John Donvan

This is Open To Debate. I’m John Donvan. We’re in partnership with The Council on Foreign Relations for this one. To take on the very question that Congress is due to take up shortly, the US commitment to Ukraine in its war with Russia. Since the war broke out in 2022, uh, we have examined the conflict multiple times, beginning when there was generally a broad consensus that America would and should stand with Ukraine and spend money to do so. Now, literally years on, that consensus is proving itself more debatable than ever. And that’s our focus for this debate where the question we’re asking is, should Congress stop funding the war in Ukraine?

So let’s get to it and let’s welcome our debaters to the stage. First, Ambassador Paula Dobriansky. President of the German Marshall Fund, Heather Conley. Professor John Mearsheimer. Lieutenant Colonel Retired Daniel L. Davis. So let’s get into our opening statements. First up, we have political scientist and international relations expert, John Mearsheimer. John is a professor at the University of Chicago where he’s been teaching since 1982. And your answer to the question, should Congress stop funding the war in Ukraine, is?

Prof. John Mearsheimer

Yes.

John Donvan

Please tell us why.

Prof. John Mearsheimer

Thank you, John. Proponents of continued support to Ukraine usually make two arguments. The first and more ambitious argument is that if we give Ukraine support down the road, uh, Ukraine will be able not only to stymie the Russian offensive, but they will be able to recapture territory that they have lost. The second less ambitious alternative argument is that if we give continued aid to the Ukrainians, they will not be able to take back territory that they lost, but they will be able to hang on to the territory that they now control, and the end result is that will put ’em in a strong bargaining position. Both of these arguments are fundamentally wrong. The Ukrainians are doomed, and the principle reason is because of the military balance of power. The fact is that the Russians now have a decisive advantage over the Ukraines. That advantage is going to increase, not decrease. There’s nothing the West can do to rectify that balance.

So Danny and I actually have an alternative strategy that we think is a good way for dealing with this problem, and it focuses on diplomacy. What we should do is engage in diplomacy, get the Ukrainians to engage in with diplomacy with the Russians, and try to settle this conflict, come up with an agreement, and that agreement should do everything it can to freeze the present situation and furthermore, end the shooting so that no more Ukrainians are killed, and indeed no more Russians are killed as well. Now the question is how do you realize this settlement that I just described?

The way you do it is by creating a neutral Ukraine. A neutral Ukraine is a Ukraine that has no strategic ties with the West and does not present a serious threat to Russia. That’s the best way to do this. It means no NATO expansion into Ukraine. It means that you have to put an end to US support for Ukraine. You have to break the strategic tie between Ukraine and the United States to create a truly neutral Ukraine, which is the only way out of this mess that we are now in. Thank you.

John Donvan

Thank you, John. Our next speaker Ambassador Paula Dobriansky. Ambassador Dobriansky is the former undersecretary of state for global affairs, senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, as well as vice chair for the Atlantic Council Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. Ambassador, you are arguing no, in answer to the question, should Congress stop funding the war in Ukraine? Here’s your chance to tell us why.

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

Good evening. Cutting aid to Ukraine will benefit Putin, it’ll advance his goals, his objectives, and at the same time, it will destabilize Eur- the European security architecture. Our aid to Ukraine must continue because it’s vital and it’s also determinative. Ukraine is fighting for its very survival as a sovereign free nation, but it is also fighting for the very shared values, democratic values that we hold together. But significantly, let me go to one of the core arguments that I think is important here that Heather and I believe strongly in. And that is that the aid that we provide is less than 4% of our defense budget. We don’t do the fighting, we just give the aid. The fact is that that’s not a high price for containing Russia. We get a double objective there. Of the $68 billion of military and other assistance that we have given to Ukraine, did you know that 90% supports the American workers? That’s phenomenal.

The American people, our economy and also security all benefit. Now, if Russia gets a pass, by the way, on its brutal aggression against Ukraine, the fact is that you’re gonna have an emboldened Russia that will be exponentially tougher. And continuing to support Ukraine now actually is one of the most effective courses of action. Here, saving re- our resources for the long run, and also maintaining US credibility with our allies, our partners, and the global community and maintaining our leadership. Abandonment of Ukraine will also inextricably encourage China and other authoritarians in the Middle East and also in In- the Indo-Pacific to launch aggressions of their own. Taiwan, great case in point. So American weakness and perception of American weakness will really impact us.

And finally, aid to Ukraine incentivizes and motivates the Ukrainians to sustain their fight. The author John Maxwell, he said, there are two kinds of people in life, those who make things happen and those who wonder what happened. We don’t want the latter. But I wanna close on this if I may, just attribute to Joe Lieberman. He was someone who believed strongly against aggression in Ukraine and the need for supporting, uh, aid to Ukraine. Very wise policy advice. Thank you.

John Donvan

Next up we have Lieutenant Colonel Retired Daniel L. Davis. Daniel fought in the Gulf War, as well as in Afghanistan, has been awarded two bronze stars. He’s now a senior fellow and military expert at defense priorities. Uh, Daniel, you’re also host of the podcast to, the Daniel Davis Deep Dive show. You are saying that Congress should end the funding for the war in Ukraine. Um, and now it is your chance to tell us why.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

20 something years of military experience, four combat deployments. I fought in a large tank battle in Desert Storm. We also served time on the East West border in Germany where we had to patrol against the, uh, potential onslaught of the Soviet Union. So I had to actually study the Soviet doctrine, their tanks, their, the way they fight, the way they do offense, the way they do defense in terrain very similar to what’s going on in Ukraine right now. I also was the second in command of an armored cav squadron for the US first armored division in the mid 2000s. And, and lastly also served in the future combat systems where we were trying to project the future, uh, armored warfare systems in the United States. Believe me, when I tell you, there is no chance that Ukraine will ever succeed in its war against, uh, Russia.

There is no path to military victory for Ukraine. Period. It doesn’t matter if we give 60 billion, 120 billion, 200 billion, it’s not gonna make any difference because the fundamentals that go into combat power at the national level are decisively and irrevocably on the Russian side. It doesn’t matter whether the cause is right, whether we’re afraid of how things may look at the end or whether it may embolden Putin, those are all secondary to the core issue. You cannot buy your way into this situation where you can turn the tables because you can’t undo the fundamentals. The, the air power is overwhelmingly and irrevocably on the Russian side, air defense, their military industrial capacity to be able to crank out large numbers of, of artillery, the weapons themselves, uh, the, the drones, electronic warfare, and most importantly of all, the people. Russia has more people and they will always have more people.

They have more trained folks than the Ukraine side does. And you see already there’s a big issue with whether Congress is even gonna give this money. And I assure you that’s not a temporary condition and it’s throughout the West. They will never be able to match what happens on the other side. And even if they could, ultimately it’s about men, not machines, not money. And right now, there is no path to turn it around. And I view it is unconscionable to continue hoping against hope that the Ukraine side can win if we just give a little bit more cash because it won’t work out that way. Thank you.

John Donvan

And now in the cleanup position, we have Heather Conley. Heather is president of the German Marshall Fund, a sought after foreign policy analyst. Heather, you are answering no to the question should Congress stop funding the war in Ukraine? Please tell us why.

Heather Conley

Of course, congress should not stop funding Ukraine, but tragically, over the last seven months, they have suspended it and Ukraine is now desperate for ammunition. Let’s talk about cost. What does this cost the American people? Since February of 2022, Council on Foreign Relations has gathered the data. The United States has put $75 billion towards Ukraine, humanitarian, financial, and military aid. 46 billion of that is military assistance. 3 billion of that went straight into great American companies to help build those weapons. So the benefit here to the United States, the supplemental stays here. What are our allies doing? The Europeans have provided over 144 billion euros for Ukraine, humanitarian, financial, and military, dwarfing the 75 billion that we’ve put forward. So our allies are increasing at their share of this burden. Let’s talk about the cost if Ukraine fails.

We will see NATO. The United States has a hundred thousand forces in Europe. 40,000 of those are in central and Eastern Europe. We will have to deploy more forces, more air defense because our NATO allies will begin soft mobilization themselves if Ukraine loses. China, Iran, North Korea are completely emboldened. Ukraine is not doomed. Ukraine has held the second-largest military in the world at bay. They push them back substantially in September of 2022. They have opened the black seat. John, there is no negotiating table. This is for survival. This is existential. Russia has, has absolutely destroyed every legal treaty they’ve ever signed. They’ve violated all. And Ukraine was neutral. In, in 1990, it was in their constitution that they were neutral. In 2010, they, their constitution forbade them from joining NATO. They changed that in 2014 when Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea and invaded the Donbas. This is Russia’s responsibility. They should be held accountable and Congress must support freedom and prosperity. Thank you.

John Donvan

So we’re gonna take a break right now. Our question once again is, should Congress stop funding the war in Ukraine? I’m John Donvan. This is Open To Debate and we’ll be right back.

Welcome back to Open To Debate. I’m John Donvan. Our question, should Congress stop funding the war in Ukraine? We’ve heard opening statements now from Ambassador Paula Dobriansky, President of the German Marshall Fund, Heather Conley, Professor John Mearsheimer, and Lieutenant Colonel Retired Daniel L. Davis. Now we’re gonna talk. So we’ve heard our debaters, uh, Heather Conley, Paula Dobriansky, John Mearsheimer, and Daniel Davis make their arguments.

So in, uh, answering the question, should Congress stop funding the war in Ukraine? We’ve heard, uh, John Me- Mearsheimer and, uh, Daniel Davis. Uh, Daniel, you go by Danny.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

Right. Danny.

John Donvan

Danny. We’ve heard Danny Davis and, uh, John Mearsheimer argue that, uh, very, very fundamentally they say that, uh, the Ukrainians are going to lose, that more people are going to die. They su- suggest an alternative route being diplomacy to creating a neutral Uk- Ukraine. They absolutely rule out the idea of Ukraine ever being brought into NATO. Um, but they, they say the Russians have advantages that cannot be overcome, including the size of its population, the depth of its military industrial complex. And fundamentally they say to continue to support Ukraine, which would encourage Ukraine to continue to fight, is unconscionable.

On the other side, we have, um, uh, Heather Conley and Paula Dobriansky arguing that support for Ukraine is vital, that the Ukrainians are fighting for the values that all of us believe in. That in fact, uh, it’s a very, very good return on the money that is spent in the fact that the Ukrainians are the ones doing the fighting, that it’s leading to jobs in the United States, in the, uh, the, the resupply of the equipment that’s being sent over to Ukraine. And that it’s not really that very much money in the first place when you put it against the total national budget. And they conclude by saying Ukraine is not doomed.

I want to take a question to the side that’s arguing no, not to stop the funding. Um, your opponents, your opponents laid down a kind of moral marker by saying that continuing to, uh, encourage the Ukrainians to keep fighting is unconscionable because of the deaths and the, uh, fu- fundamental, um, lost nature of the cause. And I want to ask you, does morality at all figure into this conversation and into your, the arguments that you are making? And I’ll take that to you first, uh, Paula.

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

My answer is that, uh, moral dimension does fit in here, but also I think that Ukraine as a sovereign country should make its own choice. It is fighting not just for the United States, it’s already put its own blood and treasure on the, on, on the ground for not only the goals and objectives of Ukraine, but for the European community and for the global community at large. So in that sense, yes, but I don’t think that we should be the ones judging and determining that is their choice, not our choice in this case.

Prof. John Mearsheimer

I think there’s no question that Ukraine should make its own choice. And the argument that Danny and I are making up here applies to the Ukrainians as well as to the Americans. We just wanna put an end to this war. What we’re interested in doing is minimizing the number of Ukrainians who are killed moving forward. And number two, making sure that we maximize the amount of territory they get to keep. The United States is a very powerful country that has influence all around the world and certainly has a lot of leverage in Ukraine. And what we ought to do is figure out the basic facts of this story and explain to the Ukrainians what they should do, which is pursue diplomacy instead of continuing to fight and die in a lost cause.

John Donvan

And Heather… lemme go to Heather first. What would be the consequences of such course of, course of action?

Heather Conley

Well, the Ukrainians aren’t going to stop. This is existential to them. There’s no negotiation that the Russians have ever upheld, see Minsk 1, 2, 3. Vladimir Putin is very clear, he will not stop. You look at Bucha in European, that’s what Russian occupation looks like. We’ve seen 20 days of Mariupol. That is what occupation… There’s no negotiating with that. T- they will not survive as a nation. And I believe Ukraine, uh, I- if they are forced, uh, to accept Russian domination, they’ll go to an insurgency. They will not stop. This is survival.

John Donvan

Danny, your fundamental point is that this may, regardless of what your opponents may want, victory is impossible. And they’re telling you that defeat cannot be acceptable-

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

Yeah. And I-

John Donvan

… Because of the consequences.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

… I hear that a lot. And, and that’s, it just anguishes me. Because I, I hear over and over that, you know, the, the moral cause, Ukraine was invaded. That’s black and white for sure. That was the case. What’s not black and white and there is very much difference of opinion on whether U- Russia wanted to negotiate. I argue that they absolutely did. They were willing to negotiate in December of 2021 actually, before that too. And it was the Ukraine side in Ap- in March of 2021 that said, that issued this decree that said they were going to retake all the occupied areas, especially Crimea. And the next month they actually said that so they were willing to use force to get it back. And then that’s when Russia started its buildup forces.

Then in March of 2022, again, Russia said, “We are willing to negotiate to end this right now.” And they, they had the issue, the deal that was nearly done, or at least very far down the road in Istanbul, in, in March, April 2022. But Putin again says, he is willing to negotiate and he has motivation to do so. And that’s the bottom line ’cause if you [inaudible].

John Donvan

Does he, does he have motivation to do so only because the Ukrainians have put up such a good fight?

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

Well, right now they’re, they’re on the back end. And if we don’t do it right now, this is the critical part. If you don’t do it now because you want a better deal, the better chance is that Ukraine will lose and have to be given terms of surrender, not a negotiated settlement.

John Donvan

Okay. I- I’d like you to take on the, the, the premises that Danny is laying out there and just respond to, hi- his argument that number one, they can’t win. Number two, that nego- that, uh, a negotiated settlement is possible. But first, the they can’t win part. What is your response to that?

Heather Conley

They absolutely can win. They have shown the ingenuity, the, um, the, they know what they’re fighting for. The Russian forces have no idea why they’re there and what they’re fighting for. Ukraine under-

John Donvan

Can you pause for one second? I just wanna ask you, do you dispute that the Russian, the Russian forces have low morale, no reason to understand what they’re f-

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

No, don’t agree with that at all. It’s the opposite.

John Donvan

I, I just wanna leave that for, and let you continue your point.

Heather Conley

So in, uh, March of 2021, the Russian military buildup was in fact a preparation for what they, uh, they implemented in February of 2022. And miraculously, the Ukrainian military held the Russian onslaught at bay. They had a success in September of 2022. Yes, last springs and summers, counteroffensive was wholly un- unsuccessful because the Russians were allowed to develop defensive lines, uh, which was unfortunate. And now we are at a point where the Ukrainians are going to have to have active defense. So they in fact can, uh, it, have another spring of counter offensive in 2025. We are not doomed.

John Donvan

Paula?

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

Remember that it was said that Ukraine would not last, I think it was four days. By the way, now we’re going into the third year. Uh, Ukraine won the v- uh, victory in Kharkiv, in Kherson. In the Black Sea, they sunk another Russian vessel. And guess what? The grain is flowing right to the beginning of what it was at the beginning of the war. Quite phenomenal for a country that has not gotten the kind of military equipment that would really enable it to fight this war effectively, F-16, ATACMS, long range missiles, these have not been provided. And there are military who would, with due respect to Danny, who would differ with you on that question that I have heard.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

Okay.

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

And they say if they got that they would be able to win.

John Donvan

John Mearsheimer.

Prof. John Mearsheimer

What happens in the naval war hardly matters at all. The question that matters is what happens in the ground war? There’s no doubt did in 2022, the Ukrainians did quite well on the battlefield. It’s in large part because the Russians went into Ukraine with a rather small army, 190,000 men at the most, and they were overextended, and that’s why they suffered the defeats that Heather described in Kharkiv and Kherson. There’s no question about that. But what happens over the course of 2023, 495,000 new soldiers joined the Russian army. And what’s happened here is that the balance has shifted.

And if you look at what happened in 2023, the Ukrainians in the start of that year suffered a significant defeat in Bakhmut and then there was the counteroffensive, which was a total disaster. The Ukrainians suffered greatly. Go to 2024, they’ve just lost Avdiivka. And if you read the newspapers carefully every day there’s desperation, there’s depression inside the ranks of the Ukrainians. They are back on their heels. And as I said, and as Danny said, looking forward, the balance is shifting further against the Ukrainians.

John Donvan

So, so they’re making an argument for momentum at this point. [inaudible ].

Heather Conley

They are back on their heels, John, because we have failed to provide the ammunition that they need to counter that.

Prof. John Mearsheimer

We, we don’t have, we don’t have the ammunition to give them, we don’t have the tubes to give them. We can give the money, but you can’t fight a war with dollar bills. You need tubes, you need artillery, you need air power, you need air defenses.

Heather Conley

We do, we do have capabilities-

Prof. John Mearsheimer

You need manpower.

Heather Conley

… that we could provide them. We are choosing to not provide some of those long range capabilities. And I would disagree with you, the naval component, Crimea is absolutely critical to the future security of Ukraine, which is why the Ukrainians need a long-term resolution on Crimea.

John Donvan

I, I wanna bring to the side that’s arguing to stop the funding your opponent’s point that that would be such a gift to Vladimir Putin and that it’s reeks of, they say of American weakness and that if, Putin’s gonna get an appetite for other places.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

Absolutely not. He has said very clearly, and I’m talking back to 2008, back to 2008, what he wanted, you can laugh if you want. It doesn’t change the facts. He has said that he cares about his security on his border. He does not want NATO in Ukraine. He has said he would be willing to use force to stop it, and he did. And it doesn’t matter what he says. You don’t have to trust him by any stretch. He doesn’t have the physical capacity to go anywhere else. In two full years of war, they have taken 17% of one strip. And now that we’re supposed to believe that if the rest of it falls that suddenly they’re gonna be able to go into NATO countries with, who have 32 member alliance, there is no chance zero.

John Donvan

Other side?

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

Tell that to the Baltic States. Tell that to-

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

I will.

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

… to Poland.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

Absolutely, I will.

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

Tell that to Romania and all the other countries of Europe in this case. Sorry. They, they are very concerned. And actually we have a-

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

I know they’re.

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

… kind of unanimity of purpose because of the concern about the threat. Look at what Putin said in Munich, the Munich Security Conference back in 2006. He stated very clearly what his intentions were and he has proceeded through with it right to this day.

Heather Conley

But I have to say I’m a little confused, Danny.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

Yeah.

Heather Conley

Because if Putin’s is g- going to keep going, which I absolutely agree with you-

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

Yes.

Heather Conley

How is he gonna stop at the border?

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

He has the capacity to go up to the Dnieper River. He doesn’t have the capacity. It doesn’t matter if he wants to, he can’t go into the Baltics, he can’t go into Poland-

Heather Conley

Then we are doomed.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

… he doesn’t have an arm stretcher.

Heather Conley

We need to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to-

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

Only they need men.

Heather Conley

… finish the job.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

We can’t give them men. They don’t have the men and the training and all the things that go with it. There’s much, much more than-

Heather Conley

Well-

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

… just ammunition. It’s the army that uses it and they don’t have the capacity.

Heather Conley

French President Macron has just put on the table the potential of putting French or European forces on the ground. We need to understand what that means.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

That means nuclear war.

Prof. John Mearsheimer

Danny was talking about the negotiations that took place immediately after the war started on February 24th, 2022. Uh, they took place in Istanbul and there was also an Israeli track. And what you see very clearly is that the deal that was being worked out was mainly to create a neutral Ukraine. Putin was not interested in conquering any territory in Ukraine at that point in time. He has not had an ambition to create a greater Israel. And furthermore, as Danny pointed out, he doesn’t have the military capability. As I told you, Putin went in with 190,000 troops at most. There was no way he could conquer all of Ukraine with 190,000 troops. And even given the buildup that now exists, there’s no way that he could conquer all of Ukraine, much less move into Poland and pick a fight with NATO and the United States and end up in a nuclear war.

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

By the way, that’s not, forgive me, that’s not the point. The point here is also not about seizing of territory too. I’d like to say that. Here it’s about a sovereign country’s political future, its own right to make its choices. Putin has outright said that Ukraine doesn’t exist as a country. He has said that over and over and over. So it’s not just about territory, it is also about sovereign country political choices and an invasion that actually started back in 2014 and right up to the present.

Prof. John Mearsheimer

Paula, I believe you cannot show me, I believe you cannot show me anywhere where Vladimir Putin said Ukraine does not exist as a country. He does not say that.

Heather Conley

Uh, you have to read the July 2021 essay by Vladimir Putin, the recent statements on the res- restoration of Russia’s historic lands, which include the Baltics, Finland, Poland. And he throws in Alaska every once in a while [inaudible].

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

And that’s why he’s saying, it doesn’t matter what he says, it matters what he can do. And he cannot make good on that. He’s struggling to get this piece here. And that’s with a country that has no army, no navy and no allies.

John Donvan

But Danny’s, if he’s, if it’s, if it’s, if any military action is a struggle for him, that seems to play to your opponent’s argument that he can be pushed back. And if Ukraine is-

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

No, no, because there’s a, there’s a much bigger difference between going into a 32 member alliance and being able to take up to the Western part here. They have, they do have the capacity to do that.

John Donvan

Yes.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

And it’s getting bigger every day.

John Donvan

If, if you did not feel that Ukraine could not win the war, would you be arguing on the other side?

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

If I thought that there was a path to victory, I would.

Heather Conley

So I think we also have to highlight the, uh, heightened state of miscalculation. We had a Russian, Russian missile cross into Polish airspace. We have had missile debris in Romania. There is miscalculation here-

Prof. John Mearsheimer

Agreed.

Heather Conley

… that could impact NATO and could move to an Article Five situation.

John Donvan

Can you explain Article Five for the audience [inaudible]?

Heather Conley

Yes. Article Five of the Washington Treaty that established the North Atlantic Treaty organization is an attack against one is an attack against all, a very wide article. The only time that NATO has invoked Article Five was after September the 11th to defend the United States.

John Donvan

John Mearsheimer, if your scenario were to come true of a neutral kr- Ukraine being created after negotiation, your opponents, I believe are arguing that that would make the Americans look weak and unreliable as an ally. What’s your response to that?

Prof. John Mearsheimer

It makes us look weak. We lost. I was in the American military from 1965 to 1975. We lost in Vietnam. I remember it very well. Afghanistan, we were there for 20 years. We lost. The United States has the Midas touch in reverse. It keeps going into these wars that it loses. It’s a basic fact of life. And if you pursue a certain policy in Ukraine and you fail, you fail.

John Donvan

But they’re, they’re not conceding failure at this point.

Prof. John Mearsheimer

Well, I-

John Donvan

Well, lemme let you [inaudible].

Prof. John Mearsheimer

… what Danny said. The writing is clearly on the wall. They’re going to lose.

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

I think a most important element here is what you said. You gave the example of Vietnam. We sent forces into Vietnam. Here we are not fighting. We are providing support to a country that’s seeking it from us, and they are doing the fighting. That’s a very critical difference here. You can’t have, compare apples and oranges. But let me add, the concern here is not only about the European terrain, which we’ve both mentioned, but also by the way, we’re watching very closely what’s happening in the Indo-Pacific. China, which is aligned with Russia in this venture, by the way, is definitely looking at Taiwan. And what happens in Ukraine will definitely have ramifications for what ta- China does vis-a-vis Taiwan.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

I, I strongly disagree with that because the issues in China have to do with the Asia Indo-Pacific area. It has nothing to do with the Ukraine and Russia ’cause there, I, we are not even talking about fighting there. There is some talk about, according to President Biden, the possibility that we could go in and fight on this, the behalf of the, uh, Taiwanese. And the terrain is so radically different. China will make a decision based on what it can do on the ground, what it can’t do, and regardless of what Russia does or doesn’t do here, is not gonna change their calculus because it, it depends on the balance of power there.

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

They will change their calculus if the United States has weakened its own actions.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

If it doesn’t match up with the balance of power, they aren’t gonna do it. They’re not gonna commit suicide.

Heather Conley

I would suggest that the United States needs to have a winning approach to wars.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

I agree-

Heather Conley

And we see-

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

… strongly with that.

Heather Conley

… that, uh, right now we have Western and US weapons in Ukraine that are fighting Iranian drones and Iranian missiles, North Korean missiles in addition to Russian. We are watching NATO kit now deal with a global arms market. This very much links Russia, Iran, North Korea, and of course China’s support for all of those. If we think this is simply contained to Ukraine, we are making a great mistake.

Prof. John Mearsheimer

Just to pick up on Heather’s point, there’s an even bigger mistake here. And that is that the principle threat to the United States and the international system today is China. And given that China is a pure competitor and Russia is not, we should go to great lengths to have good relations with the Russians. There are three great powers in the system, and when one of them is your principal adversary, you want to have good relations with the other one. What we have done is a result of our foolish policy in Ukraine is we have driven the Russians into the arms of the Chinese, number one, and number two, we’ve gotten ourselves pinned down in Eastern Europe, which has limited our ability to pivot to Asia and deal with the principle threat to the United States on the horizon. This is a gross failure of balance of power politics 101.

John Donvan

We’re gonna take another short break before we get back to the question we’re debating, which is, should Congress stop funding the war in Ukraine? I’m John Donvan. This is Open To Debate. We’ll be right back.

Welcome back to Open To Debate. I’m John Donvan here with Paula Dobriansky, Heather Conley, John Mearsheimer and Danny Davis. And now we’re in the question and answer portion of the program. Okay. I’d like to go to some audience questions now, and if you can raise your hand, sir.

Mark Rosen

I’m Mark Rosen. I was the former US executive Director of the International Monetary Fund. To John Mearsheimer. Your thesis that Ukraine should, uh, move towards a neutrality is really based upon a very important premise, which is that Putin is trustworthy. What is the evidence in your view that Putin is trustworthy?

Prof. John Mearsheimer

My views have not much to do with trustworthiness. The fact is that what Putin has made clear since April 2008 when we announced that Ukraine would become part of NATO, was that NATO not incorporate Ukraine into it and that you instead have a neutral Ukraine. This was the subject of the discussions in Istanbul in March 2022, April 2022. So there’s a very good chance, I wouldn’t say it’s a hundred percent likely by any means, if you can create a neutral Ukraine, then this problem will be greatly ameliorated.

John Donvan

I wanna let the other side answer that question because my sense is, John’s position is that the trustworthiness of Putin is irrelevant. The questioner’s question was how do we trust Putin?

Heather Conley

You simply cannot trust. He has violated nine international treaties. We have gone way past neutrality. This is, this is wiping out Ukraine as a separate identity civilization language that is taking culture. This is the unification of, of the Russians over the Ukrainians.

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

Do you know that Ukraine came forward early on Zelenskyy and said, “You know what? We don’t have to go into NATO.” But you know what the Russian position was, “Codify that in your constitution.” And Zelenskyy said, “Excuse me, we’re a sovereign country. Here we were willing to extend something to you. You didn’t take it.” That’s where you can’t trust it all in this, in this path forward here.

Maksim Bogdanovich

My name is Maksim Bogdanovich. I was born and raised in Minsk Belarus. My question is to you Professor Mearsheimer. How do you plan to make neutrality workable for Ukraine?

Prof. John Mearsheimer

The fact is that between 1991 and 2014, Ukraine was neutral. Nobody was talking about bringing Ukraine into NATO because there was a Russian threat. This was a myth that we created after February 22nd, 2014. Hardly anybody saw Russia as a threat and Ukraine was thriving as a neutral country after it got its independence when the Soviet Union collapsed. And I believe you could go back to that, as long as you don’t present the Russians with a serious threat.

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

I’d like to say I cannot see how that can come about. And let me remind on a little bit of history here. The Budapest Memorandum, the Ukrainians remember it. They gave up their nuclear weapons in return for the integrity and protection of their sovereignty. Look at where we are now.

Heather Conley

Neutrality is not the point. It’s subjugation. It’s complete Russian influence. And the part of the invasion of 2022 was to install a puppet regime, decapitate Zelenskyy and this government to put a, a puppet regime like Lukashenko in place.

Alex Thew

Yes. Hi, my name is, uh, Alex Thew, I’m an assistant professor of economics at West Point. What are the guardrails in place to guard against corruption of money flowing over there?

Heather Conley

There has been an enormous focus on transparency and accountability. I, I won’t say that there’s zero vulnerability, but I, the Ukrainians understand that, you know, corruption would be the end of all Western assistance. And quite frankly, the Ukrainian people won’t stand for that corruption anymore. They’re fighting and dying for a very different future.

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

The United States and western countries have made it very clear to Ukraine that it has to tackle issues of corruption. Transparency International and their index is pretty stiff. By the way, during wartime, the Ukrainians have moved up in terms of their quote unquote quotient. They’re 104 out of 180. It’s on the very low end, but it’s significant that they’ve ta- tried to take these steps and really correct themselves.

Paul

My name is Paul. I’m a human rights lawyer. If, as you argue, Russia has just enough power to get to the Dnieper, when US support has dried up over the last year, why wouldn’t an influx of us support push the scales in favor of Ukraine?

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

Because that’s not how combat power works. It doesn’t matter how much money you give, it matters how well you, uh, how much, uh, trained force you have and do you have the capacity to overcome what the Russians have? And Russia has only increased. In fact, their power is substantially greater now because now they also have an offensive component. And I promise you, $60 billion won’t even touch the human component of it. It might give a few more, uh, rounds of ammunition, but all that’s gonna do is delay the loss. But it won’t change it.

John Donvan

Do do you wanna challenge that scenario or will I-

Heather Conley

I do. I, I mean, look, Ukraine is a laboratory right now of, of innovation. We have defense companies going into Ukraine to watch how they’re using US equipment that have never been used that way before, but has been Jerry rigged in the field. So while yes, it wasn’t how the US would fight, but they are modernizing and at the end of this, Ukraine’s military will be the most fight capable European military.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

That’s not accurate. Russia is also in a, in a laboratory except they’re accelerating. They have more of everything. So yes, Ukraine has definitely done that and they had some early big successes, but it’s getting overtaken by the Russian advances.

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

I’d like to just inject in the conversation about how much the Russians are spending, by the way,

laughs) on this, and how long can they really sustain it? Uh, basically 2 billion a week in terms of, of what they are putting into their fighting. When most people step back and really evaluate the Russian military, we’re dramatically surprised at how poorly they have performed.

Lucy Komisar

I’m Lucy Komisar. I’m a journalist. Can you consider how the issues that you have discussed, how have they been reported in the American press?

Heather Conley

Well, I think the journalism of the war, the embed of journalists has been fairly accurate. Um, we also have researchers of Russia’s military embedded with Ukrainian forces watching and observing.

John Donvan

And so you, you would base your, let’s keep going argument on the reporting out there. Gi- gives you signs and indications that victory is possible.

Heather Conley

Well, it is accurate in describing the challenges that Danny and John have outlined. It has also been very accurate in describing if the United States and Europe ha- would have given much greater lethality ahead of time, things would’ve been very different.

John Donvan

Can we take it to the other side?

Prof. John Mearsheimer

Well, I would just say that, uh, I think it’s very difficult for us to make our argument because it revolves around the claim that the Ukrainians are doomed on the battlefield. And the problem that we face sitting up here making this argument to you is that most of you read the mainstream media and the mainstream media tells a very different story. So it seems to many people that what we’re saying makes no sense when you compare it to what’s in the media. But the fact is the media’s coverage of this war has been abysmal.

Mark

I’m Mark [inaudible] with the Center for Eastern European Democracy. Uh, I, I specifically, I want to touch on the report that was released by the Institute of Study of War March 27th, 2024, which stated that Russia cannot defeat Ukraine or the West if it mobilizes its resources because the GDP of Ukraine’s allies is approximately 63 trillion compared to Russia’s 1.9 trillion. The report goes on to state that the war being unwinnable is a disinformation campaign. And so I want to understand how does your narrative help a negotiated solution?

Prof. John Mearsheimer

GDP doesn’t tell you much about who wins particular wars. What you have to do in these cases is you have to look at the particular context. And what we’re telling you is that when you look at the weaponry on the side of the Ukrainians and you look at the manpower problems that they face compared to the Russians, they’re doomed.

Heather Conley

The Russians can’t right now defeat Ukraine, but they can defeat us. They can make sure that the West does not provide the assistance that Ukraine needs. So they’re doomed, they’re corrupt. This isn’t winnable. You should walk away. That is a tactic of Russian disinformation.

John Donvan

And that concludes the question and answer portion of the program. And now we move into closing statements from each debater in turn, starting with John Mearsheimer once again. The question, should Congress stop funding the war in Ukraine? John, you’re a strong, yes, stop the funding. Your last chance to make your case.

Prof. John Mearsheimer

I want to conclude with a short story. 58,000 men died in the Vietnam War. When Richard Nixon was elected in November of 1968, it was very clear, uh, that the war was lost and he was elected on the promise that he was gonna put an end to the war. He did not put an end to the war. Uh, the war did not end until 1975. From the time Nixon took office until 1975, uh, April 30th, 1975, 21,000 Americans died. That’s 21,000 out of those 58,000 Americans died. When Vietnam fell, South Vietnam fell, Saigon fell, it was a complete and decisive victory for the North Vietnamese. I ask you, would it not have made much more sense for the United States to have ended the war in January 1969 when Nixon moved into the White House?

Because if we had ended the war then and we had suffered a defeat then just as we did in 1975, 21,000 Americans wouldn’t have their names on the Vietnam wall. We’re making an argument that if you continue this war by funding the Ukrainians, more and more Ukrainians are gonna die. Her argument is that this is a deeply immoral way of doing business. Yes, it’s true that we’re not doing the dying and it’s the Ukrainians who’re doing the dying. But do you wanna know what I think about that? That argument makes me sick to my stomach. I hate what’s happened to the Ukrainians and I think it’s in due in large part to misguided policies by the United States of America.

John Donvan

Next up is Ambassador Paula Dobriansky again, answering no to the question, Congress should not stop funding the war in Ukraine. Your closing please.

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky

Okay. Thank you. Ukraine has a famous poet, Taras Shevchenko, and he said the following, “The most important thing in the world will always be the people who are with you in the most difficult times.” To me, this is one of the most difficult times and challenges that Ukraine is facing. Ukraine obviously wants to prevail. We want Ukraine to prevail as a sovereign and independent nation. I come away from this debate and discussion that when you evaluate the costs, the costs of inaction here not providing aid to Ukraine clearly outweigh any potential costs of helping and providing aid to Ukraine. Let me mention, the US Ukraine Foundation actually went back to the Cold War. They found that against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, led to American military expenditures of 13 trillion. Right now, that’s about 26 trillion in 2024 dollars.

Putin’s regime has identified the US as its principle adversary and is working hard to undermine our particular interests. If we understand this, military and economic support to Ukraine is an extraordinarily cost-effective investment. Ukraine’s degrading of the Russian armed forces is a strategic bargain and cost no American lives. I’m gonna end on this note. I have two colleagues, Debra Cagan and John Herbst from the Atlantic Council, and they had an op-ed in Newsweek. They said, “Many of America’s best and most prescient leaders understood that even if we want to take a breather, our enemies that just keep on doing what they do, we should not have to remind ourselves yet again what happens when the United States walks away, it never ends well.” So on that particular note, I would say we should not walk away from aiding Ukraine at this very crucial time and ensuring that it does get the political stance that it wants to be independent and free and sovereign. Thank you.

John Donvan

Danny Davis, you’re up next. Again, uh, you’re answering yes to the question, you’re saying that Congress should stop funding the war in Ukraine. Your closing please.

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel L. Davis

So you’re in a high stakes, uh, poker match, five card draw. You got on the other side of the table somebody that you don’t like at all. You hate him. Actually, he’s a nasty person, has a terrible reputation. You’ve been playing several rounds. Uh, you know, one person’s raised, the other person’s just, you know, raised the stakes a little bit more and they keep playing, they go around. And now then you’ve got a pretty big pot in the middle of the, of the place there. And you still got a bunch of money over here, but there’s a big pot here and you do not wanna lose that, uh, round right there.

And problem is, after all the things have been played, he has just raised up and put a bunch of money in there. Your choice now is you either take the money you got, put it in the pot, or you fold your hand. You look at your hands, you have a pair of red twos,

laughs). Yikes. That’s not a good thing to be spending more money with. But here’s the problem. You’re aware of what his cards are too. He’s got three ACEs and a pair of tens. So you could fold and he’s gonna win all that money, and it’s gonna be as bad as you think. He’s gonna take all the stuff that you’ve invested, all the money you’ve already put in there, he’s gonna take it. But if you don’t fold and you say, “No, I just can’t lose you, this guy, and I’m gonna, I’m gonna meet his call, I’m gonna call him and I’m gonna put all this money in there,” you’re still gonna lose.

And that’s where we are in this war right now. ‘Cause it’s not just a bunch of money, it’s not just the $60 billion that Congress is trying to get outta there. It’s the lives of the Ukrainians. And I cannot say this, I wanna leave this so clear. If you play this game further and you give more money, it will extend the war. It will not change the outcome. More Ukrainians will die, more Ukrainian lands will be going to the Russian side. They’re going to win. The question now is, do we fold and preserve what we have, what Ukraine has now and end the dying? Or do we keep playing in the hopes that we win and instead more Ukrainians die, and then it’s probably gonna be a negotiated settlement, not from a position of strength, but maybe even in terms of surrender? That’s where I think the more likely outcome is if we keep going. Thank you.

John Donvan

Um, and the last word goes to Heather Conley. Um, once again, you are arguing that we should not be, that Congress should not stop funding to Ukraine. And this is your chance to close.

Heather Conley

Do you hear it? Do you hear how loudly history is speaking to us right now? I wonder if this is what it felt like in the 1930s in the debate about the US getting into the, the, the war in Europe. “It’s not our fight. It’s expensive. We can stay at home. Our, our oceans will protect us.” And then when we were attacked and we entered the war, 1942 looked a little doomed to us, but we did not stop. And then after the war, the United States made a very costly investment. And in fact, we’re gonna honor two very important anniversary dates. On April 3rd, 1948, Congress on a bipartisan basis invested in our European allies, the Marshall Plan, something my organization is named for. And we’re a living memorial to that. We didn’t have to do that. It was expensive. Let’s walk away.

No, we invested in our allies. They are now our largest trade and investment partner. April 4th, 1949. We needed to secure that prosperity, that investment. We created NATO 12 countries 75 years ago, 32 countries today. This is our generation’s moment to make a decisive call. Ukraine is our generation’s investment in their reconstruction and in their defense. I promise you, I promise you, just as it did in the 20th century, this rebounds on America’s prosperity and our security. This is an investment worth making. John, Ukrainians are choosing to die for their freedom. That is their choice. We have to give them the means to fight for their freedom because as the Polish resistance said in World War II, “For our freedom and yours.” We need to fund Ukraine so they can win this war, strengthening America’s prosperity and security. Thank you.

John Donvan

And ladies and gentlemen, everyone that is a wrap on this debate. And I would like to, um, I would like to thank, I’d like to thank our debaters, uh, Paula, Heather, John and Danny for the way that you approach this debate. I want to say what a pleasure it was to partner with The Council on this one. We aim to prove that people can disagree vociferously and robustly, but do it in a civil way with respect and listening to each other and hearing each other out. And what I saw these four debaters do tonight was just that. So I want to thank all of you for the way that you did this.

And a great big thank you to all of you, our audience for tuning into this episode of Open to Debate. As a nonprofit working to combat extreme polarization through civil debate, our work is made possible by listeners like you and by the Rosencrantz Foundation and by supporters of Open to Debate. Robert Rosencrantz is our chairman. Our CEO is Clea Connor. Lia Matthow is our Chief Content Officer. This episode was produced by Alexis Pancrazi and Marlette Sandoval, editorial and research by Gabriella Mayer, Andrew Foote, and Vlad Virtonnen. Andrew Lipson and Max Fulton provided production support. Millie Shaw is Director of Audience Development. The Open to Debate team also includes Gabrielle Iannucelli, Rachel Kemp, Linda Lee, Devin Shermer. Damon Whittemore mixed this episode, our theme music is by Alex Kliment. And I’m your host, John Donvan. We’ll see you next time on Open to Debate.