What did presidents get right and wrong? Why was Ukraine not initially considered for NATO membership? And why was Vladimir Putin misunderstood by so many? He begins, though, by sharing his memories of being a student in Moscow.

That was a long time ago indeed, but I will, will say this.

It is depressing to me that my instincts and background in the Soviet Union are relevant today, because what you're seeing in Ukraine is an attempt for the Russians to restore the empire, an empire with which I am familiar.

I was living in Moscow when I was a student for six months in 1973 into 1974.

I was 20, so I was a sponge.

It was a fascinating period and a great baseline because in retrospect, 1973 was a high point of detente between the Nixon administration and Brezhnev and a high point of Soviet confidence and relative success.

So by the end of that decade, the decay was advanced, but it wasn't visible then, so a great time to start out.

What are your memories of that time as Special Assistant and Senior Director of the National Security Council for both Clinton and Bush?

And when I say we, I mean those few people who were read in, right?

Well...

This is, I'd put it this way.

In the days and weeks after 9-11, I kept hearing that the old rules don't apply.

It's a new era.

The old rules don't apply.

And that argument was used to justify, frankly, not only indefensible, morally indefensible programs, but ineffective programs.

One can only hope that we don't burn those relationships even further over time.

Hmm

... against Iran.

You can see a success materializing.

The Russian economy is weak.

The Kremlin acts nervous about Russian society.

The Ukrainians are very good at hitting Russian strategic targets using drones, and yeah, they're developing their own ballistic missiles.

Now, you're right, and Jake Sullivan's right, that Ukraine is vulnerable to Russian ballistic missile attacks because of the shortage of Patriots, but the Ukrainians are gonna keep fighting.

Mm.

Ambassador, when you look at the battlefield today, Russia and Ukraine, Who has the more strategic momentum when we're looking at this? Is it Ukraine, which is increasingly attacking Russia's war-making capacity rather than simply defending their territory? Or are we watching this shift from a war of territory turn into a war of systems? And does that apply to who has the upper hand on that strategic momentum?

the Ukrainians are beginning to win.

And by win, I mean not drive back the Russians out of their territory, though the Russians have been, on balance, losing ground.

But the Ukrainians have stopped the Russian offensive and taken the fight to the Russian interior.

That counts as having a strategic advantage.

This is astonishing.

I always open up my aperture when I'm trying to figure out what's going on.

So if you could just talk a little bit about that and what you mean by that whiplash effect and what we're seeing specifically with NATO, quote, 3.0. Would love to hear some of that.

What should we read into that in the long term?

Well, first, I share your outrage.

The language is ugly and pointless, so your frustration and anger is completely understandable.

Um, that said, I would not throw out the alliance.

I would not assume that Trump's tweets are an ultimate indication even of where his own administration ends up, certainly not where the United States will end up after whatever it is we're going through now is finished.

So I would hold on to the alliance but prepare for a rough ride, and certainly I would take this point from the Trump administration seriously.

Europe needs to do more for its own defense.

Do, do, do you think Donald Trump has any sense of history? Does he even realize that, uh, Britain on its own lost hundreds of, uh, brave service personnel in Afghanistan when we did come to the aid of America after nine eleven, uh, similarly with the first Gulf War, uh, similarly in Iraq? He doesn't seem to acknowledge this at all, and I mean, that I think is the most insulting part of it.