JOINING ME IN THE CENTER RING TO TANGLE WITH THE LATEST ON THE WAR IN UKRAINE IS SENIOR LECTURER AT THE JOHN HOPKINS SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, DR. SINISA VUKOVIC.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING ON.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR INVITING ME.

>> YOU ARE AN EXPERT IN THIS AREA.

AND I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE END GAME IS WITH THE UKRAINIAN WAR WITH RUSSIA AND WHETHER OR NOT TRUMP CAN PULL OFF WHAT HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO TRY TO PULL OFF AND END THE WAR ON DAY ONE.

LAST WEEK, TRUMP AND BIDEN MET IN THE WHITE HOUSE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.

A FEW DAYS LATER, OUT OF NOWHERE, BIDEN AUTHORIZED THE USE OF LONG RANGE MISSILES FROM UKRAINE INTO RUSSIA FOR THE FIRST TIME.

RUSSIA SUPPOSEDLY RESPONDED LAST NIGHT-- WE DON'T KNOW WITH AN ICBM THEY LAUNCHED FROM THE UKRAINE INTO RUSSIA.

WE DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE OF THAT.

WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON THIS SWAIX AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE POSSIBLE PEACE PROCESS?

>> THERE ARE A LOT OF UNKNOWNS AND NOT A LOT OF CONFIRMATIONS YET AND WE ARE WORKING WITH SOME ASSUMPTIONS AT THIS POINT.

BUT THE ACTIVITIES FROM LAST NIGHT INDICATE THAT RUSSIA WAS TRYING TO USE A SYMBOLIC RESPONSE.

THIS IS WHAT WE CAN ASSUME FROM NOW, USING AN ICBM THAT WAS NOT CARRYING A NUCLEAR WAR HEAD TO ATTACK CIVILIAN AND ENTREPRENEURIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE CITY OF NIPRO.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOUR VIEWERS KNOW THIS, IT WAS ONE OF THE CENTER OF THE SOVIET MISSILE PRODUCTION.

THIS IS WHERE THEY MADE SOME OF THEIR KEY ICBM LIKE THE R-12 WHICH WAS POINT, KIND OF A REAFFIRMATION OF THE POSITIONS THAT THE PARTIES HAVE ON THE GROUND.

NO ONE IS ABLE TO USE THIS STILL AS A DECISIVE OFFENSIVE WEAPON TO SAY THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE THE PRECURSOR FOR A STRONGER OFFENSIVE BY WHICH THEY CAN CLAIM MORE TERRITORY WHAT THIS SIGNALS IS THE ABILITY OF BOTH SIDES TO HOLD THEIR POSITIONS BEFORE THE NEW ADMINISTRATION COMES IN.

>> SO HERE WE ARE.

WE HAVE THE NORTH KOREAN SOLDIERS IMPLEMENTED ON THE FRONT LINES AND WE HAVE THE MISSILES GOING BACK AND FORDS NOW.

HOW DOES THAT STRENGTHEN OR IMPACT TRUMP'S DESIRE TO END THIS WAR ON DAY ONE?

>> THERE IS AN INTERESTING COINCIDENCE OR FACT OR MAYBE EVEN A PLOT LINE HERE THAT TRUMP WAS ALWAYS SAYING IN HIS CAMPAIGN THAT HE WAS ABLE AND WILLING TO END THE WAR ON DAY ONE.

AND THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF CLARITY WHAT WAS MEANT BY IT.

BUT SOME OF HIS CLOSEST ADVISERS INCLUDING MICHAEL WALTSES ARGUED RECENTLY IF PUTIN REFUSIONS TO TALK, WASHINGTON CAN PROVIDE MORE WEAPONS TO UKRAINE WITH FEWER RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR USE.

AND BASED ON THAT PRESSURE, PUTIN WOULD PROBABLY TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WIND THE CONFLICT DOWN.

THAT'S BASICALLY AN INDICATION THAT TRUMP'S TEAM ALSO HAD AN IDEA OF ALLOWING ATACMS TO BE USED WITH LESS RESTRICTIONS.

THE THAT WAS THE IDEA OF INDUCING PUTIN TO MAKE MORE CONCEDING STEPS, IT'S CLEARLY BACKFIRED BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ENOUGH FOR PUTIN TO SAY I'M NOW READY TO TALK IN A MEANINGFUL AND SUSTAINABLE WAY.

WHAT I CAN INFER FROM THE SITUATION AT THIS POINT IS A SIGNALING EXERCISE BY THE RUSSIANS WHICH IS NOT ONLY AIMED AT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.

IT'S MAINLY AIMED FOR THE DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION.

BASICALLY SAYING THAT SINCE ATACMS WERE PERMITTED TO BE USED ON RUSSIAN TERRITORY-- AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE BORDER BETWEEN UKRAINE AND RUSSIA AND THE LOWERING OF THE THRESHOLD FOR THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT WAS RECENTLY ISSUED BY CREME LIN, THIS IS A SIGNAL TO THE CONCERNED AUDIENCES IN RUSSIA TO SAY, DOES PUTIN FOLLOW UP OR IS HE ABLE TO FOLLOW UP ON HIS COMMITMENT AND NOW THE PUNDITRY SOME Ms. CAN MOSCOW CAN SAY HE USED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY, ICBM WAS USED, NOT ARMED WITH A NUCLEAR WAR HEAD BUT NEXT TIME WHO KNOWS.

SO WE ARE ABLE AND WILLING TO DEPLOY THESE WEAPONS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN USED.

>> SO LOOKING IN YOUR CRYSTAL BALL GOING FORWARD, TRUMP GETS SWORN IN ON JANUARY 20.

DO YOU THINK HE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO PULL OFF A SETTLEMENT OF THIS WAR?

AND IF SO, HOW LIKELY IS IT GOING TO BE THAT UKRAINE HAS TO GIVE UP SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF LAND?

THE CONFLICT IS NOT RIPE FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE RESOLUTION.

AND BY THAT I MEAN THAT TO CREATE A SUSTAINABLE OUTCOME, THAT BOTH PARTIES CAN LIVE WITH, IF THEY COMPARE IT TO THE AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES THEY HAVE OUTSIDE OF THE TABLE.

RIGHT NOW THE PERCEPTION IS THAT FOR BOTH SIDES, THERE IS STILL AN AVENUE IN WHICH THEY CAN WIN IN THIS CONFLICT.

VICTORY MEANS VERY DIFFERENT THINGS FOR THE TWO SIDES.

FOR RUSSIA, VICTORY BASICALLY MEANS HOLDING ON TO THE TERRITORY THEY HAVE OCCUPIED.

SO IF WE CAN CARBON-- IF WE CONSIDER THAT THEIR CONCESSION IS TO CONCEDE ON THINGS THATY NEVER HAD BUT OCCUPIED IT, THAT BASICALLY MEANS LEGITIMIZING AND EVEN MORE PROBLEMATICALLY LEGALIZING OCCUPATION AS A VIABLE WAY OF NEGOTIATING.

FOR UKRAINIANS, THEY WIN AS LONG AS THEY ARE IN THIS WAR.

THIS IS AN EXISTENTIAL CONFLICT FOR THEM.

THE ABILITY TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY IS THE BIGGEST VICTORY THEY CAN GET AT THIS POINT.

SO NEGOTIATING FROM A POSITION OF WEAKNESS IS NOT SOMETHING THE UKRAINIANS ARE ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT.

IT'S THE PROSPECT OF UNCERTAINTY THAT WILL MOVE THE POWER BALANCE, THE SYMMETRIES THAT WE ARE SEEING RIGHT NOW, THE STALEMATE THAT IS NOT PAINFUL ENOUGH FOR EITHER OF THE TWO SIDES TO MAKE MORE MEANINGFUL CONCESSIONS.

AND IF WE ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE AMERICAN SIDE AS A MEDIATOR, WHICH TYPE OFY NORMATIVE REALITY SERVES THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING A PEACE PROCESS?

IS IT A NORMATIVE REALITY IN WHICH OCCUPATION LAND GRAB, ANNEXATION OF FOREIGN TERRITORIES IS SUPPOSED TO BE A LEGITIMATE BEHAVIOR?

OR IS IT TO UPHOLD THE RULES-BASED INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM THAT PROTECTS INTERNATIONAL STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF SOVEREIGN STATES.

>> DOCTOR, WE COULD GO ON.

IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS NO END IN SIGHT AND THAT'S TRULY TRAGIC FOR THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE AND THE RUSSIAN SOLDIERS THAT THEY'RE SENDING INTO THE MEAT GRINDER AND PUTIN DOESN'T GIVE A DARN ABOUT.

WE COULD TALK LONGER, OF COURSE, BUT WE THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR