Former Biden White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said the meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Rome Saturday gave him “the first sliver of hope” he said he has had in a while as it relates to the current administration’s approach to the war in Ukraine.
“[The meeting] gives me the first sliver of hope I’ve had in a while because what I’ve seen to date is President Trump giving Vladimir Putin U.S. recognition of Crimea, which Russia illegally occupied and annexed. … He’s given Putin a promise that Ukraine will not be part of NATO, and he has given Putin a promise that he can keep all the territory that he has illegally invaded and seized,” Sullivan told “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz on Saturday in an interview that aired Sunday.
He continued, “What is Putin giving him? So far nothing. But today having Zelenskyy come out and say he thought it was a good meeting, makes me think, ‘OK, maybe President Trump is seeing that Putin is leading him down the garden path.’ And in fact, President Trump said publicly that that might be the case.”
Trump and Zelenskyy met privately in St. Peter’s Basilica on Saturday before attending the funeral for Pope Francis in Vatican City. It was the first time the two leaders met since their February Oval Office meeting devolved into a heated argument in front of cameras that resulted in Zelenskyy being kicked out of the White House.
In this Nov. 13, 2024, file photo, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan speaks during the daily press briefing in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, D.C.
Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images, FILE
Zelenskyy said Saturday it was a “good meeting” in a post on X, adding: “We discussed a lot one on one. Hoping for results on everything we covered. Protecting lives of our people. Full and unconditional ceasefire. Reliable and lasting peace that will prevent another war from breaking out. Very symbolic meeting that has potential to become historic, if we achieve joint results.”
And in a separate social media post after their meeting, Trump took a more critical tone toward Russian President Vladimir Putin, floating the possibility he’d impose new sanctions on Russia. The president also said recent Russian strikes on civilian areas in Ukraine makes him “think that maybe [Putin] doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along.”
Sullivan said, “Russia started this war, not Ukraine, and it’s Russia — Vladimir Putin in particular — who’s the main obstacle to getting a ceasefire, and there have been moments when it seems like President Trump might have gotten that. Today may be one of those moments. Unfortunately, every time there’s a glimmer of recognition that Putin’s responsible, President Trump snaps back and puts all the pressure on Ukraine and makes more concessions to Russia. I hope that doesn’t happen again.”
Sullivan, who has not spoken publicly much since he left his post in the White House in January, told Raddatz that he “stayed quiet,” in part because he “didn’t want to be a backseat driver.”
“When I was in the seat, I had a lot of backseat drivers,” Sullivan said. “But when you see the car start careening towards the cliff, you got to say something.”
He continued, “What I’ve seen in less than a hundred days is terrible damage to America’s credibility and trust with our friends and allies and terrible damage to America’s appeal in terms of our political system, our markets, and our innovation. And most of all what I’ve seen is China reaping the benefits.”
Here are more highlights from Sullivan’s interview:
On the Trump administration’s approach to negotiating with Russia
Raddatz: When you were a national security adviser, the Biden administration went nowhere with this, with — with trying sanctions with — you didn’t engage with Russia. So now you’re saying. It’s OK to engage with Russia. When you look back, would you have done something differently?
Sullivan: Well, first of all, we did engage with 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 not prepared to come to the table to do a deal that would generate a just piece for Ukraine.
So we recognized we had to actually build more leverage for Ukraine and in the closing months in office. We surged military equipment, we tightened sanctions, we seized the proceeds of Russian assets, and we got Europe to come along with us and all of that.
So, we handed off to the new team quite a bit of leverage for Ukraine to get a good deal at the table. I hope they do not end up squandering that leverage.
On new nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran
Sullivan: Look, when we left office … Iran was at its weakest point since the 1980s, maybe since the Iranian revolution in 1979. They’d lost their main proxy, Hezbollah, they’d lost their air defenses. We had defended Israel twice directly against Iranian missile attacks and shown that Iran couldn’t really do serious damage to Israel.
So, the conditions were ripe for diplomacy and for a deal. And I think there is a possibility that they could get a deal. I think that deal in its elements won’t look too different from the deal that President Obama and Secretary Kerry produced in the Obama administration that Donald Trump ripped up. And I will find it very interesting to see a lot of the critics of that deal come out in support of what Trump produces. But I myself believe there should be a diplomatic solution here, and I believe there’s one achievable.
On what the Trump administration has done right
Sullivan: It’s hard in 100 days to come up with a good example of that. I mean, there are things where they have taken forward what we had —
Raddatz: Immigration?
Sullivan: — in motion. Yes, I mean, they’ve done some things on immigration, but honestly, when you balance it against giving no due process to people and send them to — sending them to El Salvadorian prisons, that damage is so much greater than what they’ve been able to achieve.
I think there are certain steps with respect to the Houthis that I could really get behind. You know, we took military action against the Houthis. They have stepped that up. I still believe that we need to connect that to a larger strategic end game with the Houthis. But that would be an area where I think there’s been some continuity.
On the controversies around Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth
Raddatz: You’ve certainly followed the Signal chats with your successor, Mike Waltz, accidentally giving that away to a reporter, but also what Pete Hegseth texted on those Signal chats about launching F-18s and what hour they would be launched in attacks on Yemen. Is there any — do you believe those should be classified messages?
Sullivan: Look, I think you’ve heard from intelligence professionals across the board that that’s classified information, but it points up a larger issue, which is a close friend and adviser of Secretary Hegseth left Hegseth’s Pentagon and wrote an article saying the Pentagon is total chaos, and Donald Trump should replace Pete Hegseth.
That is a clarion call if I’ve ever heard one. So this Signal issue is one example among many of the kinds of steps we’ve seen in 100 days at the Pentagon that raise real questions about the future of that building and the future of our armed forces. And that’s not me saying that that’s his own friends and advisers.
