Brooks and Capehart on chances of Ukraine-Russia talks leading to peace in 2026

Amna Nawaz:

2026 is expected to be an eventful year, both at home and abroad.

For more on what's ahead and to look at this past week of news, we turn now to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW.

Great to see you both.

Jonathan Capehart:

Happy new year.

Amna Nawaz:

Happy new year.

David Brooks:

Same to you.

Amna Nawaz:

All right, let's kick this off by talking about the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine. We have seen a lot of headlines this week, and I need to start there because that war is about to mark four years in February.

We saw the new year begin with a massive Russian drone barrage in Ukraine, hundreds of strikes in that country. We saw President Zelenskyy and President Trump meet at Mar-a-Lago last weekend, say there's progress on a peace plan.

This week, we saw special envoy Steve Witkoff continue to hold calls with Zelenskyy and other European officials. And in his own New Year's address, Zelenskyy said that the peace plan is 90 percent ready.

So, David, when you take all of this and you look ahead, do you see progress being made? Is 2026 the year that the war ends?

David Brooks:

Possibly, but I'm -- color me skeptical.

I mean, this is the year we will find out whether the international community can respond with -- effectively when one nation tries to conquer another. And, unfortunately, what the Trump administration has done recently has been pressuring Zelenskyy to make concessions, slow-walking the weapons we have been providing for them, putting him in a tough position.

He makes some concessions. And then, in theory, we give him, in turn, security guarantees. And it's supposed to be like Article 5 of the NATO treaty, security guarantees of some number of years, 15 or 20 or 30.

Amna Nawaz:

Article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all.

David Brooks:

Yes, attack on -- if the -- if Putin attacks Ukraine, then we're at war with Russia.

Amna Nawaz:

Right.

David Brooks:

That's the -- so, if you believe the U.S. is going to go to war over Ukraine and send troops or airports -- or airplanes, well, I'd ask you to talk to people who've done business with Donald Trump before, because he will break that. That is a purposeless guarantee.

And Putin didn't like the way NATO was stretching eastward anyway. Why would he accept Ukraine to have an effective NATO guarantee? He will not accept this. One of the things that it's reminding people of is, at the end of the Clinton term, the second Clinton term, he really wanted to have a peace with Israel and Palestine, which was absolutely the right thing to do.

But Yasser Arafat was never interested because he didn't think Israel was a country. Vladimir Putin does not think Ukraine is a country. And so you can't argue people into a peace they do not want to have. So I'm extremely dubious that this is going to work.

Amna Nawaz:

Jonathan, are you any more optimistic about what's ahead in this year?

Jonathan Capehart:

No, especially picking up on something David just talked about, that you said at the very beginning about the international community being able to help Ukraine, or I can't remember exactly what you thought.

But I immediately wrote down, how does the international community, and particularly the Europeans, how do they respond to all of this and come to Ukraine's aid without an effective partner in the United States, without an effective partner in the president of the United States?

To David's point, Donald Trump, President Trump, is not the most reliable negotiator. If he tells you at 9:00 that this is the deal, by 9:15, it could be something completely different. And so, in the end, I will be keeping my eye on whether the Europeans can stand on their own, and on their own in a way that can effectively help Ukraine without any kind of solid commitments or assistance from the United States.

Amna Nawaz:

When you step back and look at this war for just a moment, because there's been a lot of questions about to whom President Trump has been listening, right -- he changes his tack based on the last phone call he had, it appears, sometimes, and also the amount of influence that President Putin clearly has over the process.

Is there credit to be given to the White House here, David, at least for keeping talks going, for keeping some kind of process on some sort of rails? Is that something they should be given credit for?

David Brooks:

Yes, I think they really want peace. I think Trump genuinely wants peace. And I think he's obtuse about who Vladimir Putin is.

I think, as we saw in the Oval Office months and months ago, he's morally uninvolved in the stakes of this contest. Like, Zelenskyy is a democratically elected leader whose country was invaded. And he just doesn't seem like there's one side that's kind of on the side of right in this war.

But I do think they have tried hard. I do think all the envoys, Jared Kushner, all these guys, Witkoff, all these people who've been there are probably sincerely motivated. I just don't think you can have peace with Vladimir Putin. And so, to me, it's a characterological misdiagnosis of who this person is.

Jonathan Capehart:

I just wonder if President Trump really wants peace or surrender, or is there a distinction? Does he see a distinction between the two?

Amna Nawaz:

In terms of what Ukraine is willing to concede to?

Jonathan Capehart:

Right, or -- no, what he wants.

I mean, David just said, they're really pushing hard for peace. And, sure, but at what cost? Does it require -- would peace require surrender on Ukraine's part of territory already taken by Putin, taken by the Russians...

Amna Nawaz:

Yes.

Jonathan Capehart:

... or any other kinds of concessions that Ukraine would have to take in order for there to be peace?

Amna Nawaz:

They say the plan's 90 percent there. We will see in the weeks and months ahead.

I do want to turn to some of the political pressures President Trump has been managing here at home as well, because he did issue his first two vetoes of his second term this week. Both are bills, we should point out, that passed Congress unanimously. One was funding a clean water pipeline in Colorado, the other protected tribal land in Florida.

And you have probably seen there have been some lawmakers, including Republican Colorado Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, who suggested that the vetoes could have been some kind of political retaliation. She was one of the only Republicans to sign a petition that forced a vote on releasing the Epstein files.

And a very strong Trump ally, a former elections clerk official in Colorado, is still in prison in her state, in Colorado, convicted of state crime, so his federal pardon does not apply.

Jonathan, I will come to you first on this. Do you believe the president is vetoing unrelated bills for political retribution?

Jonathan Capehart:

Gee. Yes.

(Laughter)

Jonathan Capehart:

Yes, I do.

From the reporting I saw, this -- the bill that he vetoed, that water project, $555,000, so not even a drop in the bucket of federal spending. But, also, let's not forget that Congresswoman Boebert was that one member of Congress back in November who was called to the White House Situation Room and talked to about her signature on that discharge petition.

She left and said, no, I'm still -- I'm not removing my name, I'm still doing this. So...

Amna Nawaz:

That was the petition to release the Epstein files.

Jonathan Capehart:

To release -- yes, I'm sorry. Yes, to release the Epstein files.

Amna Nawaz:

Yes. Yes.

Jonathan Capehart:

And so now we see this action by the president specifically at her state. How could I not view that as retaliation? How could she not view that as retaliation, even though she asked the question rhetorically?

Amna Nawaz:

David, what do you make of this?

David Brooks:

One thing I like about Donald Trump is, you don't have to guess.

(Laughter)

David Brooks:

It's not like a psychological whodunit about why he does things.

In the other case, the Florida case, it was extending rights to a tribe of Native Americans whose name I will now will not try to pronounce. But he said it out loud. He said, this group of people has opposed my immigration policies.

Amna Nawaz:

Yes.

David Brooks:

And if you're not on board with the Trump policies, then you're not getting the money.

And so it's not only retribution, though. It's the cash register. How do you get people to give you money so you can have Lee Greenwood perform at the Kennedy Center, for example? It's you give them, people who give what you -- who do what you want, you give them reward. People who don't do what you want, you punish them.

So you have to have the cards and leverage. So it's not only retribution. It's about leverage. It's about doing things not only in this regard, but in all sorts of regards, that will punish people who oppose Trump policies.

Amna Nawaz:

Well, what about Congress' role? These were unanimous bills in Congress. Do you see Republicans moving to override those vetoes, David?

David Brooks:

Again, I have been waiting. I mean, we have seen some profiles in courage microscopically around the Republican Party, but not so much in Washington.

(Laughter)

David Brooks:

There have been a few cases.

Amna Nawaz:

Yes.

David Brooks:

And it's weird that the people who are the bravest are Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert. These are the hardcore. Like, they are out there doing what they want to do. And God bless them, I guess.

But I don't see this getting...

Amna Nawaz:

Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:

Congress has been the staffing arm of the Trump White House since President Trump took the oath of office. So I don't see Congress doing anything to roll this back. And, if they do, great, I would love for them to prove me wrong, Speaker Johnson, if you're watching.

Amna Nawaz:

Well, look, it's our first time getting to sit down and chat in 2026, which promises to be a very, very busy year.

I'm going to ask a very dangerous question, which is whether either of you care to look ahead and make a bit of a prediction in terms of what's ahead in terms of the big stories you think we will be paying most attention to or one we don't even see coming around the corner just yet. Who wants to go first?

Jonathan Capehart:

Jump ball. Go, David.

(Laughter)

David Brooks:

No, you go first.

Jonathan Capehart:

Oh, my word.

Look, I am a perennial optimist. We are rolling into a midterm election year where my optimism demands that I see a future where Democrats retake the House, suddenly turn the engine of the Article I powers of the House back on with oversight and accountability, that -- finally doing things to not just rein in this president, but to also exercise their powers as a co-equal branch of government.

That is what I'm looking forward to in this year. And also I'm looking forward to the American people making their voices heard at the ballot box in November, but throughout the weeks and months ahead as things happen in their communities and in their states that they like or don't like and take to the streets and make sure that people are watching and people know that they either like or don't like what's happening.

Amna Nawaz:

David?

David Brooks:

Yes, I think this will be the year where we figure out what the A.I. effect does on the labor markets. It'll be the year where we find out why China is beating the world in industry after industry and what are the effects of that.

I agree with Jonathan, the Democrats will agree to take the House. But I would say the thing I'm most interested in and most excited about is that 2025 was a pretty bad year for those of us who sit around talking about politics, but it was OK for the economy. The last quarter three growth rate was 4.3 percent, but socially it was a very good year.

So we saw suicide deaths down. We saw violent crimes down. We see opioid addiction down. We see obesity down. We see social isolation down, social media use down. So a lot of the damage that happened to the fabric of American society over the last 10 years, people are beginning to respond, and they're beginning to figure stuff out.

So longevity was going down. Now longevity is going back up again. And so I think America is socially healing. And those are the things you can extrapolate from, because those trends are not just blips. Those trends, I think, are longstanding. And we could see 2026 as a year of more political depression. Don't get too cheered up.

(Laughter)

Jonathan Capehart:

No, I was going to say.

David Brooks:

But maybe of some social healing.

Amna Nawaz:

Here's to a little more social healing for us all.

David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, thank you to you both.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks, Amna.

David Brooks:

Thank you.