Former UK Foreign Secretary Reacts to Trump-Zelensky Oval Office Clash

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Let me just first ask you as a diplomat, you know, as a statesperson from, I guess, traditional conservative and Reagan values, what did you make of that public bust up in the White House on Friday?

MALCOLM RIFKIND, FORMER BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY: I thought it was absolutely dreadful. I thought that both Zelenskyy and Trump behaved very badly. They were shouting at each other, not letting the other speak. And that was appalling in front of all the world’s cameras. If that’s what Trump intended, then he had very poor judgment.

AMANPOUR: Do you think so? I mean, you know, there is obviously a load of people, you yourself seem to be saying it might have been an ambush. We certainly have heard from many, many people, the White House denies it, but the new German — the leader of the German election say it looked very much like a manufactured escalation.

RIFKIND: I don’t know whether it was or not. And to be perfectly honest, I think at this stage is no longer relevant whether it was or not. It is the consequences that flowed from that. And I think the first point I would like to make, if I may, is that, yes, that evening, that confrontation was a disaster for Zelenskyy. But it’s also, in many ways, a disaster, or a potential disaster, for Trump. His great ambition at the beginning of his presidency is to negotiate with Putin a ceasefire. Now, even if that negotiation seemed to be successful, it cannot be implemented unless Zelenskyy agrees, because Zelenskyy can just continue fighting, and he cannot be stopped except by a continuation of the war. So, that — there’s just nothing rational in what Trump is doing, unless it was a short-term tactic. Now, I was interested, at the end of that ghastly evening, Trump said that Zelenskyy could return to the Oval Office, but only if he’s committed to peace. Well, that’s actually a very low formula, low barrier to have to get over. Anyone can say they’re committed to peace and mean it. It’s what flows from that is more relevant.

AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you, let’s dig down into this, because, you know, Trump says he believes Putin really wants peace. Trump says he wants peace, which I have no doubt about. And they’re now blaming Zelenskyy for, quote, “not wanting peace.” Well, Zelenskyy says, of course we want peace, but we need backstops, we need deterrence, because we’ve seen this movie before. And Putin seems to, at least in their public utterances until now, have maximalist goals which involve the essential surrender of Ukraine. Where do you see the possibility, if ever, of these two coming to some kind of ability to sign a real peace?

RIFKIND: Well, first of all, we have to understand what the conflict is about in relation to where we are at this precise moment. First of all, if you’re going to have a ceasefire without resolving the long-term issues that divide two countries, the only credible and honorable way in which you can have a ceasefire is if there are genuine compromises on both sides. Now, the whole world knows the compromises that Zelenskyy will have to make, and which he broadly speaking has himself acknowledged, that Ukraine will not be part of NATO, and that at least for the foreseeable future the Russians will remain in control of the territory or most of the territorythey currently occupy. But what are the compromises that President Trump is going to demand from Mr. Putin? There are none yet known, and Mr. Trump has declined to say. So, that is one issue that has to be addressed. The second issue, and it’s a very important one, is to understand the importance of what are called the security guarantees. If — we’ve already had two invasions of Ukraine, one when they annexed Crimea and the Donbass, and the second three years ago when this war began. In both occasions, Putin was overcoming, ignoring promises he had given never to invade Ukraine. He did it with the Budapest Memorandum some years ago, and then he did it with the so-called Minsk Accords. And in both cases, he broke his promises. So, it is not unreasonable, indeed it’s perfectly sensible of Zelenskyy to say, how would the United States react if having got a ceasefire, Putin in a year’s time, two years’ time, three years’ time invades Ukraine again? What will America do? We know what Europe would want to do. What would America do? And that is what Putin — President Trump has refused to respond to and that is what puts him in a very, very weak position.