Reporter:

If chemical weapons were used in Ukraine, would that trigger a military response from NATO?

Joe Biden:

It would trigger a response in kind.

Frederica Freyberg:

President Joe Biden addressing reporters in Brussels yesterday as he met with NATO leaders. More than 3 1/2 million Ukrainians have fled the country and the United States is now prepared to accept 100,000 of them. This as a Russian spokesperson says the country has not ruled out the possibility of chemical or nuclear weapons. Our first guest tonight is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer and member of the House Armed Services Committee. Republican Congressman Mike Gallagher from the 8th District joins us from Green Bay. Congressman, thanks very much for being here.

Mike Gallagher:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

So one month into the war in Ukraine, what is your reaction to the horror of what’s going on?

Mike Gallagher:

Well, the Russian blitzkrieg has failed which is a development we welcome but now I fear we’re settling into a war of attrition that not only is going to be very costly in terms of slaughter and lives lost, but it’s still an uncertain outcome. Though it seems unlikely that Putin could consolidate any sort of control over the entire country, he could effectively dismember the country which could be a bad outcome from the Ukrainian people as well as give him a platform from which to threaten NATO more in the future. So I think we are still in the early stages of this and we need to continue to do whatever we can to provide lethal assistance in particular to the Ukrainians who are fighting very, very bravely.

Frederica Freyberg:

As to the threat of the use of chemical weapons by Russia, President Biden said if that happened, allies would “respond in kind.” First what kinds of chemicals weapons are we talking about?

Mike Gallagher:

Well, it could be any number of things. You could imagine Putin striking targets on the ground in Ukraine that could have a fallout, a biological fallout. You could have dirty bombs. Obviously, it could escalate all the way up to nuclear weapons. And then in Syria, we’ve seen him basically use the country as a laboratory for how to integrate chemical and biological warfare into conventional operations. And in partnership with the Assad regime, has at various times used such weapons which was the last time a democratic administration set a red line. Now that the Biden administration has set it, he better be prepared to back it up. Now, I don’t think we should allow the fear of escalation to dominate our actions. In fact, I think that’s part of why we got into this crisis in the first place, is we were so afraid of provoking Putin that that was used as an excuse to do nothing and to delay assistance to the Ukrainians. So we want to shift the dynamic and make sure that it’s Putin who fears our retaliation and that’s the only way we’ll be able to restore some semblance of deterrence in Ukraine.

Frederica Freyberg:

Meanwhile, how much firepower has the U.S. sent to Ukraine and is it enough in your mind?

Mike Gallagher:

Well, we recently passed a over $10 billion package. Now, not all of this has manifested itself in terms of javelins, stingers, sniper rifles, body armor, things like that. There’s much more we can do, but we are finally waking up to the threat and doing a lot more to provide lethal assistance. The areas where I think we can still do more, one, I think we should find a way to take Slovakia up on its offer to provide the S300 system to Ukraine and find a way to backfill their air defense systems. I was in favor of providing the Polish MiGs. I’m not optimistic the president will find a solution for that or change course on that despite his visit to Poland, but the point remains, I think there are more creative options in partnership with our NATO allies where short of a no-fly zone, we can still give the Ukrainians the tools they need to protect themself from attacks from the sky as well as other forms of Russian weaponry.

Frederica Freyberg:

What are your concerns that China starts helping Russia?

Mike Gallagher:

I think this is the most important part of the next phase of this conflict. Prior to the invasion at the beginning of the Olympics, they signed this 5,000-word pledge of friendship without limits. We’ve heard various reports that China is considering providing lethal assistance to Russia, giving them a lifeline. We need to be absolutely clear that if the Chinese decide to do that, then there will be consequences. We will punish them. We should cut off the export of semiconductor subcomponents, for example, that China relies upon. We should already be delisting Chinese companies that are trying to list on American exchanges. Our SCC is remarkably still negotiating with the Chinese over some accountability standards, which are a joke right now. So Russia and China have decided to partner in launching this new Cold War against America and the West, we need to recognize that in order to start pushing back effectively.

Frederica Freyberg:

As a military expert, do you think this could become World War III? Where will Putin stop?

Mike Gallagher:

Well, there’s always the danger that once you unleash the dogs of war, you don’t know what’s going to happen. War is complex. The fog of war is thick right now. As Clausewitz said in war, everything — the simplest thing becomes very difficult, so we don’t know. We do not know. We should be cognizant of the risk of escalation, but I believe our best chance to not only avoid World War III but to also help preserve some semblance of a free Ukraine is to invest in hard power with our allies. We learned the hard way in Ukraine that sanctions alone do not deter. #diplomacy does not deter. Deterrence depends on American leadership and hard power, that’s not just true in Ukraine, that’s the lesson we need to learn and apply to Taiwan going forward before we actually see a World War III fought over the Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

Frederica Freyberg:

What is your response to some Republicans including former President Trump who seemed to have been praising Putin?

Mike Gallagher:

Well, obviously Putin’s a KGB thug and a dictator, and there’s a strain of thinking on the right and left that suggests we can somehow peel the Russians off from the Chinese and partner with them over the long term to push back against China. If that were possible, it would be worth considering as a matter of real politique but it’s not possible. Putin has no interest in cooperating with us. Our interests don’t align, and he is obviously, as I said at the start, a KGB thug. In that same interview, I believe President Trump said this never would have happened if he had still been president. He may have a point there because it didn’t happen for four years when Trump was president. I guess that’s the counterfactual we’ll never get to play out, but the point remains Putin is a thug and the only language he understands is the language of hard power.

Frederica Freyberg:

Congressman Mike Gallagher, thanks very much.

Mike Gallagher:

Thank you.