Ukraine and European security in the Trump era: Insights from Sen. Elissa Slotkin

Ian Bremmer:

Hello, and welcome to the GZERO World Podcast. This is where you'll find extended versions of my interviews on public television. I'm Ian Bremmer, and I'm coming to you from Munich, Germany, site of the 61st annual Munich Security Conference. World leaders, diplomats and defense officials gathered here to discuss the most pressing security challenges, ongoing wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, and the threat of artificial intelligence and climate change. But the biggest story by far in Munich was the new administration in the United States. The second Trump term that Europe was anxiously anticipating at last year's gathering is now firmly other way, and with it comes a White House skeptical of their own global alliances, and much more transactional, when it comes to foreign policy.

Right before the conference began, president Trump's surprise phone call with Vladimir Putin Rattled NATO allies who weren't told in advance. And here in Munich, Vice President J.D. Vance warned attendees that the real threat in Europe isn't Russia or China, but the threat from within. Blasting European governments for censoring their own far-right voices, and failing to control migration.

As we near the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion into Ukraine, what will a second Trump term mean for the US-Europe relationship? What does the future of European security look like? And where does it leave America's closest partners?

Joining me today, Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin—former CIA analyst, Pentagon official, and now a key voice on foreign policy who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And later GZERO's Tony Maciulis, sits down with Alina Polyakova, president and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis, to discuss Europe's reaction to that Trump-Putin call, and growing fears that NATO allies will be left on the sidelines of peace negotiations in Ukraine. Let's get to it.

Senator Elissa Slotkin, thanks so much for joining us.

Elissa Slotkin:

Of course. Happy to be here.

Ian Bremmer:

You and I just came out of the mosh pit that was Vice President JD Vance, gave a speech last year, but it's a lot bigger speech, and there weren't any seats to be had. Give your initial takeaways from that.

Elissa Slotkin:

Well, look, I mean, first of all, we're here at this big European Security Conference-

Ian Bremmer:

Security Conference, yeah.

Elissa Slotkin:

... and the words Russia and Ukraine were not spoken. So right there, I mean, the issue that's on everyone's mind where they're looking for some sort of hint at what President Trump is going to do, he didn't offer a single iota. And maybe that makes a statement in and of itself. And then he did what I think this administration uses as their playbook. He punched others rather than talk about the United States. He talked about issues with democracy in the United Kingdom, and Romania, and all these other European countries. He picked out specific cases of people being arrested, with sort of a lack of any EQ about what's going on in the United States. And I think the irony felt a little tough for those of us watching, knowing what the Trump administration is going through right now and what they're doing in Washington.

So, he wanted to create sparks, he did that, but he did not address the single solitary biggest issue on the mind of everyone at this conference. And I think that shows, it tells you exactly where they are, actually.

Ian Bremmer:

So I mean, I saw the German Defense Minister actually yell out in the middle of the speech, "This is unacceptable." A lot of people didn't realize who it was that was yelling.

Elissa Slotkin:

I did not.

Ian Bremmer:

I haven't seen something like that frankly since the Russians were here speaking. And I kind of wonder, what was the sense you got from the Europeans around the room and how they were reacting to what they're seeing right now from this administration?

Elissa Slotkin:

Yeah. Well, look, I mean, it was a very quiet room. And even the applause was muted. And Vance made a joke about that, he said, "I'm sure I'm not going to get much applause." So, I don't think that he was looking to people pleased, but I think the sheer idea of having a NATO Allied Defense Minister yell at the Vice President of the United States, I'd have to go back and see if we've ever done that as allies. It just shows you the stress in the system right now. People want to know what the United States is going to do. There's a lot of uncertainty. We met with President Zelensky today, and I think him pushing back on other European nations wasn't the thing they were looking to hear.

Ian Bremmer:

Now, privately in the meetings that Vice President Vance was having with the Germans, my takeaways have been more balanced. In other words, this speech was a lot for his own audience, maybe some from the AfD in Germany as well, but talking in a more constructive way about, "Yes, we know the Ukrainians need to be part of the process, the Europeans need to be part of the process." Do you feel a little bit of that, that actually when we're not doing the hot takes in front of everybody, that actually the business of the alliance is a little more constructive?

Elissa Slotkin:

Well, I think, yeah, there's been a lot of meetings, which is good, right? There's been a lot of conversations. I've been in the ones with my Senate colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, and I still think there's a lot of voices coming out of this administration. I still think it's hard to figure out what their approach is to Europe. And the President Trump has told people that he's going to cut off all aid to Ukraine, but aid is still going to Ukraine. He said he's going to negotiate with Putin, sends his Defense Minister to hardline and then walks it all back. So I think there's still a lot of questions, even if the meetings are friendly and productive.

Ian Bremmer:

Now, Zelensky was clearly surprised by a 90-minute phone call between Trump and Putin, and the initial conversations we saw from Zelensky were a bit of, "Yeah, this isn't any way to run the relationship." When you saw him today, when the congressional delegation saw him, how would you say, did anything he said surprise you in terms of his level of comfort with the situation, or willingness to criticize, any of that?

Elissa Slotkin:

I mean, I think he was looking to a bipartisan group of senators to say, "Hey, we've had a long relationship. We need to make sure that we don't screw this thing up, right at the end of the sort of 10-yard line,." I think that he got-

Ian Bremmer:

Did it feel like, I mean, does he recognize that, "Yeah, we got to find a way to end the fighting here"?

Elissa Slotkin:

Well, look, he's the president of a country that's in the middle of a war, so he's not going to concede that, "We need to get right to the negotiating table." He's worried about conversations happening without him. And I think I've worked at the Pentagon, I'm a CIA officer by training, our golden rule is you don't talk about them without them. And I think that's what went on last week. And I think we tried to support him by saying, "Look, we see this as a bigger issue than just Russia and Ukraine." The Chinese are watching everything that's going on here, they're watching Americans stay in power, they're trying to understand, does America actually even care about democracies getting invaded? Or will they roll over eventually? Because interesting for them, for Taiwan and a bunch of other places in Asia.

And so I think that contextualizing this as a global issue is very important for him, for the senators that have long supported Ukraine. And I think he is trying to understand the voices coming out of the administration too, right? I think it's still hard to figure out.

Ian Bremmer:

Now, Ursula von der Leyen, speaking right before Vice President Vance, talking about a transatlantic relationship in crisis, a recognition that Europe has not taken a lot of these issues as seriously as they should, they need to be much more competitive, spend a lot more. But also saying that Ukraine is not just a European problem, it's an American problem. How much do you see this resonating with your colleagues in Senate right now? Because you're in a bipartisan code out, right? It's a great time for you all to actually get together and have real conversations.

Elissa Slotkin:

Yeah, and actually develop legislation and things we want to do together. And that was happening in real time as we met with the Secretary General and with Zelensky. I think you're going to see bipartisan support for NATO countries paying their fair share. And we've talked about that for a long time. We've tried the carrot, we've tried the stick, we've tried all kinds of different things. If Russia invading Ukraine doesn't get you and your country on the continent of Europe to spend the agreed upon amount on defense, we got to have some tough conversations. Italy, Spain, Portugal, they're closer to this than the United States of America, and yet they're not pulling their fair weight. And so you're going to see bipartisan support for that.

I think there was also bipartisan support for understanding that this is an American issue. It's a global issue. Particularly if you care about sending a message to China, if you care American leadership role in the world, if you care about bringing down our defense spending on other countries, then we got to resolve this in a way that's durable, that's serious, and doesn't prompt Putin, or Xi Jinping, to just start willy-nilly invading other countries.

Ian Bremmer:

Now, I think a lot of the people that are watching this don't realize that this meeting, which you and I have participated in for years and years, is actually a unique opportunity where Democrats and Republicans from the House and Senate get together, travel together, and spend a couple of days together. Did you feel this has always been a spirit of bipartisanship? The country's very polarized right now. Do you still feel that same spirit of bipartisanship on this trip?

Elissa Slotkin:

I felt positive, because you're getting on the plane with people, you're talking about the traffic, you're having normal human interaction. This is the McCain sort of legacy delegation. So, in the name of John McCain, Cindy McCain, his wife, is with us. So it's hard to forget his legacy of just that the division should end at the water's edge, and we should approach the world in a bipartisan way. There's no doubt about it. It's a stress time. But I think it's a good thing for us to have this time together. And in those meetings, we're realizing we're not as far apart on a lot of Ukraine-Russia issues.

Now, my Republican colleagues have a special responsibility to speak up with the Trump administration, right? The Republicans have the White House, the House, and the Senate. They got all the keys here. So, if we're going to do something important, they're going to be the ones to have a closed-door conversation. But I think the humanizing aspect of Democrats and Republicans being together is vital right now.

Ian Bremmer:

Now you said that China's watching this very closely as well, not just Putin. Do you think, I mean, coming out of this meeting so far, if you're the Chinese, do you feel like you have a world with more opportunity? Or are you worried about the level of instability? How do you think they would engage this?

Elissa Slotkin:

Well, certainly when they watch the feed of the Vice President's speech and they see that he did not mention Russia or Ukraine once, they could easily say to themselves, "Great. Trump said he was going to end this. No matter what Trump said, he said all kinds of glorious things about Vladimir Putin over the years. Looks like we're on the downswing on this. An American resolve was short-lived."

Ian Bremmer:

I completely understand that. I want to throw another argument, see what you think. Which is that you've got Trump, who is now pushing Von der Leyen and others to talk about %3.54, even 5%. Clearly the Russians and the Chinese, they don't want the Europeans spending that much more on defense and alliance. You don't want the Americans being able to move a whole lot of troops and the material to Asia to another front, which clearly is a shared priority, the Trump administration. Do you think that plays too?

Elissa Slotkin:

Yes. I mean, look, I think it's good, and I'd have to say it's clear that President Trump's threats are what's moving NATO. That and Putin is moving these countries who have not spent as much to spend more, including Germany, where we're sitting right now. I think we all want the Europeans to do more, to be more active in their own defense, to volunteer earlier, to provide more funding and more support to places like Ukraine. We all want that. But I think it all depends on how you view the American role in the world. Do you believe that United States of America has a unique leadership role? Or are you okay with the Chinese having a leadership role with a European nation having a... Are you okay with kind of a multipolar, like lots of leaders with lots of different agendas?

Ian Bremmer:

Can the Americans make that decision? Even if they wanted to?

Elissa Slotkin:

Since World War II, it hasn't just been our decision. You ask any European here. I used to walk into a meeting when I was at the Pentagon, an international meeting, and I'd say, "Okay, what are our ideas?" Let's say we were fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria. And they'd say, "Well, you're the United States. Tell us what we should be thinking about." I mean, so whether that's right or wrong, it is, and it has been since World War II. And we make mistakes abroad. We have every right to look at our spending abroad and curtail that if we think it's waste, fraud, abuse, whatever, but I would rather have American leadership role in the world any day over a Chinese leadership role. And I think that's what we're talking about. It's a vacuum that would be left for others to fill.

Ian Bremmer:

Elissa, last question for you. Do you think the Americans are walking away from that leadership role right now?

Elissa Slotkin:

I think it's to be determined. I think that there are many voices in this administration who want to get out, just call Ukraine a day, give Putin whatever he wants, and just take it off our plate. I think there's also voices who are saying the long-term implications of that are dangerous for Americans, and we can't have that.

Ian Bremmer:

Like your former colleague in the Senate, Marco Rubio, for example.

Elissa Slotkin:

Yeah. And so they're going to have to play that out. I know where I stand on that.

Ian Bremmer:

Thank you so much, Elissa.

Elissa Slotkin:

You bet.

Ian Bremmer:

That was my conversation with US Senator Elissa Slotkin. Now, for Europe's perspective on the future of the fransatlantic alliance, here's GZERO's Tony Maciulis with Alina Polyakova. She's President and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis.

Tony Maciulis:

Alina Polyakova, President and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis. I don't know where to begin. I mean, the conference is just getting underway, and already this has been a week filled with headlines about Ukraine. Let's start on President Trump's call to President Putin, which the Kremlin said was 90 minutes long. Obviously, Ukraine was on the agenda. What's your reaction?

Alina Polyakova:

It was a very interesting moment, because it signaled, I think, two things. One, we saw a bilateral call that the Ukrainians weren't informed or briefed on ahead of time, and neither were the Europeans. And of course, that set off I think a lot of panic already here in Europe, that Europe was being cut out any negotiations on what security or peace in Europe will look like for the foreseeable future. And even though President Trump called President Zelensky and was on the phone with him for about an hour as well, it was to inform the Ukrainians of the conversation, not to align, which would've been the much more normal way of business, where we're dealing with a different kind of administration.

And I think the other noticeable thing that happened after the call is that I think President Trump's rhetoric about Mr. Putin about the war shifted quite dramatically. In the lead up to the call allowed the signals, in my view we're actually pointing towards a position of strength, maybe sanctioning the Russians more, ensuring that the US is in a position of strength when it comes to any sort of negotiation. We heard the President say this, we heard him say that President Zelensky wants peace. So it's really up to Mr. Putin. And now we had almost a reversal of that, where the tone was referential, grateful. I think this was a big win for the Russian president.

Tony Maciulis:

When you speak about coming from a physician of strength, react to the fact that the US already projected, "We'll take NATO off the table for Ukraine," "We will not put US boots on the ground." Evaluate that as a negotiating tactic.

Alina Polyakova:

So, you're definitely referring to Secretary of Defense Hegseth's comments at the so-called Ramstein Group here in Europe in the last 24 hours or so. I mean, it was confusing, because on the one hand, he didn't say anything that should have been a surprise. The three main points he made that it's not realistic to return to Ukraine's '91 borders, I think everyone understands that. To be unrealistic because of Crimea, primarily, that NATO membership for Ukraine is not realistic. People understand that as well. It was also not realistic for the Biden administration. And then the US wouldn't commit any boots on the ground. Again, the Biden administration also said that. I think the problem wasn't with what he said, is that he said it out loud and obviously in the lead up to some sort of negotiation with the Russians, based on the concurrent phone call, almost concurrent phone call that President Trump had with Putin. So you took a lot of leverage, meaning the US took a lot of leverage off the table before we even sat down at that table.

Tony Maciulis:

To Hegseth's point, a Defense Secretary Hegseth's point about it's unrealistic to think that we're getting back to the 2014 borders. Is that kind of a fait accompli now? Is that something that even European leaders are saying is probably the truth?

Alina Polyakova:

It's really hard to say. What we know is that even President Zelensky of the last year or so has been saying that there could be some negotiated conversation over territory in quite broad strokes. And I think part of that also has to do with the fact that public opinion Ukraine has also been shifting, given that we're three years into this war, entering its fourth very soon here. So there's a realization that some territorial concessions will probably have to happen to secure, hopefully, a sustainable piece. But that sustainable piece has to be backed up by force. That is the only way to deterrence works.

And I think the bigger problem, again, with this Secretary of Defense said, was that the Europeans may not be able to count on the US backstop. So even the Europeans, let's say, commit, and the thousands of European troops to control whatever line of contact is negotiated with some territorial concessions from Ukraine, they still need the US as a backstop, because that is the only reality that the Russians take as a real deterrent. They don't see the Europeans as a real threat, militarily speaking, and I think that is what the real conversation is really hinging on right now.

Tony Maciulis:

So, knowing that, and hearing from Ukraine's President Zelensky exactly that, that security means the United States has to be involved, to what extent do you think that will bring Zelensky to the negotiating table to give Trump a few more concessions than he would have Biden?

Alina Polyakova:

I think the Ukrainians are very smart in how they have been approaching the new administration. They've pivoted because they've understood that the appeal to a Trump White House is very different than the appeal to a Biden White House. They've been looking for cards in their pocket that they can play. One of those cards has been critical minerals. Ukraine is incredibly rich in natural resources, including dozens of critical and rare earth minerals that are essential to today's economy. And then the US sees it essential. And certainly probably people like Elon Musk also understand to be essential for some of his projects, especially with EVs and Tesla.

So, the Ukrainians have pulled this out of their pockets saying, "Look, we have all of these resources that the United States should want to control." It's one reason why the Russians are occupying the most rich part of Ukraine, which is the Donbas, the eastern part of Ukraine. So they're trying to find ways to have a transactional approach to this administration. Whether that will work, whether that will sway especially the President in their favor, I think really remains to be seen.

Tony Maciulis:

So you referenced public opinion in Ukraine. We heard something similar from President Trump in an interview this week as well, saying, "Zelensky's poll numbers are down. Just take a look at them." What is the sentiment within Ukraine at this point? And what is the feeling among Ukrainian citizens about how and when this should end?

Alina Polyakova:

Well, I think there's no question that Ukrainians absolutely see Zelensky as a legitimate leader. There's no question about that. Ukraine has of course been under martial law since the Russian invasion. It is impossible for Ukraine to hold any election right now. You have millions of people who are outside the country, you have millions of people who are internally displaced; you have other millions of people who are in Russian-occupied territories. You cannot hold an election that think will be deemed free and fair under these conditions. So, I think Zelensky has been a difficult place.

Yes, his support numbers have declined over time because I think the country's very tired. Is there a real alternative to him right now who would be seen as equally as legitimate given the election difficulties that I just described? It's not clear, but I think certainly Ukrainians, if there was a peace settlement that allowed elections to be held in the future after some came back to the country, after all things were settled, I think there would be a lot of support for that, but not now.

Tony Maciulis:

And finally, let's talk about this moment now, three years into this conflict. A US president on the phone with Vladimir Putin, who we had heard is now an international pariah, has been ostracized diplomatically. Has this normalized the Russian president?

Alina Polyakova:

Not yet. I wouldn't go as far as to say this one phone call has normalized the incredible war crimes that Russia and the direction of Mr. Putin has committed in Ukraine. But certainly, there's nothing more that Putin loves than the image of having a bilateral relationship with the most powerful leader in the world of the United States mano a mano, having these phone calls, now having a summit that we've learned about in Saudi Arabia. In terms of optics, it makes it seem like Russia is on the same level as the United States.

So for Mr. Putin, this is a huge win in itself. But I wouldn't go as far as to say things have normalized. I think the trend lines now on how the US will approach Russia moving in a different direction than we anticipated perhaps even two weeks ago. But we have to remember, on a note of caution, and maybe optimism, perhaps, that Mr. Trump was very keen to pursue these kinds of bilateral relationships in this first term, with North Korea, for example. But not much came out of those talks. So, I think it really remains to be seen, but I think at a political level, there's no question that the Russians are very happy right now.

Tony Maciulis:

Alina Polyakova, thanks so much.

Alina Polyakova:

Thank you.

Ian Bremmer:

That's it for today's edition of the GZERO World Podcast. Do you like what you heard? Of course you do. Why not make it official? Why don't you rate and review GZERO World? Five stars, only five stars. Otherwise, don't do it. On Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast. Tell your friends.