The War in Ukraine, With Liana Fix and Michael Kimmage

Liana Fix, a fellow for Europe at CFR, and Michael Kimmage, a history professor at the Catholic University of America and a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, sit down with James M. Lindsay to discuss the current status of the war in Ukraine and to assess the strategies that Russia, Ukraine, and the West are pursuing.

Play Button Pause Button
0:00 0:00
x
Host
  • James M. Lindsay
    Mary and David Boies Distinguished Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy and Director of Fellowship Affairs
Credits

Ester Fang - Associate Podcast Producer

Gabrielle Sierra - Editorial Director and Producer

Episode Guests
  • Liana Fix
    Fellow for Europe
  • Michael Kimmage

Show Notes

Mentioned on the Podcast

Liana Fix, Germany’s Role in European Russia Policy: A New German Power?

 

Liana Fix and Michael Kimmage, “Go Slow on Crimea: Why Ukraine Should Not Rush to Retake the Peninsula,” Foreign Affairs

 

Liana Fix and Michael Kimmage, The Ukraine Scenarios, Foreign Affairs

 

Liana Fix and Michael Kimmage, “What If the War in Ukraine Doesn’t End?,” Foreign Affairs

 

Michael Kimmage, The Abandonment of the West: The History of an Idea in American Foreign Policy

 

Putin’s Choices,” The President’s Inbox

 

Olaf Scholz, “The Global Zeitenwende,” Foreign Affairs

South China Sea

Derek Grossman, senior defense analyst at RAND and professor of policy analysis at the RAND School of Public Policy, sits down with James M. Lindsay to discuss the confrontations between China and the Philippines over their competing claims in the South China Sea and the consequences for the United States.

South Africa

Reuben Brigety, President of Busara Advisors and U.S. Ambassador to South Africa from 2022 to 2025, sits down with James M. Lindsay to discuss relations between Washington and Pretoria in the wake of last week’s meeting between President Donald Trump and President Cyril Ramaphosa.

India

Šumit Ganguly, senior fellow and director of the U.S.-India Program at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, sits down with James M. Lindsay to discuss the origins and consequences of the recent military clash between nuclear powers India and Pakistan.

Top Stories on CFR

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

Ukraine

Ukraine said it had used 117 drones to target airfields deep in Russian territory. The daring attack demonstrated low-cost precision strikes accessible to almost any state or militant group.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.