a central question isn t just what the white house would do but the entire nato alliance. ukraine s interests in formally joining nato has been growing over the past three decades. when my next guest was the supreme allied commander for nato, u.s. forces were under his command. james stavridis is also the author of the sailor s bookshelf, 50 books to know at sea. admiral, welcome. here s my first question. does ukraine stand a chance against russia in armed conflict? depends how you define a chance, michael. i think ukraine could make it very painful for russia. the vast majority of ukrainians will fight. they will fight to defend their land. they have improved greatly in war fighting capability over the last four or five years with u.s. and nato assistance. it will be a painful struggle for vladimir putin if he decides to invade. in other words, what i hear you say, admiral, is this could be a repeat for putin of afghanistan in 79. or chechnya.
i think this is part of his legacy. i think he s definitely firmed up his control. there are no real contestants for power there in the short term. he does eventually have to identify a successor. right now, the question is what is his legacy? is he the gathering of lands, is he the one rebuilding the russian empire? is he the one retaining ukraine in russia s orbit? he wants to do this. i think it s a coin flip of whether this becomes the largest war in europe since world war ii. that s a scary thought. the u.s. cannot be on the sidelines. we saw what happened the last time the u.s. sat on the sidelines. thank you. we appreciate your contribution. thank you. a central question isn t just what the white house would do but the entire nato alliance. ukraine s interests in formally joining nato has been growing over the past three decades. when my next guest was the supreme allied commander for
the story about how many intelligence agencies agreed on what happened as opposed to owning taking responsibility for and delivering a messages to vladimir putin this this has to stop. why the prevarious indication. that s the central question isn t it it s the been the consistent position he s taken since the beginning back in january, december, after the presidency he was repeatedly questioned the idea this happened. not only did he raise the question of three or four or 17 agencies that sort of ob few skates there is no dissent among the intelligence agencies no matter how many you count. that s an important point go a little farther there are 17 intelligence agencies, 16 plus the directright of national intelligence which is an umbrella group over them. there is a reason buy why 16 or in 17 agencies didn t chime in but only four did explain that more clearly. his point is that the media outlet s in the record reporting