Rob

I'll still go to battle.

Samuel Cherub is the distinguished chair in Russia and Eurasia policy at the Iran Corporation and one of the most influential voices in the US policy debate on how the war in Ukraine should end.

He's argued for a negotiated settlement since early in the war, sticking with that position even when it has been highly unfashionable in DC and attracted heated criticism.

He's been specializing in Russia-Ukraine relations for decades, speaks both Russian and Ukrainian, and in 2017 wrote, Everyone Loses, The Ukraine Crisis and the Ruinous Contest for Post-Soviet Eurasia.

If anything, I would say an understatement in hindsight.

Welcome back to the show, Samuel.

Thanks for having me, Rob.

Your most recent piece, Europe's Next War, the Rising Risk of a NATO-Russia Conflict, argues that the risk of a direct NATO-Russia confrontation could actually be higher after a ceasefire in Ukraine, which I think to many people will seem kind of counterintuitive.

It's somewhat counterintuitive to me.

So let's start with a big picture question.

I guess, how seriously should we take the risk, the probability of a direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia?

Yeah.

What do you think are the most likely accidental escalation scenarios?

Why don't you think of the risk of Russia deliberately attacking a NATO country as being that likely?

I mean, I guess the scenario I've always been most worried about, I guess, is Russia attacking one of the Baltic states, trying to engage in a fait accompli there.

And then I guess that could just quite clearly escalate to a full war.

Right.

Something that surprised me.

So in the article, you're saying it's plausible that it could be an even more dangerous period after we have a ceasefire in Ukraine.

That makes me wonder...