US sympathies now lie with Moscow. Military and intelligence support has been suspended. Last week, the US awoke to learn that the Trump administration contemplates deporting 240,000 Ukrainian refugees. Enter Vindman, again, with a book subtitled 'How the West Deceived Itself About Russia and Betrayed Ukraine' and meant as an indictment of Washington's stance toward the former Soviet republic over the last three decades and more, from George HW Bush onward. 'Starting with the fall of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, extending throughout six US presidential administrations … US policymakers have bought fully into Russia's vision of itself as the exceptionally and naturally dominant player in the post-Soviet space,' Vindman charges. An embrace of 'realism' as foreign policy touchstone led to turning a blind eye toward Russian aggression, Vindman contends. As a remedy, he calls for a foreign policy predicated upon a 'neo-idealism', a term coined by Benjamin Tallis, director of the Berlin-based Democratic Strategy Initiative. According to Tallis, neo-idealism rests upon 'a morally-based approach to geopolitics, grounded in the power of values conceived as ideals to strive for: human rights and fundamental freedoms, social and cultural liberalism, democratic governance; self-determination for democratic societies; and perhaps most importantly, the right of citizens in those societies to a hopeful future'. That's a mouthful of mush. Vindman, an Iraq war veteran, recipient of a Purple Heart for being wounded by an improvised explosive device (IED), might want to reconsider the potential wide-open commitments that come with neo-idealism, as well as the porousness of the term. On the page and with the benefit of hindsight, he refers to the Iraq war as a 'mistake'. Yet he seems to have a difficult time sticking with that conclusion. 'Because the neocons' heady aims of defeating terrorism globally, while sweeping into the Middle East and establishing democracy by military force, departed so sharply from the tightly restricted, realist-school approach of George HW Bush, those aims did reflect a kind of revived idealism.' Point conceded? He's not finished. 'In pursuing a war on terror, and in letting it drown out almost every other foreign-policy consideration, the neocons committed the US not to a genuinely neo-idealistic policy – tough-minded, clear, demanding of allies and opponents alike – but to an over-the-top mood of using American power to achieve a delusory totality of change, with delusory speed.' Vindman also embraces the vision of one particular senator, from Arizona, who got Putin very right and Iraq very wrong. 'It was John McCain, the Republican candidate, who called for a total change of direction in US policy for Russia and the region,' Vindman writes. Unlike George W Bush, McCain did not claim to have peered into Putin's soul. Unlike Barack Obama, he did not contemplate a reset with Russia. In February 2000, during a Republican debate, McCain captured the essence of Putin. 'We know that he was an apparatchik. We know that he was a member of the KGB. We know that he came to power because of the military brutality … in Chechnya,' McCain said. 'I'm very concerned about Mr Putin.' Elsewhere in that failed presidential bid, though, McCain proclaimed support for 'rogue-state rollback'. Later, he suggested that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and called for Saddam Hussein to be ousted. Vindman omits McCain from his list of those to blame for the Iraq disaster. McCain also offered a misplaced paean to the Libyan revolution: 'I am confident that Libya's journey to democracy will continue to inspire the entire world.' On 11 September 2012, in Benghazi, Islamic militants killed four Americans. McCain never grasped what actually happens after regimes change. To his credit, Vindman acknowledges that events and internal governance within Ukraine added to US doubts about supporting Kyiv. 'Certain factors on the Ukrainian side … helped drive the hedging, half-measure US approach,' Vindman writes. '[A] problem for Ukraine was that despite the success of the [2004 Orange] revolution [against Viktor Yanukovych, Moscow's candidate for president], national identity remained in a state of flux, driven by regional differences. 'Despite the advances promoting Ukrainian language and culture, the east-west divide persisted in Ukrainian elections: the east was seen as pro-Russian, with a strong economic link to Russia, the west as nationalist and pro-Western.' To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, a house divided against itself will tend to wobble, rather. Vindman has made his case. Trump, meanwhile, acts like Tony Soprano with nukes. His deputies castigate Zelenskyy for his wardrobe, for failing to render sufficient respect. Think Silvio Dante or Paulie Walnuts, complaining that a supplicant failed to 'respect the Bing', the strip club owned by their boss. Whether Trump eventually throws Ukraine a lifeline, and whether western Europe can find the will and strength to back Kyiv if he does not, are the questions of our time. The Folly of Realism is published in the US by Hachette
