The Trump-Zelenskyy meeting is “the first splinter of hope that I have had in a long time”: former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan

The former National Security Advisor of the White House of Biden, Jake Sullivan, said that the meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Rome on Saturday gave him “the first splinter of hope” that said he has had a long time in regards to the current administration approach in the war in Ukraine.

“[The meeting] It gives me the first splinter of hope that I have had in a long time because what I have seen to date is that President Trump gives Vladimir Putin the recognition of Crimea, which Russia occupied and annexed illegally. … They gave Putin a promise that Ukraine will not be part of NATO, and has given Putin a promise that he can maintain all the territory he has invaded and confiscated illegally, “said Sullivan, co-presenter of” This Week, “Martha Raddatz, on Saturday in an interview he broadcast on Sunday.

He continued: “What is he giving him? And in fact, President Trump publicly said that this could be the case.”

Trump and Zelenkyy met privately in the Basilica of San Pedro on Saturday before attending the funeral for Pope Francis in the city of the Vatican. It was the first time that the two leaders met from their February Oval Office meeting became a heated discussion against the cameras that turned out that Zelenskyy was expelled from the White House.

Zelenskyy said on Saturday that it was a “good meeting” in a publication on X, and added: “We discussed a one by one. Waiting for results in everything we cover. Protecting lives of our people.

And in a separate social networks publication after his meeting, Trump took a more critical tone towards Russian President Vladimir Putin, floating the possibility of imposing new sanctions on Russia. The president also said that recent Russian attacks on civil areas in Ukraine do so “to think that perhaps [Putin] He doesn’t want to stop the war, he is just hitting me. “

Sullivan said: “Russia began this war, not Ukraine, and it is Russia, Vladimir Putin in particular, who is the main obstacle to obtaining the fire, and there have been times when President Trump could have received that. That doesn’t happen again. “

Sullivan, who has not spoken much publicly since he left his position at the White House in January, told Raddatz that “he was quiet,” partly because “he did not want to be a rear seat driver.”

“When I was in the seat, I had many rear seat drivers,” said Sullivan. “But when you see that the car begins to load towards the cliff, you have to say something.”

He continued: “What I have seen in less than a hundred days is terrible damage to the credibility and confidence of the United States with our friends and allies and terrible damage to the attractiveness of the United States in terms of our political system, our markets and our innovation. And, above all, what I have seen is China harvesting the benefits.”

Here are more outstanding aspects of Sullivan’s interview:

About the Trump administration approach to negotiate with Russia

Raddatz: When he was a national security advisor, the Biden administration was nowhere with this, with, with the sanctions evidence, he did not relate to Russia. So now you are saying. It is well interact with Russia. When you look back, would you have done something differently?

Sullivan: Well, first of all, we committed ourselves to Russia. We had multiple channels to talk to the Russians, and we talked to them through that,

Raddatz: But certainly not in the way they are now.

Sullivan: No, because one of the things we recognized while we were in office was that Putin was at that time was not prepared to come to the table to make an agreement that generated a fair piece for Ukraine.

So we recognized that we had to build more influence for Ukraine and in the final months in office. We enter the military team, we squeeze the sanctions, take the product of the Russian assets and make Europe accompany us and all that.

Then, we gave the new team a lot of leverage for Ukraine to get a good treatment at the table. I hope they don’t end up wasting that leverage.

About new nuclear conversations between the United States and Iran

Sullivan: Look, when we left the position … Iran was at its weakest point since the 1980s, perhaps from the Iranian revolution in 1979. They had lost their main power, Hezbollah, had lost their aerial defenses. We had defended Israel twice directly against Iranian missile attacks and showed that Iran really couldn’t do serious damage to Israel.

Then, the conditions were mature for diplomacy and for an agreement. And I think there is the possibility that they can get a deal. I believe that the agreement in its elements will not be very different from the agreement that President Obama and Secretary Kerry produced in the administration of Obama that Donald Trump broken down. And it will be very interesting to see that many of the critics of that agreement come out in support of what Trump produces. But I think there should be a diplomatic solution here, and I think there is an attainable.

About what the Trump administration has done well

Sullivan: It is difficult in 100 days to find a good example of that. I mean, there are things in which we have advanced what we had –

Raddatz: Immigration?

Sullivan: – In motion. Yes, I mean, they have done some things about immigration, but honestly, when you balancing it not to give due process to people and send them, sending them to Salvadoran prisons, that damage is much greater than they have been able to achieve.

I think there are certain steps with respect to the hutis that could really support. You know, we take military measures against the hutis. They have intensified. I still think we need to connect it with a larger strategic final game with the hutis. But that would be an area where I think there has been some continuity.

About controversies around the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth

Raddatz: Certainly, he has followed the signal chats with his successor, Mike Waltz, accidentally giving him to a journalist, but also what Pete Hegseth sent a text message on those signal chats on the launch of F-18 and what time they would launch in attacks against Yemen. Is there any, do you think those should be classified messages?

Sullivan: Look, I think you’ve heard of intelligence professionals in all areas that this is classified by the information, but points out a broader problem, who is a close friend and advisor to Secretary Hegseth left Hegseth’s pentagon and wrote an article that says that the pentagon is the total chaos, and Donald Trump should replace Pete Hegseth.

That is a clarification call if I have ever heard one. So, this signal problem is an example among many of the types of steps that we have seen in 100 days in the Pentagon who raised real questions about the future of that building and the future of our armed forces. And that is not me saying that those are his own friends and advisors.