EMERGENCY EDITION: Trump's Pivot to Putin
+ AGI and the Future of War
Why is Trump appeasing Russia? What lessons can we learn from the battlefield in Ukraine? How will AI change warfare, and what does America need to do to adapt?
To discuss, we interviewed Shashank Joshi, defense editor at the Economist on a generational run with his Ukraine coverage, and Mike Horowitz, professor at Penn who served as Biden’s US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for force development and emerging capabilities in the Pentagon.
We discuss….
Trump’s pivot to Putin and Ukraine’s chances on the battlefield,
The drone revolution, including how Ukraine has achieved an 80%+ hit rate with low-cost precision systems,
How AI could transform warfare, and whether adversaries would preemptively strike if the US was on the verge of unlocking AGI,
Why Western military bureaucracies are struggling to adapt to innovations in warfare, and what can be done to make the Pentagon dynamic again.
This episode was recorded on Feb. 26, two days before the White House press conference with Zelenskyy, Trump, and JD Vance. Listen now on iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, or your favorite podcast app.
Jordan Schneider: Shashank, it seems you had a lot of fun on Twitter this week?
Shashank Joshi: I was in a swimming pool with my children on holiday in the middle of England and didn’t notice until 18 hours after the fact that the Vice President of the United States had been rage-tweeting at me over my intemperate tweets on the subject of Ukraine. I provoked him into this in much the same way that he believes Ukraine provoked the invasion by Russia.
Jordan Schneider: What does it mean?
Shashank Joshi: It means the Vice President has far too much time on his hands, Jordan.
This is a pretty significant debate. Fundamentally, this was about whether Ukraine is fated to lose. His contention is that Russian advantages in men and weapons or firepower meant that Ukraine’s going to lose no matter what assistance the United States provides.
My argument was that while Ukraine is not doing well — I’m not going to sugarcoat that, I’ve written about this and it’s made me pretty unpopular among many Ukrainians — it’s not true that advantages in manpower and firepower always and everywhere result in decisive wins. Indeed, Russia’s advantage in firepower is much narrower than it was. The artillery advantage has closed. Ukraine’s use of strike drones — which we’ll talk about later — has done fantastic things for their position at the tactical level.
On the manpower side, Russia is still losing somewhere in the region of 1,200-1,300 men killed and wounded every single day. While it can replenish those losses, it can’t do that indefinitely. I’m not saying Vance is completely wrong — I’m just saying he is exaggerating the case that Ukraine has already lost and that nothing can change this.
My great worry is this is driving the Trump administration into a dangerous, lopsided, inadequate deal that is going to be disastrous for Ukraine and disastrous for Europe. I’m worried profoundly about that at this stage.
Michael Horowitz: Quantity generally sets the odds when we think about what the winners and losers are likely to be in a war. Russia has more and will probably always have more. But there are lots of examples in history of smaller armies, especially smaller armies that are better trained or have different concepts of operation or different planning, emerging victorious. Most famously in the 20th century, perhaps Israel’s victory in 1967.
Jordan Schneider: We have three years of data. It’s not like you’re playing this exercise in 2021. You’re doing this exercise in February of 2025. By the way, Mr. Vice President, your government actually has a ton of the cards here to change those odds and change the correlation of forces on the ground, which just makes the argument that this is a tautology so absurd coming from one of the people who is in a position to influence and who has already voted for bills that did influence this conflict.
Shashank Joshi: Wars are also non-linear. You can imagine a war of attrition in which pressures are building up on both sides, but it isn’t simply some mathematical calculation that the side with the greatest attrition fails. It depends on their political cohesion, their underlying economic strength, their defense industrial base, and their social compact.
The argument has been that although Russia feels it has the upper hand — it has been advancing in late 2024 at a pace that is higher than at almost any time since 2022 — there’s no denying that to keep that up, it would have to continue mobilizing men by paying them ever higher salaries and eventually moving to general mobilization in ways that would be politically extremely unpalatable for Vladimir Putin. War is not just a linear process. It’s a really complicated thing that waxes and wanes, and you have to think about it in terms of net assessment.
Michael Horowitz: That’s especially true in protracted wars. I’m teaching about World War I right now to undergraduates at Penn. One of the really striking things about World War I is if you look at the French experience, the German experience, and the Russian experience in particular, given the way that World War I is one of the triggers for the Russian Revolution, how their experience plays out in World War I is in some ways a function of political economy — not just what’s going on on the battlefield, but their economies and the relationship to domestic politics and how it then impacts their ability to stay in and fight.
Jordan Schneider: America has levers on both sides of the political economy of this war. There was a point a few weeks ago when Trump said he was going to tighten the screws on Putin and his economy. The fact that we are throwing up our hands and voting with Putin in the United Nations, saying that they were the aggressor, just retconning this entire past few years is really mind boggling. There was a line in a recent Russia Contingency podcast with Michael Kofman, where he says “The morale in Munich was actually lower than the morale I saw on the front in Ukraine,” which is a sort of absurd concept to grapple with.
Michael Horowitz: If you were to mount a defense here, what I suspect some Trump folks might say is that they believe this strategy will give them more leverage over Russia to cut a better deal. That involves saying things that are very distasteful to the Ukrainians, but they think as a negotiating strategy, that’s more likely to get to a better outcome.
Shashank Joshi: That’s right, Mike. Although they’ve amply shown they are willing to tighten the screws on Zelenskyy. If you were looking at this from the perspective of the Kremlin, would you believe General Keith Kellogg when he says, “If you don’t do a deal, we’re going to ram you with sanctions, batter you with economic weapons"? Or do you listen to Trump’s rhetoric on how we’re going to have a big, beautiful economic relationship with Russia and we’re going to rebuild economic ties, lift sanctions?
You’re going to be led into the belief that the Americans are really unwilling to walk away from the table because the Vice President and others are publicly saying we don’t have any cards, that the Ukrainians are losing, and if we don’t cut a deal now, then Russia has the upper hand. It puts them in a position of desperation.
My big concern is not just that we get a bad deal for Ukraine, it’s that the idea of spheres of influence appeals to Trump, dealing with great men one-on-one, people like Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping — and that what will be on the table is not just Ukraine, but Europe. Putin will say, “Look, Mr. President, you get your Nobel Peace Prize, we get a ceasefire, we do business together and lift sanctions. And you can make money in Moscow, by the way. Just one tiny little thing, that NATO thing. You don’t like it, I don’t like it. Just roll it back to where it was in 1997, west of Poland. That would be great. You’ll save a ton of money here. I’ve prepared a spreadsheet for you.”
That is the scenario that worries us — a Yalta as much as a Munich.
Jordan Schneider: We have a show coming out with Sergey Radchenko where we dove pretty deep into Churchill’s back-of-a-cocktail-napkin split. At least Churchill was ashamed.
It’s so wild thinking about the historical echoes here. I was trying to come up with comparisons, but the only ones I could do were hypotheticals. Like McClellan winning in 1864, or — I mean, Wendell Willkie was actually an interventionist. There was some Labor candidate that the Nazis were trying to support in the Democratic Party in 1940, but he never made it past first base. Has there ever been a leadership change that shifted a great power conflict this dramatically?
Shashank Joshi: From the Russian perspective, that’s Gorbachev. Putin would look back at glasnost, perestroika, and Gorbachev at the Reykjavik summit as moments where a reformist Soviet leader sold the house to the Americans and threw in the towel.
Michael Horowitz: You also see lots of wars end with leader change, with leadership transitions, when wars are going poorly for countries and you have leaders that are all in and have gambled for resurrection. If you think about the research of someone like Hein Goemans back in the day, then you have to have a leadership transition in some ways to end wars in some cases if leaders are sort of all in on fighting.
Jordan Schneider: The Gorbachev-Trump comparison is a really apt one because it really is like a true conceptual shift in the understanding of your country’s domestic organization as well as role in the world. Gorbachev, for all his faults, at least had this universalist vision of peace, trying to integrate in Europe — he wanted to join NATO at one point. But going from that to whatever this 19th century mercantilism vision is, is really wild to contemplate.
Shashank Joshi: The other thing to remember is Gorbachev’s reforms eventually undid the Soviet empire. They undid its alliances and shattered them. In the American case, the American alliance system is not like the Soviet empire. France and the UK are not the Warsaw Pact. We bring something considerably more to the table. It’s a voluntary alliance. It’s a technological, cultural alliance. These are different things.
I worry sometimes that this administration or some people within it — certainly not everybody — views allies just as blood-sucking burdens. What they don’t fully grasp is how much America has to lose here. I want to say a word on this because Munich — and I heard this again — the FT reported recently that some Trump administration official is pushing to kick Canada out of the Five Eyes signals intelligence-sharing pact.
Now okay, the Americans provide the bulk of signals intelligence to allies. There’s no surprise about that. But if you lost the 25% provided by non-US allies, it will cost the US a hell of a lot more to get a lot less. It will lose coverage in places like Cyprus, in the South Pacific, all kinds of things in the high north, in the Arctic in the Canadian case. This administration just doesn’t understand that in the slightest.
Michael Horowitz: Traditionally what we’ve seen is regardless of what political hostility looks like, things like intelligence sharing in something like the Five Eyes context continues — in some ways the professionals continue doing their jobs. If you see a disruption in that context, that would obviously be a big deal.
Jordan Schneider: Just staying on the Warsaw Pact versus NATO in 2025 today, America plus its allies accounted for nearly 70% of global GDP during the Cold War. The economic outflows that were needed to sustain Soviet satellites eventually bankrupted the USSR. America isn’t facing anything resembling that situation by stationing 10,000 people in Poland and South Korea.
Michael Horowitz: We are in a competition of coalitions with China, and it is through the coalition that we believe we can sustain technological superiority, economic superiority, military power, et cetera. Look at something like semiconductors and the role that the Netherlands plays in those supply chains, that Japan plays in those supply chains. There are interconnections here. We have thought that we will win because we have the better coalition.
Shashank Joshi: That’s an interesting question to ask more conceptually — does this administration want a rebalancing of its alliances or does it want a decoupling? You could put it in terms of de-risking and decoupling if you want to echo the China debate here. Does it simply want more European burden-sharing? But fundamentally the US will still maintain a presence in Europe, underwrite European security, and provide strategic nuclear weapons as a backstop. That is what many governments are trying to tell themselves.
The more radical prospect is that whilst there are some people who envision that outcome — Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz (the National Security Advisor), and John Ratcliffe (the head of the CIA) — the President and many of the people around him view things in considerably more radical terms. It’s more of a Maoist cultural revolution than a kind of “I’m Eisenhower telling the Europeans to spend more.”
Jordan Schneider: There’s this quote from Marco Rubio that’s really stuck with me from a 2015 Evan Osnos profile where he talks about how he has not only read but is currently rereading The Last Lion, which is this truly epic three-part series. The middle book alone is most famous, which is what Rubio was referring to, where Churchill saw the Nazis coming when no one else did and did everything he could in the 30s to wake the world up and prepare the UK to fight.
Rubio is referring to this moment by comparing it to how he stood up to the Obama administration when they were trying to do the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran. To go from that to having to sit on TV and blame Ukraine for starting the war, I think is just the level of cravenness. There are different orders and degrees of magnitude.
Shashank Joshi: You have to think about this not in terms of a normal administration in which people do the jobs assigned to them by their bureaucratic standing. You have to think about it like the Kremlin, where you have power verticals, or an Arab dictatorship where you have different people reporting up to the president. Think of this like in Russia, where you have Sergey Naryshkin, the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service, who may say one crazy batshit thing, but actually has no authority to say it. In which Nikolai Patrushev may say another thing, in which Sergey Lavrov may lay down red lines, but they have no real meaning because there’s a sense of detachment from the brain, the power center itself. Ultimately, it’ll still be Putin who makes the call. I think it’s a category error if we try to think about this administration as a normal system of American federal government.
Michael Horowitz: I will say, I can’t believe I’m now going to say this, but let me push back and say that there’s a lot of uncertainty about what the Trump administration wants to accomplish here, given the way they have embraced the notion that Trump is a master negotiator. To be professorial about it, in a Thomas Schelling “threat that leaves something to chance” way, or like madman theory kind of way, they think that there’s a lot of upside here from a bargaining perspective.
Most of Trump’s national security team is not yet in place. We just had a hearing for the Deputy Secretary of Defense yesterday. Elbridge Colby, who’s the nominee for undersecretary, has a hearing coming up, I think either next week or the following week. So a lot of the team is still getting in place.
Jordan Schneider: The thing about Trump 1.0 is there weren’t wars like this. You had two years of sort of normal people who were basically able to stop Trump from doing the craziest stuff. Then the COVID year was kind of a wash. But Trump 2.0 matters a lot more, it’s fair to say, over the coming four years than it did 2016-2020.
Shashank Joshi: It’s much more radical. In the first term, John Ratcliffe had his nomination pulled as DNI because he was viewed as inexperienced and not up to the job. Today, John Ratcliffe looks like Dean Acheson compared to the people being put into place. We have to pause and make sure that we recognize the radicalism of what is being put into place around us.
When you look at the sober-minded people who thought about foreign policy — and I include amongst this people I may disagree with, like Elbridge Colby, who will be probably the Pentagon’s next policy chief — what is the likely bureaucratic institutional political strength they will bring to bear when up against those with a far thinner history of thinking about foreign policy questions?
Jordan Schneider: I haven’t done a Trump-China policy show because I don’t think we have enough data points yet. But what, if anything, from the past few weeks of how he’s thinking and talking about Russia and Ukraine, is it reasonable to extrapolate when thinking about Asia?
Shashank Joshi: Two quick things. One is I see significant levels of concern among Asian allies. The dominant mood is not, “Oh, it’s fine, they’re going to just pull a bunch of stuff from Europe, stick it into Asia and it’ll be a great rebalancing.”
Number two, I think this is important: there is a strong current of opinion that views a potential rapprochement with Russia as being a wedge issue to drive between Russia and China, the so-called reverse Kissinger. Jordan, you know much more about China than I do. I’m not going to comment further on that, but I will say I believe it is an idea that is guiding and shaping and influencing current thinking on the scope of a US-Russia deal.
Michael Horowitz: You certainly have a cast of officials who are pretty hawkish on China, which will be a continuation in some ways of the last administration and the first Trump administration. I think the wild card will be the preferences of the president. There was a New York Times article a few days ago that talked about Trump’s desire for a grand bargain with China — his desire to do personal face-to-face diplomacy with Xi as a potential way to obtain a deal.
Now I think the reality is that every American president that has tried to do that kind of deal, whether in person or not over the last decade, has found that there are essentially irreconcilable differences. There’s a reason why there is US-China strategic competition and why that has been the dominant issue in some ways of the last several years and probably will be over the next generation. But Trump may wish to give it a shot — and it sounds like, at least from that article, that he might.
Jordan Schneider: We’ve also had every administration in the 21st century try to start their term by trying to reset relations with Russia. “Stable and predictable relationship” was Biden’s line. Maybe this stuff is just a blip, but I think Shashank’s right. We’re in really uncharted territory.
Paid subscribers get access to the rest of the conversation, where we discuss…
AI as a general-purpose technology with both direct and indirect impacts on national power,
Whether AGI will cause instant or continuous breakthroughs in military innovation,
The military applications of AI already unfolding in Ukraine, including intelligence, object recognition, and decision support,
AI’s potential to enable material science breakthroughs for new weapons systems,
Evolution of drone capabilities in Ukraine and “precise mass” as a new era of warfare,
How China’s dependence on TSMC impacts the likelihood of a Taiwan invasion,
Whether AGI development increases the probability of a preemptive strike on the US,
How defense writers and analysts help shape policy and build bureaucratic coalitions,
Ukraine as a real-world laboratory for testing theories about warfare, and what that means for Taiwan’s defense.
Jordan Schneider: Let’s talk about the future of war. There is this fascinating tension that is playing out in the newly national security-curious community in Silicon Valley where corporate leaders like Dario Amodei and Alex Wang, both esteemed former ChinaTalk guests, talk about AGI as this Manhattan Project-type moment where war will never be the same after one nation achieves it. What’s your take on that, Mike?