Listen here:
Full Transcript:
Guy Benson: Let’s welcome in Brigadier General (Ret.) John Teichert of the U.S. Air Force. You can check out his book, In God I Trust: Making Our National Motto My Personal Declaration. General, great to have you back on the show.
Gen. John Teichert: Guy, it’s always awesome to be with you. Thanks for having me.
Guy Benson: I want to start with the Russia-Ukraine war, which Russia, of course, started and has sustained for years. President Trump has made a few moves recently that I personally don’t like, and I’ve talked a little bit about why. He was asked about what’s happening right now and the state of things just moments ago on the White House lawn. Here’s part of what he said.
President Trump: Zelensky said you’re on the wrong side of history? Zelensky doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Zelensky is a man who should have had this war settled a long time ago. If he had listened to me, he would have made a much better deal a long time ago, and there’d be a million people living on his side.
To be honest, I think it’s time for somebody else to negotiate on behalf of Ukraine. What’s happened? Very little land has moved, but a million people–a tremendous number of people–are dead. They’re losing their male population.
Ukraine could have had this thing settled a long time ago if he had listened to me. You remember the Oval Office. He would have had this settled a long time ago. Maybe it’s time for Zelensky to get somebody else to negotiate.
Guy Benson: All right, General, here’s the thing. Whether you agree with Zelensky or not, it’s odd to me to frame anything about this war around what the Ukrainians should have done. The Russians are the aggressors. Putin and the Kremlin launched the war and then got bogged down in this quagmire. They’re suffering a stunning number of casualties for virtually no territorial gains. The war has just been grinding on.
You can at least theoretically sympathize with the idea that both sides need to resolve this through negotiations and bring it to an end. But the impetus for that, and the onus, morally and realistically, has to lie with Moscow.
It seems like that’s been reversed over the last several days, with various concessions and, frankly, gifts to the Russians, while the tough rhetoric we just heard is directed at the Ukrainians. I don’t get it.
Gen. John Teichert: Guy, I think you’re conceptualizing this properly. I want to remind your listeners of a few things, including some of what you just said.
Putin started this war of aggression five years ago. He’s the one who has continued it. He’s the only one who can stop it.
Throughout these last five years, he has struck Ukrainian civilian targets almost every day. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian children have been kidnapped and taken to Russia for indoctrination. And Russia provided precise intelligence to Iran in recent months that was used to kill Americans.
Russia has been the aggressor all along.
Guy Benson: And, by the way, since you brought Iran into this, I think that’s entirely appropriate. The Russians are helping our enemies in Iran target and kill Americans. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have been helping us with drone warfare. They’ve been an ally to us regarding Iran, especially when Trump has been rightly annoyed, in my view, by many of our traditional allies in Europe who have been unhelpful at best.
The Ukrainians have been helpful to us. I just don’t understand why Ukraine’s leadership deserves this treatment or why the Russians deserve sanctions relief and the economic benefits we’ve given them.
Gen. John Teichert: You’re right that Ukraine offered, and then provided, drone and counter-drone capabilities to the United States and our partners in the Middle East from the very beginning.
But I also think it’s important to recognize two things that have been happening in Ukraine over the last year or so.
First, Ukraine’s strikes against Russia, combined with Russia’s economic ineptitude, have brought Russia to the brink of economic collapse. That’s something the Russian central bank has acknowledged.
Second, Ukraine has actually gained momentum, taking territory on net over the past year.
The momentum is on Ukraine’s side. The only way this war stops, Guy, is when Vladimir Putin concludes that continuing it is too costly.
By giving him an economic lifeline, whether through the diesel deal or the expectation that Ukraine abide by a one-sided ceasefire, we’re giving Putin what he wants. We’re giving him an opportunity to survive rather than allowing the Russian economy, which is already on the brink, to face further pressure. Now we’re giving him a lifeline that could allow him to continue this war longer.
Guy Benson: What I’m struggling with is why this is happening.
Some people on the left say Trump has been compromised, loves Putin, and is on Russia’s side. I don’t buy that whole argument. I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. I think Trump vacillates and goes back and forth. He’s been helpful to the Ukrainians in some ways and has been very good on Ukraine for a while. Then something like this happens.
The Ukrainians have been willing to engage with Trump’s ideas, discussions, negotiations, summits, and proposals. When Trump floats something, the Ukrainians seem to go out of their way to respond in good faith and try to say yes. The Russians do the opposite, often in ways that seem deliberately humiliating to Trump.
It’s puzzling when that behavior appears to be punished in Ukraine’s case and rewarded in Russia’s.
My theory–and I don’t know whether it’s right or whether you agree–is that Trump is feeling political pressure over fuel prices here at home for a variety of reasons, including Iran. He may be trying to put something together that alleviates that pressure ahead of the midterm elections.
Perhaps Russian diesel looks like an easy solution. He may want to restrain the Ukrainians temporarily and take the easy route to address a domestic political problem with fuel costs before the election.
That’s my explanation, or at least my theory. I don’t think it justifies the approach. I think it’s shortsighted and wrong.
But I also think that’s different from saying Putin has compromised Trump or that Trump is some kind of Manchurian candidate. We’ve been through all of that, and I think that’s lazy thinking.
I wonder where you come down on this.
Gen. John Teichert: Guy, I agree that over the last year and a half to two years, President Trump has been broadly supportive of Ukraine and Zelensky, with a couple of notable exceptions.
I also agree that the short-term focus on the midterms over the next two weeks is probably driving the president’s two-pronged deal, which benefits Russia.
If Zelensky were told the rationale and the United States offered sufficient incentives after the midterms, I think he might go along with some of these ideas. But clearly, that hasn’t happened.
I’m really concerned that this short-term thinking by the United States could extend the war by six months or more simply by giving Russia a lifeline, without Ukraine–or the rest of us–understanding why.
I can’t quite understand what changed two weeks ago, given how much of President Trump’s term had been characterized by support for Ukraine.
Guy Benson: The Ukrainians can’t be expected to accept a terrible deal that amounts to surrender and rewards Russia for the terrible things it has done, especially without guarantees that Russia won’t rebuild, reset, and start again in Ukraine or somewhere else.
Security guarantees matter. There are real concerns, and much of the administration has been clear-eyed about them.
Russia has repeatedly been the stumbling block to a positive resolution. I think this approach gets things backward.
Trying to postpone certain political considerations until after an election, in this case regarding Russia, reminds me of that famous Obama moment when he told Vladimir–was it Medvedev?–that he would have more flexibility after the election.
That’s what comes to mind here, in the opposite direction.
Maybe there could have been a back channel. The president needs to get through the midterm elections, and perhaps he could have approached Kyiv and Zelensky by saying, “We have domestic political considerations and a major election coming up. The president is going to do certain things now, but after the election, we’ll revisit them.”
I still wouldn’t defend that approach to foreign policy, to put it mildly. But I wonder whether it could have been handled differently.
It doesn’t sound like that kind of understanding was reached, because now we have this war of words between Zelensky and Trump, which I’m sure Vladimir Putin is thrilled to see.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin floated the idea that President Trump might participate in a trilateral meeting with Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. At the White House moments ago, Trump was asked about that. Here’s what he said.
President Trump: Would I do a trilateral meeting with President Putin and Xi to talk about Ukraine? No, but I would do it–not so much for Ukraine, because Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine. They haven’t been doing much. And the same thing with China.
We would have it to talk about nuclear weapons and denuclearization. Anytime I can have a meeting on denuclearization, that’s a very positive thing for the world.
We have more nuclear weapons than anybody. Russia is second, and China was way behind, but now they’re catching up. It’ll probably take them five years.
We would schedule a meeting based on denuclearization.
Guy Benson: He’s being somewhat noncommittal, saying he’s open to meeting with these leaders but that the meeting would focus on a different issue.
I think many people, myself included, would object to the characterization that Russia has been fine on Ukraine. That’s certainly not my view. But perhaps Trump was simply deflecting from the Kremlin’s suggestion that the three leaders meet.
I don’t hear any real commitment there.
Gen. John Teichert: I’m glad he’s at least walking back some of his earlier statements suggesting that a trilateral meeting might determine what happens in Ukraine. You can’t do that without Ukraine in the room.
But I think an interesting moment is coming Wednesday, when President Trump travels to South Carolina to campaign for Senator Lindsey Graham.
Perhaps it will be an opportunity to reflect on Graham’s longstanding understanding that strongmen and malign actors like Xi and Putin understand and respect strength. They take advantage of capitulation, appeasement, and weakness.
I hope that during this visit, the president reflects on what his friend Senator Graham would say: Don’t capitulate to these leaders.
Exactly right–don’t waive sanctions, as President Trump did this weekend. Instead, use sanctions to advance American strategic interests by forcing adversaries to conclude that they must stop their malign activities.
Guy Benson: I think that’s right, and I hope you’re right about that.
On Iran, what’s your big-picture assessment of where things stand? We hear a lot of “the sky is falling” commentary from the media. When coverage of the conflict goes quiet, it’s often because there’s good news they don’t want to cover.
There are still challenges, of course, and fuel prices are clearly part of the equation. But the regime appears to be in very serious trouble, financially and otherwise.
Where do things stand from your perspective?
Gen. John Teichert: The fact that this has become an economic conflict benefits American interests.
We’re strangling the regime. The blockade is working and cutting off $6 billion a month in economic activity. Some sanctions and secondary sanctions are also taking effect.
We’re now back to prewar levels of friendly oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz. However, we’re still at only about 50% of normal levels for refined products such as diesel.
Overall, the economic pressure is strangling the Iranian regime, and that benefits us.
Perhaps after the midterms, we’ll return to some kinetic military activity that could accelerate the strategic benefits for the United States as the regime continues to struggle under American economic policies.
Guy Benson: Lastly, I want your perspective on Nidal Hasan, the terrorist who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009. He was convicted of those murders and multiple attempted murders in a horrific jihadist terrorist attack.
After a very long legal battle and years of appeals, he’s finally going to be executed by firing squad.
The Secretary of War announced that it would be a public firing squad, available for the public to view. The president has now said that won’t happen. Many people objected to that aspect of the decision.
What are your thoughts?
Gen. John Teichert: Justice will be served when he is executed, but I don’t think anyone needs to see what happens during an execution.
The thought of livestreaming something like that makes my stomach churn. It makes us more like some of the malign actors around the world, rather than the United States that allows justice to run its course.
We should serve justice while remaining humble. I think the right answer is to execute him, but not livestream it for the world to see.
Guy Benson: That’s what the commander in chief has decided. I think President Trump made the right move in that regard, without backing off an inch on the execution–just the public-streaming aspect, which is your point as well.
We appreciate your time and analysis. Brigadier General John Teichert, retired from the U.S. Air Force, joining us here on The Guy Benson Show. General, thank you.
Gen. John Teichert: Thank you.
