Fmr. Amb. to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch on the Ukraine War

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Now, returning to the war in Ukraine and the possibility of peace, as we were discussing earlier, Marie Yovanovitch served as the U.S. ambassador there after Moscow invaded Crimea. She was removed from that post by President Trump, later testifying in his first impeachment trial about the U.S. withholding aid from Ukraine. To discuss how the war can end and why the West must not repeat the mistakes of Crimea, the former ambassador is joining Walter Isaacson now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER ISAACSON, HOST: Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, welcome back to the show.

MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE AND AUTHOR, “LESSONS FROM THE EDGE”: Thank you very much.

ISAACSON: It has been a busy week on the Ukraine front. You were ambassador to Ukraine. We have a lot of movement, both diplomatic and with the start of the military offensive. Let’s start with the diplomatic ones. The Chinese special envoy is going to be wandering through the region, going to Russia and going to Ukraine for the first time. Jake Sullivan, our national security adviser, just met with his counterpart from China to discuss possible things that could be done in Ukraine. As a diplomat, as somebody who once worked in the State Department, has a career of foreign service officer, what do you make of all this diplomacy happening and what could it lead to?

YOVANOVITCH: Well, I think it is a very good sign. I think, you know, jaw- jaw is always better than war-war. And so, you know, I welcome the fact that various parties are talking to each other. China, obviously, the country in the world that has the most influence, if any country does, over Russia. And so, China could play, could play — we’ll have to wait and see — but could play a constructive role here. And I think the Chinese envoy is also going to countries in Europe, France and Germany as well. So, I think, you know, trying to get a sense of what is out there, what is possible, the talks between Jake Sullivan and the Chinese last week, that you mentioned, sounded like they were pretty constructive as well. So, let’s see where we go from here. I would say that, as a note of caution though, that there’s a time or a season, as it says, for everything. And I am not sure that the time for actual peace negotiations are hand right now.

ISAACSON: Why is that?

YOVANOVITCH: Because I think both sides want to — want facts on the ground that will strengthen them at the negotiating table. That is certainly true for Ukraine. Ukraine wants to push Russia, you know, further back. Hopefully, all the way back, so that Ukraine can reclaim its territories.

ISAACSON: Wait, wait. What do you mean by all the way back? Do you mean all the way to — through Crimea as well?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes. I mean, Zelenskyy has been pretty explicit about that. So, we’ll see. And the Ukrainian people support that as well. So, we all know that in negotiations that — you know, this war will end. All wars end. And it will most likely end with — be followed by negotiations, as most wars do. And the Ukrainian people have — usually, there are compromises when there are negotiations. But the Ukrainian people have been very explicit, and poll after poll after poll that they want all their territory back. They want no concessions for Russia.

ISAACSON: Well, wait. I don’t quite understand Crimea, how that could be possibly be won militarily in the foreseeable future.

YOVANOVITCH: Well, I guess the point that I’m trying to make is that this is the view of the Ukrainian people. And Ukraine is a democracy. This is something that, I think, Vladimir Putin, of the many things that he doesn’t understand about Ukraine is that it is a democracy. And so, while leaders may be ready to make compromises, including, perhaps, on Crimea at some point, they also need to bring the Ukrainian people along with them. That’s going to be a critical factor. And it’s going to be really, I think, challenging for Zelenskyy.

ISAACSON: We have seen a whole lot of assurances of new weapons. The Germans coming in with a very big package. The British coming in with a type of long-range missile that even the U.S. was reluctant to supply. So, tell me why was the U.S. reluctant to supply these missiles? Will these long-range missiles from Britain help? And will they put Ukraine in a better position to, perhaps, win?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes. I think it is very significant. The British have always been out front in terms of, you know, where they position their own military with regard to Ukraine. The kinds of systems that they’ve been providing, and we have often followed suit. You know, the most recent example being tanks to Ukraine. We’ll see whether this example of the long- range missiles will provide that same kind of incentive for the U.S. Buy, yes, I think, you know, potentially, it’s — I don’t want to say a game changer, but potentially very significant because it can — these missiles can reach very, very, far and will force the Russians to pull back troops. And so, there’s more —

ISAACSON: Well, wait, wait. You talk about a game changer, that —

YOVANOVITCH: Well, I said, I didn’t want to call it a game changer.

ISAACSON: OK.

YOVANOVITCH: But the words they came out of my mouth.

ISAACSON: Yes. Right. But it — a game changer is a double-edged thing. Meaning, it could really change the game if there are long-range missile attacks on the Russian homeland. Do you think that could lead to tactical nuclear weapons being used by Putin?

YOVANOVITCH: Well, I don’t know what kind of caveats the British received or demanded from the Ukrainians. So, as you are well aware, when we have provided certain weapon systems, we have told Ukrainians that they can’t use them on Russian territory. And so, again, I don’t know whether the British asked for that or not.

ISAACSON: Do you think that’s a good idea when you wouldn’t — I mean, you even negotiated things like the javelin missiles, which are really just anti-tank missiles. But did you feel it was a good idea to say, you can’t use weapons on Russian territory?

YOVANOVITCH: Well, you know, it provides sanctuary for the Russians. You know, they can attack and then they run back and hide. And now, the Ukrainians do have their own weapons, which they have very successfully used against Russian forces, against Russian infrastructure and military objects. But, you know, this idea of sanctuary in Russia really gives Russia an advantage.

ISAACSON: What are your expectations for the counteroffensive that the Ukrainians seem ready to begin right now? And, you know, how far do you think they could take it?

YOVANOVITCH: Well, you know, one thing that’s been constant since the beginning of this war is that we underestimate Ukraine and we underestimate the Ukrainian military. So, I don’t want to make that mistake because, you know, again, I just know the Ukrainian people and I know the Ukrainian military for my time there, and I think that they could really move forward quite successfully. You know, what we are seeing right now in Bakhmut, I mean, we are being told this is not the counteroffensive that we’re anticipating, but what we are seeing in Bakhmut is some pretty sophisticated fighting there and the Ukrainians are gaining on their Russian adversaries. So, you know, if that continue in the counteroffensive, I think they could be pushing the Russians back quite a bit. And I hope that that’s what will happen because it’s important. The facts on the ground are important, and they will strengthen Ukraine’s hands in negotiations that we assume will come at some point in the future. But the other thing I did want to say, Walter, is that whatever happens with this counteroffensive, it is not going to be the end of the war, no matter how widely successful Ukrainians are. And I think that we shouldn’t overestimate what is going to come because the war, I think, will continue for some time. I don’t think Russia is ready to give up at this point and I wouldn’t anticipate that they would be by the end of the summer either. So, we need to understand that victories are a great thing and we’ll build to ultimate success for Ukraine, but it will take time.

ISAACSON: You talk about there being a time for war and a time for diplomacy and about facts on the ground and what the facts on the ground maybe at the end of this summer after the offensive. When do you think that the facts on grounds or the timing would be right for everyone to say, OK, let’s stop this, at least have a permanent guaranteed cease-fire or perhaps even a comprehensive peace?

YOVANOVITCH: It’s hard to know, but I think it will take some time into the next calendar year even. And I think we just need to be steadfast and continue to support the Ukrainians. And I think that as we look at the contours of a comprehensive peace would be, because just to recall, back in 2014, 2015, the Germans and the French, the Russians and Ukrainians, they did come up with a cease-fire. And, you know, the Minsk agreements, which were not successful. The Russians never adhered to them. There wasn’t even an actual cease-fire. But it got us to take our eye off the ball. I think that’s what the Russians are looking for, some temporary — certainly, right now, they’re looking for some temporary cease-fire that they can use the time gained to regroup, re-arm, rest and then, come back when they assess that the West has moved on to the next shiny object. And — you know, and that could be years from now. I mean, if you consider that Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, 2015 and then, reinvaded with this total war that we are seeing now in 2022. Russia is patient.

ISAACSON: You’ve said that this war could go on indefinitely, that would mean a change of mindset, almost, in the United States and in the West, which is not just providing weapons right now, but providing a very sustained war in Ukraine. What do you fear about the politics in the United States as people start, especially on the left and the right, peeling off from wanting this war to continue?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes. I mean, you raise a really important issue. And I think that what we need to do, what Zelenskyy needs to do, and I think he is doing that in his outreach in Europe, last week and this week, and presumably he will, at some point, come to the U.S. again as well. What Zelenskyy needs to do, I think what the Biden administration needs to do is communicate to publics, including the American public, what the stakes are, that this is a war about Ukraine but it is also about much, much more. It is about our national security. It’s about global security. Zelenskyy, when he was here, in December, told Congress, you know, helping Ukraine isn’t a charity, it’s an investment in your national security, and I think that is absolutely right. And explaining to the American public why that is the case, that Zelenskyy — that Putin, if he is successful in Ukraine, he will keep on going. That’s been his pattern since he took power and he’s told us this, and I think we need to believe him. That will undermine, as it is undermining right now, the international rules-based order where sovereignty is, you know, kind of the golden rule where you don’t invade other countries. And Putin has, of course, violated that rule.

ISAACSON: Well, aren’t you sort of encouraged in some ways that he did that a year ago and it turned out it was a really bad idea for him, and he has been — you know, especially, with Finland joining NATO?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes. All sorts of unintended consequences, no question about it. And a reinvigorated NATO, you know, the West coming together as never before. But, you know, there are other — you know, other countries are not supportive. They’re waiting on the sidelines to see what’s going to happen next. And I think there are authoritarian states that are watching very keenly whether Russia will be successful, because if Russia is successful then, you know, perhaps they can do the same things. And if Russia is successful in Ukraine, Russia will certainly keep on going. So, I think the stakes are very, very high and it will affect, you know, not only global security, it will affect the global economy and it will affect our freedoms, because security and freedoms always go together.

ISAACSON: Your memoirs, which you published a year ago, are out in paperback this week, a new addition. And you have a great afterwards, which I loved reading last night. But you talked about something that interested me, which was you call the PSYOPS, meaning, what does Putin do when he is threatening nuclear weapons, for example. Explain why we have to be aware of that.

YOVANOVITCH: Yes, yes. So, when Putin talks about using nuclear weapons, I mean, obviously, we need to pay attention all the time because you never want to — you know, to get nuclear weapons questioned wrong. But he is trying to scare us. He is trying to scare the Ukrainians. But mostly, he is trying to scare the West and the United States, trying to intimidate us into not supporting Ukraine. And, you know, here’s what I would say, if we fall for that, if we become intimidated, he will do it again. And other countries well too. They’ll realize that they can intimidate the West just by the threat of nuclear warfare. We need to stand for our principles, we need to stand for our values, we need to stand for our interests. And I think, you know, that one of the things that I’ve seen in Putin over time is that he is a bully. You know, he — and he is a head of a big country. So, he can push little countries around. But he understands force, he understands strength. And if we stand up to him, I think he’ll understand that language. And back in the fall when there was a lot of loose talk about using nuclear weapons, there were some, you know, behind closed door conversations, diplomatic conversations with the Russians, as well as with other countries that this was not a good idea. Jake Sullivan said very publicly that it would be catastrophic for Russia if Russia use nuclear weapons. And while the talk hasn’t completely abated, it has significantly died down. And so, I think that’s an example of how Russia, the bully, has to be dealt with.

ISAACSON: You say that this fight in Ukraine is part of something larger, which is why it’s so important for us to pay attention. And that larger thing is the fight against authoritarianism and breaking the rules of international order versus the order that we have had for the past so many decades. Tell me, are you worried that authoritarianism is on the rise here or do you actually see some glimmers of hope that this spring we’re seeing the pushback of some these authoritarian regimes, including the success that the Ukrainians have had?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes. Well, just to neckdown (ph) the question to Ukraine. I’m very optimistic about Ukraine and I am optimistic because of the people in Ukraine. You know, I first started working there 20 years ago and there was no civil society to speak of. People, you know, waited for leadership to tell them what to do. That is emphatically not the case. That — in Ukraine, every man, woman and child is mobilized. And not mobilize because the, you know, leader, Zelenskyy or a mayor has told them that they needed to do something. They look around and see what needs to be done and they go and they do it. And so, you know, they are fighting for — you know, for their families, for their country, for their future. And that future is a European future where the rule of law is supreme. They’ve been trying to do this for many, many years, and I think this is the latest manifestation in the war against Russia. And when — you know, finally, you know, we’ve been talking a lot about war and then the peace, but when that peace comes to Ukraine, I think it is going to be a European future because the Europeans are not fighting for the country they had before that had so many challenges with corruption and rule of law issues, they’re fighting for their future.

ISAACSON: Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, thank you so much for joining us

YOVANOVITCH: Thank you.