Jake Sullivan on Biden’s foreign policy legacy and the state of U.S. allies and enemies

Amna Nawaz:

On Monday, President Biden will give a farewell speech at the State Department focused on his foreign policy legacy.

Earlier today, Nick Schifrin sat down with one of the key architects of that foreign policy, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.

Nick Schifrin:

Jake Sullivan, thanks very much. Welcome back to the "News Hour."

Jake Sullivan, U.S. National Security Adviser:

Thanks for having me.

Nick Schifrin:

Today, you're imposing the largest sanctions yet on Russia's energy sector, including two of Russia's largest oil producers and ships that constitute Russia's shadow fleet that senior officials say will cost Russia billions of dollars per month.

Why are you taking this step now? And why didn't you take it sooner?

Jake Sullivan:

If we had sanctioned Russia's oil 18 months ago, at a time when oil prices were high, gas prices were high, it would have meant a spike at the pump in a way that would have put pain on working people in the United States.

Today, oil prices are much lower. The oil market globally is very well supplied. And so we have an opportunity to hit Putin in his pocketbook without hitting the American people in theirs. What we're giving the incoming team, the incoming administration, is real leverage in a negotiation as they set up for diplomacy.

Nick Schifrin:

On that diplomacy, today, the Kremlin said that Putin was open to talking to president-elect Trump. Last night, president-elect Trump said that a meeting was being set up.

Senior officials tell me that you don't know exactly what Russia actually wants out of any negotiation in Ukraine. So, in that sense, is it worthwhile for Trump to have that meeting with Putin?

Jake Sullivan:

As long as Ukraine is determining its destiny, and we are not dictating Ukraine's destiny for it, then, to me, diplomacy very much makes sense.

Nick Schifrin:

Today's the third inauguration of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, despite the fact he lost the election.

The administration is announcing new sanctions and visa restrictions on Maduro and his team and increasing the reward for information leading to Maduro's arrest or conviction. Why not also cancel the licenses that allow Chevron and other energy companies to operate in Venezuela that provide the regime much of its money?

Jake Sullivan:

What we're trying to do is take an approach that really focuses on the bad actors, the individuals who are responsible for the brutality and repression and sham that was the presidential election last year.

That form of sanctions, targeted sanctions, rewards against them, is the best way to put the pressure on and try to create a circumstance in which positive change comes to Venezuela.

Nick Schifrin:

But if the goal is to put pressure on, surely, the best pressure would be to cut off Maduro's main source of income.

Jake Sullivan:

Going back multiple administrations, we have been squeezing Venezuela economically, including in their oil sector. That didn't work under President Trump.

The kinds of sanctions you're talking about which were previously in place didn't have the intended effect.

Nick Schifrin:

Maria Corina Machado, the leader of the opposition, was — quote — "kidnapped" by the regime temporarily yesterday, her team said, what's your warning to the regime about her safety moving forward?

Jake Sullivan:

We have communicated to the regime that we expect that she will not be harmed.

Nick Schifrin:

You said today that you have taken actions in response to what's known as Salt Typhoon, Chinese hackers who have infiltrated multiple American telecommunications companies.

What actions have you taken in response to that when it comes to punishing China?

Jake Sullivan:

We have taken actions to make it harder for China to actually be able to execute this.

I would just point out that there are two forms of threat here. One is what — Salt Typhoon. The other is the placement of disruptive malware on critical infrastructure. That could actually lead to physical effects if, in fact, there was a disruptive or destructive cyberattack against an energy grid or a water system or what have you.

Nick Schifrin:

Is China today capable of that destructive hit?

Jake Sullivan:

We should be concerned about the possibility that there can be actual disruptive or destructive effects.

Nick Schifrin:

What warning have you given Beijing not to conduct that kind of attack?

Jake Sullivan:

Very directly at very high levels. We have laid out what would unfold from there in ways that I do think the PRC understands.

Nick Schifrin:

Let's move to the Middle East.

Negotiators are currently trying to get Israel and Hamas to agree to a cease-fire in Gaza. It would pause the war, release Israeli hostages, Palestinian detainees, and surge humanitarian aid into Gaza. President-elect Trump has threatened — quote — "all hell will break out in the Middle East" if there isn't a deal before the inauguration.

The Trump team believes that language has helped accelerate the talks. Has it?

Jake Sullivan:

Well, if we get a deal, everyone and their mother can take credit for it. I will be happy, OK? We are close, but we are not there yet.

Nick Schifrin:

On Monday night, President Biden will give a speech about his foreign policy legacy. So let's talk about that a little bit.

And I want to start in Afghanistan. Do you today sit back and think about how Afghanistan worked out and think, maybe I could have done something better?

Jake Sullivan:

On the big question, is the United States better off because we are no longer at war in Afghanistan, the answer, I believe, is an emphatic yes.

This war would be entering its 25th year with Americans fighting and dying in Afghanistan. And we are much better off that that is not happening. Of course I think there were things we could have done differently at the time in the execution.

Nick Schifrin:

Such as?

Jake Sullivan:

But when we decided to actually execute the drawdown of the embassy, at the time, we did not want to accelerate the drawdown of the embassy because we didn't want to create a panic that would cause the collapse of the government.

And now, looking back, the government collapsed anyway, as we said at the time. And so, therefore, the obvious conclusion is, even if it runs the risk of inciting that kind of panic, you got to go faster.

Nick Schifrin:

Let's talk about legacy in the Middle East.

A new "Lancet" study says today that the death toll cited by Palestinian health authorities, 46,000, is actually a dramatic undercount. Has Israel's response been proportionate?

Jake Sullivan:

First, Hamas attacked Israel, killed 1,200 people, the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

Then Hamas retreated back behind a civilian population, used hospitals and schools and other civilian facilities for military purposes. Now, that does not lessen their responsibility to minimize civilian harm. For those who say, why not just cut off the weapons to Israel and then they will have to do what you say, you have got to remember that, sitting in my seat, I was watching Israel get attacked not just by Hamas, but by Hezbollah, by the Houthis, by the Shia militia groups in Iraq and Syria…

Nick Schifrin:

Israel says seven fronts.

Jake Sullivan:

… and directly by Iran itself.

So, no, we were not going to leave Israel defenseless against the onslaught of those multiple fronts.

Nick Schifrin:

On Ukraine, if you had given Ukraine more weapons before the 2022-2023 winter, when Russia was able to seed those defensive lines in the south before Ukraine's counteroffensive, do you think you might have avoided the war of attrition that Ukraine seems unable to win?

Jake Sullivan:

We gave them what they needed at that time to try to continue to press the advantage.

And here's what happened. They ran into minefields, massive Russian minefields, and were never able to get through them. Those minefields had been seeded long before this war even began. So, obviously, we couldn't avoid that.

We worked at every stage of this war to put the tools in the hands of brave Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines to be able to defend their country and to try to advance in the face of the Russian defenses. And we believe that, in doing so, we helped save this country and thwart Russia's ambition to wipe it off the map.

Nick Schifrin:

Looking forward, president-elect Trump the other day seemed to take the NATO security guarantee off the table. Is that wise? Are there other models of security guarantees that you think could create what you have called the just peace for Ukraine?

Jake Sullivan:

The critical point is that you can't really have peace unless you have some degree of confidence that Russia can't just turn around and do this all over again down the road.

I think, if Putin sitting in the Kremlin saw the United States basically say, we're done with Ukraine, we have given up, they're on their own, it certainly wouldn't make him more likely to do a deal. So you have in the incoming president someone who cares very much about the art of the deal, has literally written the book on it.

And good deals mean leverage. Leverage means staying power. Staying power means continuing to support Ukraine.

Nick Schifrin:

You helped fashion the foreign policy for the middle class, to use your phrase.

Is the fact that the middle class in the election appeared to be more concerned about inflation and didn't choose Kamala Harris, do you believe that that's a sign that, at the very least, the argument that you have been making for four years didn't take hold among a certain part of the electorate?

Jake Sullivan:

President Biden's investments in our manufacturing and innovation base, his investments in protecting the United States against unfair Chinese economic practices, his protection of American technology so it can't be used against us by China or any other adversary, these are steps that will play out over the course of a decade or more.

The clock on those and the clock on an election were not entirely aligned.

Nick Schifrin:

What do you wish you had more time to have accomplished?

Jake Sullivan:

The list of that is very long.

But I ask myself some just pretty simple questions. Are our alliances stronger than we found them four years ago? Yes. Are our enemies and competitors weaker than when we found them four years ago? Yes. Have we kept the United States out of war? Yes. Are the basic foundations of American power more robust and resilient today than four years ago? Yes.

So, I believe we are handing off a very strong hand to the next team.

Nick Schifrin:

Jake Sullivan, thank you very much.

Jake Sullivan:

Thank you.