Five Questions with Alexander Vindman

A Cross-Post from Joyce Vance’s Substack

The text below originally appeared on Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance earlier this week. I am cross-posting here to share our conversation about The Folly of Realism, the future of U.S. foreign policy, and why principled leadership matters now more than ever. Many thanks to Joyce for the thoughtful discussion:

“I know it isn’t Friday, but given events over the weekend, I thought we’d get straight to it. This is the second time we’ve been fortunate enough to have Alexander Vindman as a guest for “Five Questions.” It’s especially timely with Trump’s Friday night appointment of “Razin’ Caine” as the head of the Joint Chiefs and other firings within the military.

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, U.S. Army (Retired) served as the Director for European Affairs on the White House’s National Security Council during the first Trump administration.

Vindman became a household name as the whistleblower who exposed Donald Trump’s efforts to extort Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into announcing a criminal investigation into Joe Biden’s supposedly criminal business dealings in that country. Of course, Trump’s claims were false, but he threatened to withhold much-needed security aid from Ukraine until Zelensky did him that “favor.”

Vindman reported up his chain of command, ultimately leading to Trump’s first impeachment in December 2019. Trump retaliated two months later by firing Vindman from his role as the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council. His second book, “The Folly of Realism: How the West Deceived Itself about Russia and Betrayed Ukraine,” is newly out this week. I was lucky enough to get an advance copy, and this is one you’ll want to head out to purchase at your local bookstore or order it online here (the link is to Alex’s local bookstore). It’s as compelling as his first book, the New York Times bestselling memoir “Here, Right Matters.”

Joyce: Can we start with what happened Friday night? Can you help us understand who Trump fired, who he replaced them with, and what the significance of those moves is?

Alex: What we witnessed on Friday night was the continuation of Trump’s efforts to dismantle the guardrails of democracy. He fired the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—the highest-ranking military officer advising the president—and replaced him with someone more politically pliable. At the same time, the administration purged senior Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers, raising serious concerns about its intentions to weaken the legal checks on military conduct. While individual replacements happen, wide-ranging removals like this indicate that Trump is looking to replace senior leaders with yes-men—not just pandering to his base with so-called DEI removals. His appointment of a National Guard officer over a full-time career officer to lead the Joint Chiefs is unprecedented and raises red flags about whether experience or loyalty is driving these choices. Now, the Senate must confirm new nominees to replace all of those removed. They should only do so after thorough hearings on each and every nominee rather than through unanimous consent. This is a pivotal moment for Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities. For a deeper dive into what this means for U.S. national security, I discussed it further on my Substack here.

Joyce: You spoke to my seminar class on the topic of democratic institutions earlier this month, as we were studying the importance of having a civilian-led military. In the course of assessing the institutional strength of the military, you expressed your view that the military would hold, in the sense that it would refuse to follow illegal orders. With the change in leadership at the Joint Chiefs and firing of JAG officers, is that still your view?

Alex: I still believe the military, as an institution, will uphold its constitutional duty and refuse to follow blatantly illegal orders. The U.S. military is a professional force bound by an oath to the Constitution, not to a president. That said, Trump and his Defense Secretary are testing the boundaries. By firing military lawyers and replacing independent leaders with loyalists, they are deliberately creating an environment where legality isn’t debated. The removal of JAG officers is particularly alarming because these legal advisors ensure military actions comply with U.S. and international law. Trump and his team are searching for compliant JAG officers who will rubber-stamp orders, regardless of their actual legality. This is how authoritarians operate: they strip away institutional safeguards until there’s no one left to say “no.” The real test will come if Trump attempts to use the military for domestic political purposes.

Joyce: How jarring is this administration’s move away from supporting Ukraine, and how dangerous is it not just for that country and Western Europe, but for our own national security? Are you surprised by the Republican Party’s embrace of pro-Putinism, or do you think this could become a breaking point for at least some of them?

Alex: This isn’t just about abandoning an ally—it’s about upending the post-World War II order that has kept Europe stable for nearly 80 years. If Ukraine falls, Putin won’t stop there. The Baltics, Poland, and other parts of Europe could be next, and NATO’s credibility will be shattered. Weakening NATO and retreating from our commitments doesn’t make America safer—it makes us more vulnerable, and it emboldens every adversary watching to see how much ground they can take. As for the Republican Party, its transformation is astonishing. We’ve gone from Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” to elected officials parroting Russian propaganda. But this isn’t just about pro-Putinism—it’s about embracing fascism. Just look at Elon Musk and then Steve Bannon openly doing Nazi salutes, and JD Vance defending and supporting Germany’s contemporary fascist party. It’s surreal that America is now flirting with the same authoritarianism that our recent generations fought against. Inside the administration, there’s an internal struggle playing out between those who want to appease Russia and those who recognize the bigger risks of emboldening Putin and Xi. If Trump continues on this path, weakening Ukraine and NATO, it could become a major breaking point for some in his administration and his party. The question is whether there are still Republicans willing to push back before it’s too late.

Joyce: In “The Folly of Realism,” you write about how Western foreign policy across decades enabled the return of Russian imperialism, resulting in the war against Ukraine. Where are we now in terms of Putin’s confidence that he can act unchecked by the United States?

Alex: Putin has never been more confident. He sees Western vacillation between democracy and illiberalism as weakness, and Trump’s return has only reinforced his belief that he can outlast the U.S. and its allies. Trump’s signaling that the U.S. may abandon Ukraine or even NATO altogether gives Putin exactly what he wants: division, chaos, and a path to victory. Chaos and division are opportunities for our enemies. This moment is the culmination of decades of failed U.S. policy toward Russia—what I call “The Folly of Realism.” For decades, the U.S. has prioritized short-term stability over long-term deterrence. We feared escalation, assumed we could cut deals with Putin, and convinced ourselves that Russia could be a responsible partner. In reality, every concession emboldened him. The longer we hesitate now, the more emboldened he becomes. The only way to end this war on U.S. national security-enhancing terms is to ensure Ukraine wins and Russia loses—anything short of that will invite further Russian, and very likely Chinese, aggression.

Joyce: What do you want us to take away from your book when we read it? What is the lesson for us as we watch events unfolding this week, and is there anything we, as citizens, can do?

Alex: The core argument of my book is that U.S. foreign policy has been driven by a myopic Realist approach—one that assumes the world is governed by nations pursuing only their national interests, where values are largely irrelevant. This framework has been a disaster for American foreign policy, leading to massive instability. By prioritizing short-term stability and transactionalism over long-term strategy, the Realist approach has repeatedly sacrificed enduring security for fleeting tactical gains. My research shows that this mindset has left the U.S. more vulnerable, weakened our alliances, and emboldened our adversaries—culminating in Russia’s war against Ukraine. To navigate away from this cycle of failure, we must recognize that values are not separate from U.S. interests—they are central to them. After years of foreign policy whiplash and a hard swing toward extreme Realism, the U.S. must pivot to a strategy of values primacy. That means reinforcing strong alliances, fostering economic partnerships, and establishing stability and predictability that deter aggression from our enemies. A foreign policy grounded in values isn’t just about morality—it’s about securing America’s long-term strategic interests. If Trump continues his trajectory of abandoning Ukraine and weakening NATO, the consequences will be severe—not just for Europe but for our own national security. As citizens, we must be engaged. Contact your representatives and demand continued support for Ukraine. Stay informed and push back against disinformation. And most importantly, remember that democracy is not self-sustaining—it requires active participation from all of us.

---

We’re in this together,

Joyce”