[MUSIC]

Amina Serna: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Amina Serna, a producer for the Brian Lehrer Show, filling in for Brian today. Good morning, everyone. Coming up on today's show, we'll hear about the worsening conditions at an ICE facility in lower Manhattan. After weeks of complaints, lawsuits, and a leaked video that revealed some of what's going on inside, a federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to make changes. Gwynne Hogan, a reporter for the news site The City, will be here to share what she knows about the immigration facility at 26 Federal Plaza.

Plus, later in the show, we'll talk about an idea some experts are saying could alleviate the shortage of workers in the childcare industry: hiring men. They currently make up only a tiny percentage of early childhood caregivers, and the industry is chronically understaffed. There are cultural and other barriers to the idea. We'll wrap today's show with a conversation about the political legacy of the late Grateful Dead frontman Jerry Garcia. He died 30 years ago this month. First, we turn to President Donald Trump's one-on-one summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin scheduled to take place tomorrow.

Setting out to fulfill his campaign promise of ending Russia's war in Ukraine, Trump has invited the Russian leader to a military base in Alaska. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will not be attending as requested by Putin. European Union ministers, concerned that any deal without Ukraine at the table could force Zelenskyy to make unfair land concessions, called an emergency meeting with Ukraine's leader yesterday. President Trump joined remotely. Joining us now to break down the latest and what's at stake is Jonathan Lemire, co-host of Morning Joe on MSNBC, writer for MSNBC, and the contributing writer for The Atlantic.

His latest in The Atlantic is titled Vladimir Putin Could Be Laying a Trap. Jonathan, welcome back to WNYC.

Jonathan Lemire: Good morning. Always great to be here.

Amina Serna: The last time we invited you on, we had to go to live special coverage from NPR roughly two minutes into our conversation, so I really appreciate you coming back on with me. All right.

Jonathan Lemire: Happy to do it. Maybe short doses is the best way to handle me.

Amina Serna: In July, Russia ramped up its bombardment of Ukraine, launching a record 6,443 drones and missiles into the country. You write, "Vladimir Putin has had a tough few months." What's bringing Putin to the summit now, in your view?

Jonathan Lemire: Summer was viewed as pretty crucial for Moscow. The conflict had really been rather frozen at the front lines for a number of months, almost a year. They looked to really amass a new offensive here and make some significant territorial gains at the same time. What they have done is, since the spring, ratcheting up the attacks, drones, missiles on Ukrainian cities. That's really where the war has been fought of late. What Russia found is that it was still very slow going on the battlefield. They were not making the territorial gains that Putin had hoped.

Now, just in the last 48 hours or so, in fact, since the publication of that paper, there has been reporting they've made a few breakthroughs. They're a bit on the move now, with Russia having more success than earlier this summer, but still not to the point that Putin had hoped. That's one thing here that brings him to the table, but the second is, at long last, at least rhetorically, President Trump is being tough with Putin. We know, and we can talk about, for the decade that Trump has been on the world political stage, he has been extraordinarily deferential to Putin.

We all remember what happened in their summit in Helsinki in 2018. In the last few months, as Trump has really gotten a ceasefire and Trump wanted a ceasefire, and Putin has defied him, Trump has grown increasingly angry with Putin and just last week slapped some secondary sanctions on India, a major trading partner with Russia. That will hurt the Russian economy, and was threatening to last Friday impose sanctions on Russia itself. It was right around then that Putin, via back channels, signaled a willingness for the summit.

Amina Serna: Let's talk about those back channels. For listeners scratching their heads on how quickly the summit was called and put together, can you walk us through a bit of that timeline here? You and your colleagues at The Atlantic report that it came to pass because of a backchannel discussion between Russia and Steve Witkoff, a real estate executive. What happened there?

Jonathan Lemire: Steve Witkoff, a real estate executive and one of Donald Trump's closest friends, he, someone with no government experience, though certainly accomplished in the business world, was appointed at the beginning of Trump's term as a special envoy, his eyes and ears in some of global hotspots. He's been the person, listeners probably know, who's been in the Middle east quite a bit, trying to talk to Israel and Gaza to bring some sort of ceasefire there. That hasn't come to pass. He's also had a number of meetings now with Vladimir Putin. Witkoff's critics would say that Witkoff is naive. He's been unprepared. He's been manipulated by Putin in some of these meetings.

Certainly, what can be said is that last week, some mixed signals coming out of these meetings between Witkoff and Putin as to what exactly Russia would be willing to give up. One thing that was clear is that through a back channel via Witkoff back to the White House, Moscow signaled they were willing to talk. You're right, presidential summits of any nature usually take weeks and frankly, months to prepare. Particularly, one of such importance, like this, the United States and Russia, this one came together in about a week. White House aides still now scrambling to put together itinerary.

What we do know is it will be tomorrow afternoon at an Air Force base in Anchorage, Alaska. Putin will set foot on US soil. Both the Kremlin and now the White House has confirmed the two men, after meeting, will hold a joint news conference.

Amina Serna: You write in your latest for The Atlantic, "Trump, above all, is desperate for the fighting to stop." Observers fear that as a result, he might agree to Putin's terms regardless of what Ukraine wants. European Union ministers, say that fast, called an emergency meeting with Zelenskyy and Trump yesterday. Can you walk us through some of what happened there?

Jonathan Lemire: Yes. Yesterday, in a virtual meeting, President Trump, a lot of European leaders, and President Zelenskyy met. The Europeans left that meeting somewhat heartened. Trump said that he would not give away territory in this summit tomorrow. He said he would adhere to some of the red lines that Ukraine has drawn around these negotiations. There's still a lot of anxiety in Europe as to what's going to happen. We know first of all that Trump and Zelenskyy do not have a great relationship. Trump has disliked Zelenskyy for years, blames him in part for his first impeachment back in 2019.

We all remember their Oval Office blow-up in February, which led to a brief suspension of aid and intelligence sharing from the US to Ukraine. Zelenskyy's done his best to manage Trump since then. There's been no high-profile blowups. No one's going to suggest that Trump has a warm feeling toward Ukraine. The fear here, Trump sincerely wants the war to end, but he also is eager for a Nobel Peace Prize. He's made no secret of that. He wants to put this conflict behind him. He wants to open up a new frontier in relationships with Russia, strike business deals, rare mineral deals. He wants this over.

The fear in Europe is that tomorrow, Putin's going to say to him, "Okay, I'll stop fighting, but in order to do so, I'm not giving back any land that I've taken from Ukraine. I'm going to insist that Ukraine doesn't get any security guarantees from the West." Those conditions would make that deal a non-starter for Zelenskyy. If Trump is so adamant that he simply wants the war to end no matter the cost and Ukraine says no, the fear in Europe is that Trump would then see Zelenskyy as the primary obstacle to peace, not Russia, and that he would turn on Ukraine again.

Amina Serna: Listeners, we know many of you have connections to Russia, Ukraine, and Europe more broadly. Help us report this story. How is tomorrow's Trump-Putin summit seen in media reports from the countries that you have connections to? What are people saying? 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. You can also text that number, and we can take any of your questions or comments if you don't have connections to Russia, Ukraine, or Europe. Jonathan, Trump recently said that "Land swaps are on the table," though I think he's walked that back. You know, neither Ukraine's Zelenskyy nor Russia's Putin are considering this.

Remind us again, how much territory has Russia occupied in the nearly three years of this war?

Jonathan Lemire: Russia's taken about 20%, roughly, of Ukraine. Of course, let's recall that includes some of Crimea that they took back in 2014. Ukraine, in their surprise counteroffensive about a year ago, did seize a little bit of Russian territory. They've lost much of that since, but they do still hold onto a smidge. Look, Ukraine publicly is saying, "We will not give up land." Zelenskyy is quick to remind people that it's actually in the Ukrainian constitution that they can't give up land to any other country without a national vote. He's been saying, "Look, my hands are tied. I can't just cede territory to Russia." He also doesn't want to. He's publicly saying so.

Privately, there have been officials in the Biden White House and now in the Trump administration who acknowledge in moments of candor, Ukraine's not going to be able to reconquer all of those lands. Putin certainly seems unlikely to just give it up. Ukraine will-- there is a sense, may have to sacrifice some territory, but it's a question of how much and where. Now, Putin is-- no one expects that he will willingly give it back. He's certainly going to demand the return of that sliver of Russian territory that Ukraine captured. Trump earlier in the week said that a land swap would be on the table. He has since backed off that, which Europe found encouraging.

As another note, that both Trump and his press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, in the last 36 hours or so have tried to lower the expectations for the summit altogether. Now portraying it as a listening exercise, which to some is like, "What's the point of having it then? That could be a phone call, and you're legitimizing Putin by giving him a summit strictly one on US soil." Again, Europe, who's looking at this through a lens of just trying to get the least bad outcome, a meeting without real results, without Trump striking a bad deal, might be acceptable.

Amina Serna: Let's take a listen to a clip of President Trump at the Kennedy Center yesterday, walking back some of the expectations ahead of tomorrow's summit as you were just talking about.

President Trump: The first one goes okay, we'll have a quick second one. I would like to do it almost immediately, and we'll have a quick second meeting between President Putin and President Zelenskyy, and myself if they'd like to have me there. If the second meeting takes place. Now, there may be no second meeting because if I feel that it's not appropriate to have it, because they didn't get the answers that we have to have, then we're not going to have a second meeting.

Amina Serna: Jonathan, worth noting that Trump initially said he wanted Zelenskyy at the table. Why won't he be there?

Jonathan Lemire: That's a really good point and one we shouldn't gloss over. Initially, Trump's plan was let's have a summit, Trump-Putin, followed immediately by a second summit that would include Zelenskyy, a trilateral summit. Putin said no. At least to this point, the Kremlin does not want Putin to sit with Zelenskyy because, in their eyes, that would legitimize Zelenskyy's government. Their argument, since February of 2022 and frankly prior to that, is Zelenskyy is an illegitimate leader. That's in part why Ukraine needs to be overthrown.

They don't want that to happen. Trump acquiesced to Putin's wishes, and that's why this first summit tomorrow in Alaska will just be the two men. Whether there is a subsequent summit remains to be seen. That's one of the things that's going to be negotiated tomorrow. We should note one of the truism about President Trump is that he is sort of susceptible to be influenced by the last person he spoke to. That's partially why Europe this week has had all of these messaging communiques and then this virtual summit yesterday to try to really influence Trump, to push him to where they want him to be.

The fear, of course, is that tomorrow it's going to be just in a room, Trump, Putin, and their interpreters. That Trump may certainly start siding with Putin again, because we know in the past, whenever the two of them have spent time together, most famously in Helsinki, but also even just had phone calls, almost inevitably, Trump comes out of those conversations with much warmer words to Putin and sometimes even parroting Kremlin talking points.

Amina Serna: Listeners, we can take your comments, questions, or concerns about the Trump-Putin summit taking place in Alaska tomorrow. 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. Jonathan, we have a text from a listener, a little bit to the point of what you just said. They write, "I don't believe that Trump is any less deferential to Putin. Trump is just following his orders from Putin." I think the Trump administration would disagree with that statement probably. You mentioned in your latest piece and just now that after these meetings with Putin, Trump tends to parrot some of the Kremlin's talking points. Can you just expand on that a little bit more?

Jonathan Lemire: Yes, I certainly can. I think there is a lot of skepticism as to whether Trump will finally stand up to Putin because he's never done it before, not really. Even in his first term, there were moments where his administration and the Republican controlled Congress would levy, let's say, tough sanctions against Russia, and Trump would undermine them. Most famously was of course, his summit in Helsinki of 2018, when I was one of the just two American reporters who were called upon to ask questions at that summit.

I asked President Trump then, about the 2016 election and how all, the entire US intelligence community had concluded that Russia had interfered in the election, and that Putin denied it. He did so right in front of us. They're in Helsinki. I asked Trump simply who he believed, and he made clear he believed Putin. That is far from the only time that's occurred. I think there is skepticism here that Trump will stand up to Putin. We should note that his rhetoric has changed. We've never heard him prior to these last few months get tough with Putin. That's new. He has at least threatened some sanctions. Yesterday, he said, "Severe consequences if Putin doesn't reach a deal." We'll have to see.

Amina Serna: Let's go to a caller, Hillary in Manhattan. Hi, you're on WNYC.

Hillary: Hi. Love to hear you and your conversation. I am so frustrated and upset that I hear on the radio if Putin and Trump decide something about territory or whatever, Zelenskyy will be forced into doing that. How could they force a sovereign leader into doing something? I don't understand, and I don't know why there isn't additional commentary when statements like that are made, so help me.

Amina Serna: Thank you. Thank you so much. I can hear the emotion in your voice. Thank you for your call. Jonathan, what do you think?

Jonathan Lemire: Of course, they cannot dictate to Zelenskyy, "You have to abide by an agreement," but there are ways to pressure Zelenskyy into taking an agreement or one like it. I think the biggest fear is, if the United States, if Putin offers some sort of deal and Trump takes it and Zelenskyy says no, and Trump gets angry at Zelenskyy, what could happen? He could cut US Aid off to Ukraine. He could stop the flow of weapons to Ukraine. Now, let's be clear. The Trump administration hasn't authorized any new shipments of weapons. They're still just sending the ones who were already agreed to during President Biden's term in office.

What has happened in recent weeks, as Trump has at least rhetorically soured on Putin, is he's authorized the sale, selling American weapons to Europe, and those European partners then turn around and give them to Ukraine. It's not a direct assistance, but still American weapons finding their way via a bank shot into Ukraine. US still also, same with funding. There's military assistance and money that's going out the door to Ukraine. The Trump administration has made clear they want to wind that down, and that may happen regardless.

The other piece of this is what we saw in February when they had their Oval Office blow-up, Trump and Zelenskyy. The United States, for about a week's time, cut off sharing its intelligence with Ukraine, vital intelligence that Ukraine uses to not only defend itself against Russian attacks, but also potentially to target Russian military installations on the front lines and perhaps even within Russia itself. If that goes away, that will be a major blow for Ukraine. Between intel, weapons, and money, that would be a significant blow to Ukraine.

Europe would try to step up and try to cover the gap. It likely wouldn't be able to, fully. That would be a way that the US could almost be dictating to Zelenskyy, like, "You need to take a deal, because if the war keeps going, it's only going to get worse for you."

Amina Serna: Along those lines, another text. This is Itai, a John Jay College history professor. "Alaska is a symbolic place, given the 1867 purchase, is the single that is the signal that Russia will pay Ukraine for Crimea and the four districts to have a legitimate deal?" Have you heard anything like that, Jonathan?

Jonathan Lemire: I will say the initial jokes made once the summit site was announced to be Alaska is that Trump critics were joking, "Oh-oh, Trump's going to give it back to Russia, since, of course, the US purchased it from Moscow long ago." In terms of financial compensation, that is not something that has been discussed actively just yet, but I think everything's on the table. We'll know a lot more about that tomorrow. What's going to be on the agenda? We should note here, some of the signs coming out of the Kremlin are that Putin wants to broaden the scope of conversations tomorrow beyond just Ukraine.

He wants to talk about business deals and nukes and the like. That I think actually worries Europeans, that it's Putin trying to foster an improved relationship with Trump. Again, almost as a delay tactic to put off a possible ceasefire so he can continue making gains on the ground in Ukraine.

Amina Serna: One more history text from a listener. "I'm a member of the Lithuanian American community. We are terrified that Zelenskyy won't be present tomorrow. We fear another Yalta. We know the horrors of living in an occupied country." That's Audra from Chicago. Audra, thank you for your text. Jonathan, I think the Yalta conference has been mentioned a lot. Can you break down a little bit of that history for us?

Jonathan Lemire: I can. In fact, I just finished reading a great book, and I'm going to look up the author's name while we're talking. That just came out in the last week or two that traced the unlikely alliance between Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin during World War II. Yalta, being the culminating scene at the time, President Roosevelt in very poor health. He would be dead just a few weeks later. History has judged that the US and the UK simply gave up too much to Russia, the Soviet Union at the time, that didn't insist that they vacate a lot of the lands that they conquered on their march west towards Berlin.

I think Yalta has been evoked here, you're right, a lot in recent weeks, that would these be great powers deciding the fate of smaller nations, and in this case, again giving away territory to one of the great powers, in this case, Russia, with a piece of Ukraine. That is one of the historical markers that many view as a potentially foreboding sign here for tomorrow. It can't be overstated. This is a very significant moment. Even if we're to believe Trump that he's actually viewing this as more of a listening session and they come out of tomorrow without a concrete deal, it's still significant that the United States and Russia are meeting.

Also, as many of Trump's critics have pointed out, to give Putin this meeting at all is a win for Putin. I interviewed Trump's former national security adviser, John Bolton, who flatly told me earlier this week Putin's already won because by getting this stage a summit with the US President on the United States soil, this legitimizes him again. It almost marks a return for Putin into the world community because Putin, of course, been labeled a pariah by most since invading Ukraine.

Amina Serna: This is the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Amina Serna, filling in for Brian today. My guest is Jonathan Lemire, co-host of Morning Joe on MSNBC, a contributing writer at The Atlantic, and also apparently, a European history buff. We're talking about President Trump's high-stakes summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which is scheduled to take place tomorrow in Alaska. We're going to take a quick break. When we get back, more of your calls. Stick around.

[MUSIC]

Amina Serna: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Amina Serna, filling in for Brian today. My guest is Jonathan Lemire, who came straight from his shift as a co-host of Morning Joe on MSNBC. We have got a call from Alaska. Here's Lawrence in Anchorage, Alaska. Hi, Lawrence. You're on WNYC.

Lawrence: Hi. Good morning. How are you?

Amina Serna: Good morning.

Lawrence: We have a typical late August or middle August weather here in Anchorage, cloudy and in the upper 40s or so. Anyway, I wanted to just say that it's being held on the base, obviously, because it was done the last minute. Anchorage is a pretty blue city surrounded by red. Our city council and mayor are pretty left-leaning or progressive, relatively speaking. We've had a lot of No Kings protests up here with massive turnouts. We're not able to obviously go on the base and protest this summit that's going on here. That's a shame. I'm feeling bad that that can't happen.

I think there'll be protests outside the gates of the base, so that probably will happen. The other thing I wanted to know is, I believe that Putin has been considered a war criminal and that if he stepped foot in Europe, he would be arrested. Obviously, that wouldn't happen here, unfortunately. I wanted to see what your speaker there thought of that comment, whether that is actually the case.

Amina Serna: Lawrence, thank you so much for your call. I gather it is very early for you there. It's 6:25 AM, I think, in Anchorage. Jonathan, we're also getting a similar text. "The BBC Newshour led their broadcast reporting on how Putin would be arrested at the borders of many countries for the kidnapping of Ukrainian children. Yet the administration here welcomes him on US soil. Make it make sense." I know you were bylined on a recent Atlantic piece that also said similar things. Do you want to just put it into context with us?

Jonathan Lemire: Yes, the US is not a signatory of the ICC arrest warrant that would lead to Putin's potential detention if he were to set foot in much of Europe. Obviously, exceptions can be made. In fact, just yesterday, the Treasury Department issued a waiver to allow Putin and his team to land in the United States. That's why, when the summit though thrown together so quickly, among the host countries were a lot of nations in the Middle East who also wouldn't arrest Putin. Now it's here in the United States. You're right.

I think even the presence of being on Air Force Base has raised some concerns that Putin and members of top Russian government officials would be allowed on a military base, with potentially seeing US Military technology and the like. I think it's a reflection of just how quickly this summit was thrown together, and also for security purposes. As the caller just noted, keeping protesters a safe distance away, but also just securing facility. Putin is one of the most wanted men in the world. The US would want to safeguard him while he is here.

Just to close the loop, the book that I mentioned before the break, in case anyone wants to pick it up, it's called Allies at War: How the Struggles Between the Allied Powers Shaped the War and the World by Tim Bouverie. B-O-U-V-E-R-I-E. Worth checking out.

Amina Serna: Thank you so much for that book recommendation. Let's take another caller. David in Kingston, New York. Hi, you're on WNYC.

David: Hi, thanks for taking my call. I listen nearly every day, and this is the Second time that I've ever called in. My question is this. They keep talking about Trump says, "If things don't sort of go this way, my way, whatever, that more sanctions will be imposed on Russia." I'm wondering why, both the Biden and now Trump's administration, after the war started, why not on day one, after the invasion, 100% max sanctions against Russia weren't imposed, so that now, why are there still outstanding things that Trump is threatening to sanction?

Why hasn't Russia been completely choked off from any kind of economic activity or any kind of anything in order to make in order to make the thing end? It's about the sanctions. That's my question. I don't know if I said that very clearly or not.

Amina Serna: David, thank you so much for your call. That was clear to me. Please call us back again. Jonathan, do you want to-- you mentioned earlier that Trump warned at that press conference yesterday that there would be "very severe consequences" if President Putin is not serious about ending the war. Do you want to talk to us first about those consequences? I think they're pretty sanctions-specific, right?

Jonathan Lemire: He's been vague, but there's a sense that they were sanctions specific. The issue is, it's a slightly complicated matter to address the caller's concerns. First of all, the US actually does very little trade with Russia directly. Simply sanctioning Russia in that way wouldn't impact Moscow all that much. Putin, also, in recent years, has sanctions-proofed his economy in many ways. He's converted it to a wartime footing. More effective, the thought was, if you sanction what's called a secondary sanction, countries that still do business with Russia, we just saw that. They slapped secondary sanctions on India.

I will note they have not yet with China, another major trading partner. That's because I think that's some of President Trump's own biases coming through right now. Trade negotiations with India have stalled. He's angry at India. Therefore, "I don't mind hitting them with some sanctions. Perhaps we can use them as motivation to get a trade deal done while negotiations, though fragile, still ongoing, still progressing with China." He's been reluctant to slap China with a secondary sanction. To the larger point as to why some of it wasn't done before, I think in part, Trump believes he could solve this conflict and solve it quickly. Let's remember he said he could do it in 24 hours.

Even for the Biden administration, as much as they did sanction pieces of the Russian economy, Russia still is one of the world's largest producers of energy, of gas. If there was a full-on sanction, it would have ripple effects with energy prices around the globe. Certainly, a lot of the world would be very unhappy were the US to do that.

Amina Serna: Did I get it right that the sanctions on India were regarding energy exports from Russia?

Jonathan Lemire: They are. They're willing to go that far. India is a major purchaser and consumer of Russian energy, as is China, as is other parts of the world. So far, it's just been India hit with those secondary sanctions. The White House has left the door open that if things don't go well tomorrow in the summit, perhaps then he ratchets up on other nations, too.

Amina Serna: Let's go to another call. Mike in Manhattan. Hi, you're on WNYC.

Mike: Hi. I'm curious about something, but it's based on this idea that Trump is so arrogant that he would go into this meeting, as you mentioned earlier, so unprepared that normally there would be weeks or months to prepare for such a meeting. My theory is that he thinks that he can read Putin so easily and find out whatever he needs to find out without actually having ever read anything, which, of course, is absurd because Putin is a master of manipulation and deception. The question is, given all that, what's the danger of Trump going into this meeting so unprepared? What's the downside for the US, and how is it potentially even dangerous that he's going in so unprepared?

Amina Serna: Jonathan, any thoughts?

Jonathan Lemire: I think the fear is that he would be easily swayed by Putin and that he'd be convinced to taking a bad deal, that he would say, as we detailed earlier in the hour, that he'd be willing to go along with a Putin proposal. Perhaps the hypothetical of, "I'll give you the ceasefire you so desperately want, but I'm not going to give you any other concessions, and I'm going to want to keep land that I've conquered. I'm going to insist that not only can Ukraine not join NATO, but that there can't be any other sort of Western security guarantees," because that's the fear here from the Ukrainian perspective, is that if the fighting could stop, it could stop tomorrow, it could stop months from now.

Unless there are major security guarantees, reinforcements, if you will, in place for Ukraine, what's to stop Putin from simply trying again a few years down the road, that he takes a few years, the cessation of fighting to restock his military and rebuild it, and then try again? That's why Ukraine is looking for more of a permanent peace. The land parts, Zelenskyy worked out, but they want a permanent peace. They feel like a permanent peace can only be secured by commitments from the United States and its Western allies. The fear is an unprepared Trump or a Trump that's easily swayed or charmed by Putin, who's done so in the past, might not be willing to insist on all that.

Amina Serna: We're getting a couple of texts from listeners about who else will be in the room tomorrow. Is it really a one-on-one summit with just the two leaders?

Jonathan Lemire: These are some of the details that we still don't know. These are some of the details that are still being negotiated. The Kremlin has suggested that at least a portion of the meeting will just be the two leaders and their translators. Now, the White House has not confirmed that to be the case. I could tell you what these summits usually look like, is that usually, they come in stages. There's usually one with the principal, meaning the president in this case, with a couple of key advisors, a handful, like four or five people.

Often, that's then followed by a larger group, they bring in some more secondary advisors. Maybe the room expands from, let's say, 5 to 10 on each side. Then, yes, there are occasions where it can be just principle, on principle. We have seen that in the past with Trump, both at a meeting on the sidelines of a major summit in Hamburg, Germany, back in 2017. Trump and Putin met there. At least a portion of that was alone. Then again, in 2018, their only one-on-one summit. They've met a handful of times at various meetings, but the only time they had a full-fledged summit, just the two of them, just these two countries, was Helsinki in 2018. They spent a portion of that time alone, the two of them as well.

We simply don't know what the dynamics are going to look like yet tomorrow.

Amina Serna: Jonathan, we have a listener who remembers that one-on-one summit in Helsinki. Let's go to Tina in Manhattan. Hi, Tina, you're on WNYC.

Tina: Hi, thanks for taking the call. Exactly. This is exactly what I was concerned about. When they go behind closed doors, there's nothing that could prevent Putin from offering Trump a bunch of sites for hotels and all these enticements in order to sell out Zelenskyy. I wanted to know if there are any protocols that prevent that.

Amina Serna: Thank you so much for your call, Tina. Jonathan?

Jonathan Lemire: In the room, no, and we know that in the past, Trump has even ordered his interpreter to destroy the notes of his meeting with Putin. Were this summit to be followed up with, suddenly, an announcement of a Trump Tower Moscow, that would certainly raise a lot of questions. All jokes aside, we have not seen Republicans stand up to Trump on ethics issues in the past. Who's to say they would now? Again, we're getting ahead. That's a hypothetical. We don't know that's what Putin has in mind tomorrow. To the larger point, there's very little here in terms of safeguards or guardrails.

It is going to be President Trump fancies himself as the ultimate dealmaker, that wrote the book The Art of the Deal. For him, foreign policy is so often really based on his personal relationship with the other leader. We have seen that time and again, both in his first term and now in this second. He does believe that he and Putin have a special connection. I've written about it in the past. He said as much yesterday, where he said that he deemed that the two of them went through the "Russia, Russia, Russia" investigation together, and that brought them closer together.

Trump, I should say, has always suggested that he had a good relationship with Putin, which is why he's been so disappointed and frustrated that he hasn't been able to use that good relationship to bring the war to a close in recent months.

Amina Serna: One more text from a listener, which I'm going to paraphrase. Apologies, listener. Trump is negotiating with a KGB operative. Count on it going badly. Jonathan, I know that your latest in the Atlantic is titled Vladimir Putin Could Be Laying a Trap. It's a little bit of what a lot of media pundits are talking about. Do you want to expand a little bit more on the tension or why there's so much, I would say, skepticism on Putin and his KGB background?

Jonathan Lemire: Certainly. Putin has proven very effective at playing a number of US Presidents. We all remember George W. Bush infamously saying he looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. Then Putin promptly then invaded the nation of Georgia. Barack Obama talked about a reset with Russia, and instead, Putin took advantage of that and captured Crimea. We'll note that President Biden didn't seem felled by Putin's charms. He deemed him a thug and a criminal right from the beginning. Stood up to him in their one summit. I was at that one as well. That was in Geneva in 2021, pre-Ukrainian invasion.

When it looked like Russia was preparing to attack Ukraine, Biden called him out. They declassified the intelligence, they made it public, they warned Ukraine, and were a steadfast ally of Ukraine throughout President Biden's time in office. Putin has certainly got it over on a number of US Presidents in the past, most notably Trump at Helsinki and other places. That is why there's such fear here that Putin is going to play to Trump's ego, play to their alleged special connection, play to Trump's inherent dislike of Zelenskyy, play to Trump's inherent suspicion of Western allies.

We know that Trump has always had concerns about NATO and other European countries. He views the world as one divided by great powers, and he wants to strike new business deals with Russia. There's a lot of opportunity there for Putin to manipulate Trump and potentially agreeing to a deal that Ukraine would then nix and then really put potentially Kyiv on the back footing in a war that, in that scenario, would continue.

Amina Serna: All right, last question, because we're getting a couple of texts on something you said earlier, Jonathan, about how Trump makes it clear that he wants a Nobel Peace Prize. As we wrap, you write that Trump has taken to declaring that he has "ended six wars" in his second term. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told you that, "Trump has solved seven global conflicts in six months". What do the fact checkers say?

Jonathan Lemire: Every time they speak, that number seems to go up. Now, it is true that Trump and his administration has helped bring end to conflicts. There was a skirmish between India and Pakistan. The Armenia-Azerbaijan deal. That was a big one at the White House last week. There have been others. The fact checkers say it's partially true. Some of these conflicts have faded out without much US involvement. Others, Trump has indeed played a role. We should note, the two highest-profile conflicts on the planet are ones he has been unable to solve. That, of course, is Israel and Hamas in Gaza, and of course, Russia and Ukraine, ongoing now.

Trump has made no secret. He wants a Nobel Peace Prize. He was angered that President Obama got one. He feels like he's been deserving in the past. He wants one now. People around him have told me, as I reported out that last article, that at least for now, Gaza seems like a bit of a lost cause when Trump is not standing up to Netanyahu in his plan to fully occupy Gaza. He sees Russia and Ukraine as his best bet. He thinks there could be economic opportunities afterwards as well. That's why there are so many storylines and so many really important things to be watching coming out of that summit tomorrow afternoon from Alaska.

Amina Serna: So many more storylines, as you say, that we will hopefully have you back on for. That's all the time we have for today. Our guest has been Jonathan Lemire, co-host of Morning Joe on MSNBC, writer for MSNBC, and contributing writer to The Atlantic. Thank you so much for pulling host and guest double duty with us this morning.

Jonathan Lemire: I'm always happy to do it. Thank you.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.