RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY (CO-HOST): I don't know, if you look at that map and the areas that they have that you say could end up in this peace agreement, that's true. And that's why we should have never provoked them. I mean, they made very clear that there was a red line. The red line was a neutrality for Ukraine, that they could not enter NATO. And in the end, when they get this — if they get this peace agreement — in the end, that's probably going to end up being the case anyway.
BRIAN KILMEADE (CO-HOST): No.
CAMPOS-DUFFY: I bet you that one of the conditions will have to be that Ukraine, you know, promise to remain neutral, will not be part of NATO.
KILMEADE: Well, I'll tell you what, you can never give into what Russia wants other nations to do. You decide --
CAMPOS-DUFFY: Well --
KILMEADE: They are going to decide to go into NATO --
CAMPOS-DUFFY: Well, we --
KILMEADE: -- to go into the European union, when they are a European society that wants that?
CAMPOS-DUFFY: We have a Monroe doctrine and I think we would be very concerned about this kind of action in our hemisphere. I think he said 'keep it neutral.' And in the end, probably Ukraine is going to lose more land because of this. Again, the main problem here as you see, and as we discussed earlier —
KILMEADE: Is Vladimir Putin.
CAMPOS-DUFFY: Well, no, actually, the main problem is still China. And now we have created a bigger block. China and Russia together. This is why our policy makers aren't thinking long-term.
STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): Right.
CAMPOS-DUFFY: Provoking this has brought our two enemies closer together.
KILMEADE: We did not provoke the war.
CAMPOS-DUFFY: No, no.
KILMEADE: They provoked the war.
CAMPOS-DUFFY: Well, they had a red line. And we had an agreement in November, a security agreement —
KILMEADE: They can't make a red line in other countries, Rachel. It's not up to them to make a red line in other countries.
CAMPOS-DUFFY: This is the fate of the geography of Ukraine, and they could have remained a free country. We could have armed them.