Robert Wilkie to Newsmax: 'Jaw Jaw Is Better Than War War'
wgowam.com -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 10:56:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations
Former Trump Cabinet member Robert Wilkie said former President Donald Trump's decision to sit down with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week might not have delivered immediate results, but it signaled a vital shift back to diplomacy -- a move Wilkie framed in Churchillian terms: "Jaw jaw is better than war war."
Wilkie, who served as secretary of Veterans Affairs and undersecretary of defense, joined host Tom Basile on Newsmax's "America Agenda" on Saturday morning to analyze Trump's Friday summit with Putin and preview Monday's scheduled White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Wilkie, who sat in Trump's Cabinet for three years, said he recognized immediately that Trump was dissatisfied with what came out of the meeting.
"After three years in the Cabinet, when I saw that look, I knew that he wasn't happy," Wilkie said.
Trump, in his own remarks after the summit, called it "extremely productive," saying that many points of agreement had been reached, though one major obstacle remained.
"No deal yet," he said, while expressing optimism that negotiations were headed in the right direction.
Wilkie told Basile that the very fact the meeting happened was a diplomatic success.
"The fact that this meeting happened in the first place is a win. It's significant," Wilkie said, adding that President Joe Biden could never have orchestrated such talks after cutting off all direct contact with Putin -- a move Wilkie called "a strategic error among many."
Putin, he said, refused to retreat from "maximalist demands" -- including his denial of Ukraine's sovereignty and insistence that it is part of a greater Russian empire.
"In that sense, the summit did not achieve anything," Wilkie said.
Why Talking Still Matters
But Wilkie said dismissing the talks as a failure misses the point.
"I'm one of those ... who believes what Mr. [Winston] Churchill said: 'Jaw jaw is better than war war,'" he said.
For Wilkie, dialogue serves a dual purpose: taking the measure of an adversary while also signaling seriousness to allies.
"It's important for the president to sit down with Putin and take his temperature, take his measure. And he'll do the same with Zelenskyy," Wilkie said.
European leaders, however, remain skeptical, with many concluding that Putin will not agree to a ceasefire and is indifferent to sanctions. Wilkie said the best hope may be some form of armistice -- akin to the frozen conflict dividing North and South Korea.
When Basile pressed on whether full peace negotiations were realistic, Wilkie responded, "It's only realistic if the United States and Europe put on the table security guarantees."
During the Soviet collapse, he said, the U.S. and Europe offered assurances but failed to deliver, leaving vulnerable nations exposed.
This time, he said, guarantees must be real -- potentially including Ukraine's inclusion into the European Union, though not NATO.
Without such commitments, Wilkie argued, Putin will have no incentive to alter his course.
Basile also mentioned the optics of Trump's meeting, saying Putin was given a statesmanlike photo op instead of being treated like a war criminal, while Zelenskyy has faced sharper pressure from Washington.
Wilkie said Trump should treat Zelenskyy with the same respect he showed Putin, because engagement is the price of leadership.
"The left forgets that its heroes, like Franklin Roosevelt, broke bread with the greatest mass murderer in history, next to Mao [Zedong]: Josef Stalin," Wilkie said. "Putin is just a gangster. He's not a homicidal maniac like Stalin was. But that's the price you pay when you're a world leader."
It's easy, he added, for smaller European capitals with "no skin in the game" to criticize U.S. diplomacy. But the responsibility of guiding global events falls on Washington.
On Monday, Trump will host Zelenskyy at the White House in what could prove a pivotal test of whether diplomacy can begin forging a path toward peace.
Wilkie said the stakes are high -- not just for Ukraine's survival, but for the balance of power in Europe.
"If you're going to get some sort of stability on that line of demarcation between Ukraine and Russia, you're going to have to pull out the economic as well as the military sword that the United States and our European allies are starting to build," Wilkie said.
For Wilkie, the lesson of history is clear: Talking is never a guarantee of peace, but refusing to talk guarantees the opposite.
"No deal yet," he said, "but we have a very good chance of getting there."
GET TODAY :
is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America with more than 30 million people watching!
Reuters Institute reports is one of the top news brands in the U.S.
You need to watch today.
Get it with great shows from Rob Schmitt, Greta Van Susteren, Greg Kelly, Carl Higbie, Rob Finnerty - and many more!
Find the channel on your cable system -
Sign up for and get , our streaming channel and our military channel World at War.
Find hundreds of shows, movies and specials.
Even get Jon Voight's special series and President Trump's comedy programs and much more!
Watch on your smartphone or home TV app.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent comments made by Robert Wilkie regarding the diplomatic engagement between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin highlight a significant shift in the discourse surrounding international relations. Wilkie’s invocation of Winston Churchill’s famous maxim, “Jaw jaw is better than war war,” while promoting dialogue as a diplomatic tool, opens a broader conversation on the importance of diplomacy in preventing conflict and fostering international cooperation. This perspective calls into question the dominant narrative of confrontation that has characterized U.S. foreign policy in recent decades, particularly in light of the escalating tensions surrounding Ukraine.
Historically, the Cold War era taught us that dialogue and engagement can be more effective in resolving international disputes than military intervention. The consequences of the U.S. and NATO's decisions during the late 20th century, particularly the eastward expansion of NATO following the fall of the Soviet Union, have led to increased tensions and a sense of encirclement felt by Russia. Wilkie's recognition of the necessity for security guarantees for Ukraine is a crucial acknowledgment of the complex geopolitical landscape that must be navigated in order to achieve lasting peace. The historical context of these relationships is pivotal; understanding the legacies of past decisions can help inform a more productive approach moving forward.
Moreover, the current situation in Ukraine cannot be divorced from broader social struggles and movements for self-determination. The Ukrainian people have demonstrated a strong desire for sovereignty and democratic governance, which must be respected in any diplomatic negotiations. This reality complicates the notion that a mere armistice will suffice; lasting peace must come with an acknowledgment of Ukraine's agency. Wilkie's comments touch on this complexity, suggesting that any resolution must incorporate Ukraine's aspirations, especially in light of the historical injustices they have faced. A truly equitable solution must consider the voices and rights of the Ukrainian people, rather than treating them merely as pawns in a larger geopolitical game.
The skepticism expressed by European leaders regarding the potential for a ceasefire and the effectiveness of sanctions against Putin underscores the challenges of diplomatic engagement. It is important to recognize that the failure of past negotiations and the lack of sincerity in security guarantees have eroded trust. The current political climate requires not just dialogue, but also tangible commitments that address the security concerns of all parties involved. This calls for a more nuanced approach that balances deterrence with diplomacy, ensuring that engagement is not conflated with weakness. The implications of this are profound; if the U.S. and its allies can effectively demonstrate a commitment to collaborative solutions, they may pave the way for a more stable and just international order.
Finally, the conversations sparked by Wilkie’s remarks should serve as a reminder of the importance of a multi-faceted approach to foreign policy—one that emphasizes diplomacy, respects sovereignty, and seeks to build coalitions rather than divisions. The current geopolitical tensions should inspire a reevaluation of longstanding policies that prioritize military solutions over diplomatic ones. Engaging in constructive dialogue, as Wilkie suggests, can lay the groundwork for more sustainable resolutions to conflicts that reflect the needs and rights of all peoples involved. By actively participating in these discussions and advocating for diplomatic solutions, we can work towards a world that prioritizes peace, justice, and mutual respect over aggression and confrontation. The path forward lies in understanding that true strength is demonstrated not through the threat of war, but through the courage to engage in dialogue that honors our shared humanity.
The commentary on Robert Wilkie's remarks regarding U.S.-Russia diplomacy highlights a pivotal discussion in international relations that goes beyond the immediate context of the Biden-Putin summit. Wilkie’s assertion that “jaw jaw is better than war war” echoes a long-standing belief in the efficacy of diplomacy over armed conflict. However, the implications of such meetings are far-reaching, particularly in the context of the historical tensions between the United States and Russia, and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. As we unpack this statement, we must consider not only the nature of diplomatic engagement but also the broader political currents that shape such interactions.
Historically, the Cold War era exemplified the dangers of a failure to engage diplomatically with adversaries. The U.S. and the Soviet Union navigated decades of hostility, where misunderstandings could have easily escalated into catastrophic conflict. The lessons from this period are invaluable; they teach us that dialogue—no matter how fraught—can prevent misunderstandings from spiraling into violence. Wilkie’s commentary suggests a return to these principles under the Trump administration, where direct engagement with Putin was seen as a step back from the brink. However, it is essential to critique this approach critically. The perception of dialogue as inherently positive must be balanced against the outcomes that such talks yield, particularly when past engagements have failed to secure lasting peace or respect for international borders.
As concerned citizens, we can leverage these discussions to advocate for a more nuanced foreign policy that prioritizes human rights and sovereignty as foundational principles in international diplomacy. While Wilkie acknowledges the necessity for security guarantees for Ukraine, we must insist that these guarantees translate into actionable commitments by the U.S. and European allies. To do this effectively, we should mobilize grassroots efforts to demand transparency and accountability from our leaders in how they engage with Russia and other authoritarian regimes. By fostering public discourse around these issues, we can hold our representatives accountable and ensure that they prioritize diplomacy that respects the autonomy of nations rather than mere geopolitical maneuvering.
Moreover, the skepticism expressed by European leaders toward Putin's willingness to negotiate a ceasefire should resonate with American audiences. The ongoing conflict illustrates the limits of diplomacy when confronted with a leader who displays maximalist demands. Here, we can draw parallels with past instances where the U.S. has failed to adequately support its allies in the face of aggression, leading to long-term instability. Therefore, advocating for robust support for Ukraine—both politically and through humanitarian aid—should be a priority. Our collective voices can push for policies that not only aim for immediate ceasefires but also work towards sustainable peace agreements that respect the rights and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Finally, we must reflect on the broader implications of U.S. foreign policy that often prioritizes strategic interests over ethical considerations. Wilkie’s comments, while framed in terms of a diplomatic win, underline a critical flaw in American engagement strategies: the tendency to overlook the voices and needs of the nations involved in these discussions. As we engage with right-wing arguments that lean toward isolationism or appeasement, we should counter with a call for a foreign policy that is both assertive and principled. By emphasizing the importance of sovereignty, self-determination, and international cooperation, we can advocate for a more inclusive approach to diplomacy that genuinely seeks to uplift and support nations like Ukraine, rather than merely using them as pawns in a larger geopolitical chess game.
In conclusion, the discourse surrounding U.S.-Russia diplomacy, as illustrated by Wilkie’s remarks, presents an opportunity for a critical examination of our foreign policy. By understanding the historical context, advocating for substantive commitments to allies, and insisting on ethical engagement in international relations, we can work toward a future where diplomacy does not merely serve as a façade for deeper geopolitical maneuvering, but as a genuine tool for peace and cooperation. As engaged citizens, it is our responsibility to ensure that our voices are heard in these crucial debates, pushing for a foreign policy that reflects our values and aspirations for a peaceful global community.
The article highlights the importance of diplomatic engagement in international relations, particularly concerning the complex situation between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine. While the commentary from Robert Wilkie reflects a particular viewpoint on the recent dialogue between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, it opens up avenues for constructive action within our communities. Here’s a detailed list of ideas concerning what we can personally do about this situation:
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Educate Ourselves and Others:** - Stay informed about international relations, particularly the dynamics between the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine. - Share credible news sources and analysis within your social networks to spread awareness.
2. **Engage in Local Activism:** - Participate in or organize educational forums or discussions at local community centers or libraries to discuss the importance of diplomacy and peace.
3. **Support Peace Organizations:** - Contribute to or volunteer with organizations that advocate for peaceful resolutions to conflict. Examples include: - The Peace Corps - Global Zero (globalzero.org) - The American Friends Service Committee (afsc.org)
4. **Contact Elected Officials:** - Write letters or emails to your representatives urging them to support diplomatic measures and humanitarian assistance for affected regions. - Suggested contacts: - **Your local Congressperson:** Find their contact information at house.gov or call their local office. - **Senate Contacts:** Visit senate.gov to reach your state senators.
5. **Sign Petitions:** - Support petitions that advocate for diplomacy over military action. Websites like change.org and moveon.org regularly feature relevant petitions. - Example petition: Look for petitions that call for increased humanitarian aid to Ukraine or that urge Congress to support peaceful negotiations.
6. **Promote Humanitarian Aid:** - Support local and international organizations providing humanitarian aid to those affected by the conflict in Ukraine. - Consider fundraising or organizing donation drives for organizations like UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders, or local refugee assistance programs.
7. **Write Opinion Pieces:** - Contribute articles or opinion pieces to local newspapers or online platforms discussing the importance of diplomacy and the potential repercussions of military escalation.
8. **Engage in Peaceful Protest:** - Join or organize peaceful demonstrations advocating for peace and diplomatic solutions rather than military interventions.
### Exact Actions We Can Take
1. **Writing to Elected Officials:** - **What to Say:** Express your support for diplomatic efforts and urge them to prioritize peace negotiations. Mention specific points, such as the need for security guarantees for Ukraine and the importance of maintaining open channels of communication with Russia. - **Example Email Template:** ``` Subject: Support for Diplomatic Solutions in Ukraine
Dear [Official's Name],
I am writing to urge you to support diplomatic efforts in resolving the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. As we face increasing tensions, it is vital that the U.S. government prioritizes dialogue and negotiation over military escalation.
I believe that ensuring security guarantees for Ukraine and fostering open communication can lead to lasting peace in the region. I appreciate your attention to this critical issue and hope to see a commitment to diplomacy reflected in your actions.
Thank you for your service.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```
2. **Signing Petitions:** - Use platforms like Change.org to find petitions related to the Ukraine conflict. For instance, search for petitions advocating for humanitarian aid or diplomatic initiatives. - Example: “Support Peace Talks in Ukraine” or “Call for Humanitarian Aid for Refugees.”
3. **Organizing Local Educational Events:** - Plan a community discussion or panel on the importance of diplomacy in international relations. Invite local experts, educators, or activists to speak.
4. **Supporting Relevant Nonprofits:** - Research and donate to organizations like: - **International Crisis Group:** info@crisisgroup.org - **Human Rights Watch:** hrw.org/contact
5. **Participating in Online Campaigns:** - Join social media campaigns that promote peace and engage with hashtags related to diplomacy and Ukraine. Share informative content to educate your network.
By taking these concrete steps, we can contribute to fostering a climate that values diplomacy, understanding, and peace. Each action, no matter how small, can accumulate to create a significant impact on the discourse surrounding international relations.