MR. IGNATIUS: Welcome to Washington Post Live. I’m David Ignatius, a columnist for The Post. Today I’m pleased to be joined by former Defense Secretary Bob Gates. We’re going to be talking about the war in Ukraine, China, other foreign policy issues. Mr. Secretary, welcome to Washington Post Live.
MR. IGNATIUS: So, let's jump right in with Ukraine. As we noted in the introduction, you and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice published a very influential op-ed several weeks ago in The Post called “Time is not on Ukraine’s side.”
Just to quote briefly, you said, “The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken now before it's too late.”
So, since that article was published, the United States has decided to send Abrams tanks to Ukraine. Germany is sending Leopard tanks. Do you think that's enough, or do you think more weapons are needed to accomplish what you and Secretary Rice talked about in that article?
MR. GATES: I think that the provision of the tanks is important, absolutely critical. And the fact is that both the United States and the Europeans have promised a lot of other armor. They're sending armored vehicles. They're sending Bradleys from the United States. They're sending the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles that we use in Iraq and Afghanistan to the--to the Ukrainians to help move their soldiers from one place to another more safely. So, there's a lot of new equipment going into Ukraine now.
I think--I think the really critical issue right now is how fast they can--they can get that equipment in there. You know, people are talking about months, and I think that's way too long a timeline. I think there--I think there are two clocks at work right now, David. One is on the Russian clock, which is they've mobilized 300,000 men last fall. They just went through their annual conscription that will add another 120,000 men. They're talking about mobilizing even more in Russia.
And the question is, how fast can Russia get those hundreds of thousands of new soldiers equipped and trained and get them into the front lines in Ukraine in time for spring offensives.
Then there's the Ukrainian clock, which is how fast can this new Western equipment that will be critical to taking on the Russian offenses, how fast can we get the Ukrainians trained and get that materiel into the hands of the Ukrainians.
There's talk that the Russians may be thinking about an offensive as early as February 24th, the anniversary of the invasion. And so, you know, I guess my view would be in a lot of these cases, we ought to be airlifting some of that equipment to Poland and getting it into Ukraine just as fast as we possibly can.
MR. IGNATIUS: So, Mr. Secretary, your point that you just made dramatically, that time is not on Ukraine's side, implies that action is necessary this year. And I think one question many observers have is whether it's realistic to think of Ukraine retaking all of its territory this year. What's your goal when you think about Ukraine's offensive operations this year? Is it realistic to think that they could take Crimea, say, or regain all of the Donbas?
MR. GATES: Well, I think if there's one consistent theme in the West, over the past year, particularly the first few months of the war, it has been consistently underestimating what the Ukrainians could accomplish and what they could endure.
You know, one of the things the Ukrainian military is benefiting from is eight years of training from 2014 to 2022, by NATO and by the United States. So, you now have a Ukrainian army that for a long time was essentially a Soviet kind of army, now a NATO kind of army, which gives a lot of independence to small units, a lot of decision making to company-level officers, gives them a strategic and tactical flexibility that the Russians just don't have.
I mean, one of the things we heard was that the Russian general in charge wanted to withdraw from Kherson a couple of months before they actually did to more defensible positions. But the powers to be, Putin in Moscow wouldn't let them. So, I think the Ukrainians have some real advantages in here, even though numerically in terms of soldiers they may not have the same numbers as the Russians. But what they've shown over the last year is the remarkable tactical and strategic ingenuity, and not to mention courage.
MR. IGNATIUS: And let me just press again on this question of whether it's realistic to think of Ukraine being able to retake Crimea, which the Russians invaded in 2014. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, has said publicly that he thinks that's not realistic. What's your judgment?
MR. GATES: I think it all depends on the way the battles go. If the Russians were to be outmaneuvered, if they were to be--if large elements of their force were to be encircled, or cut off, I think--I think, first of all, that retaking most, if not all, of the territory that the Russians have seized in eastern Ukraine, in the Donbas, the Ukrainians could take that back.
I think--I think Crimea is a different and more challenging problem. I think Crimea is critically important for Putin for no--in no small part because of its strategic importance, the big Russian naval base in Crimea. I mean, when the Soviet Union broke up and when the deal was done between Ukraine and Russia, the Russians were given long-term leases for that naval base, even when Crimea was in the hands of the Ukrainians. I think--I think keeping a hold of that naval base with all the implications of naval superiority in the Black Sea and so on would be a real red line.
We've seen Putin back off of one red line after another, but I think--I think Crimea, because of that naval base, is a--is a real red line for him. And I think that would be an exceptionally difficult line.
MR. IGNATIUS: That's a helpful distinction. Before we leave this question of additional weapons for Ukraine, Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you about the provision of F-16s. You said that Ukraine is in the process of moving from its Soviet era weapons to NATO style--NATO weapons. One aspect of that, obviously, is its air force. And President Biden was asked this week whether he thought F-16s were appropriate to send to Ukraine. He said no. What do you think about that?
MR. GATES: Well, first of all, I think the fact that the Russians have not been able to establish air superiority over Ukraine, or even over the battlefield in eastern Ukraine, raises the question of just how important such aircraft are, or would be in the--in the fight to come. I think that the significant air defenses that have put in--been put in place in Ukraine and the extraordinary success they've had in knocking down both missiles and drones, I think--I think may make the need for F-16s moot.
Particularly, I mean, as I said, you know, since early on, we have not seen Russian fixed wing aircraft operating in a meaningful way militarily in Ukraine on--in the battle space. So the first question is the military need in terms of the battlefield that we see in eastern Ukraine, and potentially in Crimea, but certainly in eastern Ukraine.
And I think the question also simply comes back to the fact that you've had President Biden say that we're not going to provide F-16s. The Germans have made that--Chancellor Scholz has made clear they're not going to provide any such aircraft. There's been some talk of some of the East Europeans providing F-16s.
And then the question I think that will face the administration, the Biden administration, is whether to give the go-ahead to some of our East European NATO allies to provide F-16s and the associated training to Ukraine. But I think certainly the United States, as the president's made clear, is not going to provide them for the foreseeable future.
MR. IGNATIUS: And I take it from your answer that you would not be pressing President Biden and the administration to move forward with the F-16s now.
MR. GATES: The attacks that the Russians are making with their drones and their missiles are not militarily significant. Those attacks are aimed at terrorizing the Ukrainian people and breaking their will. I think we've already seen that that's not going to happen, but they have not played a significant role in the--in the ground war that we're seeing and where the outcome of this war will be determined. So I think--I think in terms of military need, the most important thing to get to them is the armor, and to get it to them as quickly as possible.
MR. IGNATIUS: Mr. Secretary, if you were secretary of defense today, I'm curious about how you would be advising the president about escalation risks. General Milley likes to talk about how we're crossing the river stone to stone, meaning it's slippery, it's uncertain, you don't know where the next step leads you. And thus, it's necessary to be careful.
As you evaluate these risks, I sense that you're somewhat more risk tolerant than--the president, in urging him to move a little bit more quickly. Is that correct? And again, how would you advise him if he turned to you and said let's talk about escalation danger?
MR. GATES: I think--I think that's a fair statement. I actually think in terms of their support for Ukraine, the administration has done a good job. I think that they have provided--they've supported and provided an extraordinary amount of military equipment to Ukraine over time.
But I think, you know, every step of the way we've worried about those red lines, and what we've seen consistently is that as long as we are providing materiel that does not allow Ukraine to attack targets inside Russia, Putin has been pretty reluctant to escalate in any significant way.
And you also have to ask the question what does escalation mean. Does escalation mean mobilizing another half million troops, which he is basically on the road to doing? Or is escalation meaning using weapons of mass destruction? I think that's so self-destructive for Russia that that's not in the cards, at least a very low probability. So I--you know, what kind of escalation are we expecting or do we think is possible on the part of the Russians that they have not already done?
And so I think particularly when we're talking about the kind of ground equipment we've talked about, when we're talking about defensive missiles and materiel to help the Ukrainians defend themselves against Russian missiles and so on, I just don't--I think the administration has been kind of a half a step behind the Congress, actually, which had many members--both Republicans and Democrats have pressed for a somewhat more aggressive approach in terms of the weapons that we've been providing. I think the administration has done the right things along the way, but I think they could have done some of the more quickly.
MR. IGNATIUS: One key issue that's already being discussed is whether the United States should be supplying Ukraine with longer-range strike missiles. ATACMS is the term that the Pentagon uses for these missiles that could reach into Russia so that Russia couldn't hide behind its border and prepare and stage attacks, that would be vulnerable. What's your judgment about whether it's wise to provide weapons like that, that could reach into Russian territory?
MR. GATES: Well, I am troubled by the notion of the Russians, first of all, invading Ukraine, and then having the area close to the Ukrainian border but in Russia be a sanctuary for supporting Russian logistics and so on. So, I think--I think it bears very careful consideration. And I think I would be willing to support it, in principle, if we could reach agreement with the Ukrainians on the kinds of targets and the locations that we would be comfortable and well--or would be--would be acceptable to us in terms of support for the actual ground fight that's going on in the east.
So, if you had logistics hubs, ammunition dumps, and so on just across the border, fairly close to the Ukrainian border, or railroad hubs that are serving as logistics--places for logistics support, I think those are worth considering. But I think that requires a dialogue with the Ukrainians and some very real limits on what they could use these missiles for.
MR. IGNATIUS: You've spent a lot of your career observing Russia's leader Vladimir Putin. You're a Soviet expert in your life as a CIA analyst, now a very knowledgeable observer of Russia and Putin. I want to ask you three basic questions about Putin.
First, how rational is he in your judgment? Second, how isolated do you think he is now in the Kremlin? And third, how vulnerable is he to pressure from those around him that could lead either to his replacement as Russia's leader or the diminution of his ability to make absolute decisions?
MR. GATES: Well, first of all, I think he's a rational decision maker. I think he has--I think the fact that he has not taken some of the escalatory steps that that he might have is evidence of that. I think he's been--he's been ill informed. He's made huge strategic miscalculations and mistakes. But I think he is a rational decision maker.
I think that particularly in the first months of this war, he was very isolated, and because of coming out of COVID and so on, and meeting with just very few officials. I think the most extraordinary, one of the most extraordinary photographs was the meeting that he had with the head of the Russian General Staff, General Gerasimov, and his defense minister, and they were seated at opposite ends of a 40-foot table. I think that was symbolically evidence of his isolation.
Whether he's getting more accurate reports of the problems that the military is facing, I kind of have the sense that he is getting more accurate information of the challenges they're facing. I think this has come through in some of his messaging to the Russian people. And so I think they're--he's less isolated now than he was before.
And in terms of the people around him, my view is that the advisors that are closest to him at this point, are actually more hawkish than he is. If he were to depart the scene tomorrow, he--I believe he would be replaced by a more hawkish person, rather than somebody looking for a solution or a negotiation in Ukraine.
I think whether it's Prigozhin, the head of--who runs that Wagner Group; or Patrushev, a national security official, or others, the hawks are the ones that are pushing him the most. The only criticism--public criticism that has been allowed in Russia has actually been coming from the right, from the hawks, saying he isn't doing enough, or that the generals are screwing this up, that the generals don't know what they're doing, and that we need the change of strategy and tactics in Ukraine, and so on.
So I think--I think it's a vain hope that he might be replaced by somebody seeking a negotiated solution. I think right now all of the pressure is in the other direction.
And I would add one thing that's happened in the last two or three months or so that I think is significant is that Putin’s narrative to his own people has changed, I think, in a very dramatic way. When he launched this war, it was with the focus of--the messaging to the Russian people was we’ve got to get rid of these Neo Nazis in Kyiv and in Ukraine and these people who are very anti-Russian.
The narrative now is that the West, through Ukraine, is attacking Mother Russia. And so the message that he's giving to the Russian people is their country is under attack from the West and that NATO wants to destroy Russia. This is a very different narrative than just saying Ukraine’s got bad government and we need to replace it.
MR. IGNATIUS: We had a fascinating discussion on Washington Post Live earlier this week with General David Petraeus about Putin's search for a savior general--a theme that we know from American history. We think of Abraham Lincoln tiring of McClellan, claiming he had the slows, and finally settling on General Grant and General Sherman. A similar situation for Putin. He's now on his third or fourth commander in Ukraine, depending on how you count. He's put in his chief of staff, General Gerasimov.
If you could, for a moment, just put yourself in the mind of Gerasimov, who wants somehow to rescue this disastrous situation that has developed for Russia over the last year, what would be sensible moves for a Russian commander if you can put yourself in that position?
MR. GATES: Well, if I were in Gerasimov’s shoes, I would be saying, with respect to being given command in Ukraine, kind of what is second prize. What else could I--what else could I do?
I think that part of--a big part of the problem, frankly, is a lack of battle experience. Soviet--the use of Soviet--this is a Soviet army. And as I was saying earlier, this is not an army that devolves authority to lower-level officers and NCOs. It has basically no NCO cadre like we do, and many of NATO's armies do. And so there's kind of a deep flaw in the Soviet way of battle, which we're kind of seeing now. And that is, well, we'll just overcome it by overall mass, which is basically how Russia’s fought most of its wars with barely trained, barely equipped conscripts who are thrown into the frontlines, and with a total disregard for the number of casualties that you take and that just ultimately overwhelming numbers will bring victory. You know, it has worked in the past, certainly in World War II. But there's not sort of a tactical genius or strategic genius behind all of this.
And so I think that Gerasimov has a real problem in terms of just the tactical flexibility of his adversary in the Ukrainians and the flexibility that they have to take advantage of opportunities that crop up at the last minute. They're very slow in the Russian military decision making. They're very top heavy in terms of those decisions being made only at the top. So I think there are some fundamental problems that--with the Russian military that Gerasimov has to face.
And now of course, he is facing questions about how--about the supply of new armor, the supply of ammunition, and particularly smart weapons, precision guided munitions, and so on. So, I think--I think he's got a lot of challenges in front of him.
MR. IGNATIUS: You made a fascinating comment a moment ago about how if Putin were replaced, his successor would likely be more hawkish. And that makes me wonder about what's ahead for Russia. Assuming, as we all hope and want, that Russia fails in Ukraine, that its invasion proves to be a mistake, leaving aside now the question of whether Putin stays or goes, what happens to a Russia that's defeated here? Do we have a period of disarray, fragmentation? And how dangerous might that be for the United States and for our allies in Europe?
MR. GATES: Well, first of all, I think--I think that if Russia is able to fight to a--to a stalemate in eastern Ukraine where they don't lose all of eastern Ukraine, and they certainly don't lose Crimea, Putin and company can spin that as sort of--sort of a victory.
But I think--I think whether or not the Russians are defeated, Russia at this point has been significantly weakened for a long time to come. The hundreds of thousands of young men who have fled the country, many of them in tech, many of them entrepreneurial, not wanting to fight and be killed in Ukraine, that's a loss of a huge resource for Russia.
The withdrawal of Western companies, you know, these companies that have invested in Russia, had Russian employees and so on, have pulled back and just pulled out of Russia. They're not going back anytime soon, and particularly as long as Putin is in the chair.
So, you know, they have improved or significantly expanded their economic relationship with China during the course of this. They've expanded their economic relationships with the Central Asians, and so on. But the Western investment, the modernization of the Russian economy and so on, the direction that they had been headed some years ago, has been arrested. And I think it'll be a long time before Russia can recover from this.
And I think--I think particularly as long as their forces are on Ukrainian soil, there will be a lot of pressure in the West not to lift the sanctions. And while the sanctions have not had the dramatic short-term impact that I think a lot of people hoped, their long-term impact on Russia, I think, is significant. So bottom line, I think--I think this war, I think Putin has significantly weakened Russia, probably for a generation to come.
MR. IGNATIUS: Fascinating. So I have to ask you, is that weakened Russia inevitably a client of, in the service of an ever stronger China?
MR. GATES: Well, there is no doubt about the fact that the Russians at this point are the junior partner in the relationship. I would go back to the comment that you made earlier about the risks of fragmentation in Russia. And I don't think--I think we should not want that.
Back in 1989, when we were getting a lot of information about how the Soviet Union was falling apart, I got--I was deputy national security adviser, and I got President Bush, first President Bush's authority to form a very small, very secret contingency planning group to plan for the collapse of the Soviet Union. That was almost--that was two and a half years before the Soviet Union collapsed.
And that little group was chaired by the NSC person on Russia, who happened to be Condoleezza Rice. And the conclusions of that group, the main conclusion was it was critically important after the Soviet Union collapsed that we do everything we could to maintain a strong central government in Russia in order to maintain control over what were then 40,000 nuclear weapons.
And the same thing holds true today. The last thing we need is Russia fragmenting and the fate of all of those nuclear weapons being uncertain. So, the last thing we should want is the fragmentation of Russia. We need a coherent Russian state, and we need a strong government in Moscow to maintain control of all those weapons.
MR. IGNATIUS: Does that imply that it's in our interest, and maybe sooner rather than later, to seek a moment where there's sufficient Ukrainian gains that a negotiated settlement is possible?
MR. GATES: I think right now neither country, neither government is in any mood to negotiate. The Russians, I think--I think Putin believes at this point he can outlast the West. He thinks with all this mobilization--he's in the process of mobilizing the Russian economy for the first time since the war started in terms of support for the military operation. I think he believes that--and this goes to the point that we've made about time being on--not being on Ukraine side--mainly because can the West and the United States sustain public support for providing the kind of materiel and support to both the Russian--the Ukrainian economy and the Ukrainian military that we've done so far?
My own view is, we can sustain that through the rest of this year. I think the Europeans will remain strong. I think we will remain strong. The administration is totally committed to this.
But the question is, do the voices who are now kind of on the margins become more central if this war is basically a slog a year from now, with neither side gaining a significant advantage? And if that's the case, neither side is going to be interested in negotiating, but you could have a situation a year from now or so where pressures from the Europeans in particular on the Ukrainians to negotiate become much stronger than they are today.
So, I think I think the question of when you might have an opportunity for negotiations, first of all, will depend entirely on the developments on the battlefield. But I think it also depends on how long this conflict continues.
MR. IGNATIUS: Thinking about the future, Mr. Secretary, you’ve said that you think that the prospect of Sweden and Finland joining NATO--and let's hope the Turks don't manage to sabotage that--shows just how badly Putin miscalculated and is a fundamental change in the security balance in Europe.
We have a question from a member of our audience, Richard Berry [phonetic] from Virginia, who asked do you see any future for Ukraine as a member of NATO? If not, what other stainable alternatives are there beyond current arrangements?
And I want to ask you about that NATO membership question. Do you think that's a bridge too far, as President Biden and other officials have repeatedly indicated? If not, do you think there are alternative security guarantees that would work, or is the answer really in arming Ukraine so that it can deter Russia itself, doesn't need security guarantees; it's tough enough to keep Russia at bay on its own? What's your judgment?
MR. GATES: So, when the issue of Ukrainian and I might add Georgian membership in NATO came up in 2008 when I was secretary under President Bush, I was deeply skeptical it would work simply because the Germans and the French were so opposed to it. I think there remains significant opposition in Europe to Ukraine joining NATO, and I suspect there would be in the United States Senate as well, because people need to remember, at root, NATO is a military alliance. And the question is, are these governments and their populations prepared to send their own sons and daughters to fight in Ukraine, for Ukraine. And I think particularly the answer in Europe is probably not.
So then you end up getting to your last point, which is what kinds of security arrangements in the longer term, for the longer term can be developed with Ukraine. And I think there, there may be bilateral arrangements, there may be some multilateral agreements outside of NATO that do not represent absolute commitments to send our own forces, but provides a sufficient level of very sophisticated weapons and capabilities to Ukraine that make it so militarily powerful and so militarily invulnerable that the Russians are deterred from ever invading again.
People have to remember it was eight years between the invasion of Crimea and the invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2022. And the Russians are prepared to wait.
And so we can't have a situation in which the Russians sort of hover with huge forces on the eastern borders or in the eastern part of Ukraine, just waiting to re-equip, retrain, re-sustain themselves, and then launch another attack several years from now on Ukraine. We have to have--when the--when this conflict ends, however it ends, we have to have arrangements with Ukraine that make it sufficiently powerful that it will deter the Russians from ever invading again. I think that the odds of that happening within the framework of being a NATO member are very low.
MR. IGNATIUS: Mr. Secretary, we have just five minutes or so left. I want to ask you a few questions about China. You wrote your doctoral dissertation, if I remember, on the Sino-Soviet split and whether it could be detected in the official media. As I've told you, I actually went and read that years ago. I'm curious about your judgement assessing the Russian-Chinese relationship today. We talked earlier about how China's the dominant partner. But I'm wondering, for example, whether you think China is committed to trying to prevent Putin from using tactical nuclear weapons because he judges that would be bad for China's interests.
MR. GATES: I think what has been very interesting is how limited this so-called unlimited partnership is. We have no evidence that the Chinese have provided any military equipment to Russia. I mean, it is telling that they're having to turn to the North Koreans and to the Iranians for help.
Also, the Chinese have been very careful to remain within the boundaries of the sanctions that have been placed on Russia. They don't want secondary sanctions. So, the Chinese financial institutions have been very careful. So, they've abided by the sanctions almost entirely.
So--and then to your point about nuclear weapons, you’ve had President Xi now twice--once with German Chancellor Scholz, and once with President Biden--basically say the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be a really bad idea. So I think--I think Xi has drawn some very interesting lines here.
And then, after his meeting with Putin, they--apparently, the Chinese essentially forced Putin to say in the press conference we know the Chinese have some questions and concerns about the war in Ukraine. That means behind the scenes, in my view, that Xi really read him the riot act about how the war was going, and what’s the long term damage.
So, I think--I think the Chinese are benefiting economically from this. They've got a lot--they're selling a lot of stuff to the Russians that the Russians can't get from the West now--not weapons, but things like semiconductors, and so on. They're obviously getting a lot of discounted oil and gas, as are the Indians.
So I think this--it is in China's interest that Russia not fail. But it's also in China's interest that Russia not escalate this into a broader conflict with the West, or one that has the potential to escalate beyond Ukraine. So, I think it's a--I think Xi sees this as a relationship to be carefully managed. The political benefit of the partnership between them is that their narratives support each other in terms of opposition to the West, opposition to democracy, and offering an alternative. The Russians are basically spoilers around the world, but that--their narrative helps the Chinese narrative of offering an alternative form of governance and economics to other countries.
MR. IGNATIUS: We've all wondered what the war in Ukraine will mean for the future of Taiwan and Chinese judgments about their ability to take Taiwan by military force. We just recently had an extraordinary comment from General Michael Minihan, who's head of the Air Mobility Command, who said publicly, “My gut tells me we will fight”--meaning the U.S. fighting China--over Taiwan in 2025.
I want to ask you what you make of that, first, in terms of the growing talk of the inevitability of conflict between the United States and China on a military level; second, whether it was appropriate for the head of the Air Mobility Command to make such a comment about war and peace between the United States and China.
MR. GATES: Let's just say that when I was secretary, I had the opportunity on more than one occasion to call in a senior officer and shall we say chastise him for making comments about geostrategic and geopolitical matters that were not really his purview. And I think the administration's made pretty clear that General Minihan was speaking for himself.
But I think that the war in Ukraine, Xi has to have taken at least a few lessons from that. The first was the speed with which the West came together, and the severity of the sanctions. You know, Xi and Putin have both bought into this narrative of the decline of the West and the decline of democracies and so on. And, boom, all of a sudden, they've got all of the West--and including other democracies, like Japan, and Australia, and so on--all aligned on the sanctions against Russia. And the speed and the unity that came out of that, I think, was extraordinary and really must have gotten Xi’s attention.
The second is the performance of the Russian--of the Russian military. You know, Xi’s been fighting corruption in the Chinese military for a long time. My counterpart, the vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, who was my host in China, was due to be executed for corruption. He just died of cancer before they could execute him. So he's got to wonder, are my generals any better than the Russian generals, is my--are my weapons as good as the generals tell me they are, and so on.
And then third, just the determination of the Ukrainians to fight and their courage in fighting, what if the Taiwanese fought the Chinese like that? So, I think--I think that Ukraine has had to at least given some pause to Xi.
MR. IGNATIUS: Secretary Gates, absolutely fascinating conversation. Could go on for another 40 minutes with pleasure. Thank you so much for joining us today.
MR. GATES: My pleasure, David, always.
MR. IGNATIUS: So, folks, please come back and join us for Washington Post Live. We've got lots of programming. Go check it out, register for what interests you. We’ll look forward to seeing you again.
[End recorded session]