Trump’s Fmr. NATO Ambassador on Trump, Putin and Nuclear Arms Control

BIANNA GOLODRYGA: On Thursday, the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia is set to expire. The end of New START marks the first time in more than five decades that Washington and Moscow have no formal limits on their nuclear arsenals. So, what does that mean for global security and for the already strained U.S.-Russia relations? Walter Isaacson speaks with Kay Bailey Hutchison, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, about what’s at stake.

 

WALTER ISAACSON: Thank you, Bianna. And Kay Bailey Hutchinson, welcome to the show.

 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: Thank you, Walter. Great to be with you.

 

ISAACSON: This week, the last nuclear arms control pact between the United States and Russia called New Start is expiring. Tell me what it was about and why are we letting it expire?

 

HUTCHISON: Well, it’s because really there was no verification, there was not enough verification in the treaty that the Americans felt comfortable with. And there’s been a negotiation going on for months to try to get a better verification. And I think that was not acceptable. And I think it is important — it’s more important that we have the verification, I think, than to have a treaty especially — 

 

ISAACSON: Well, wait a minute. Without the treaty, we won’t have any verification, right?

 

HUTCHISON: Well, but…Russia has shown how untrustworthy it is, Walter. I mean, look at what they say about what they’re doing in Ukraine. They act like Ukraine started this war. Are you kidding?

I mean, I don’t think verification with — I think you have to have safeguards if you are going to have a real treaty. And, you know, the — when I was at NATO, really Russia had been violating the INF treaty for years. And…

 

ISAACSON: You mean the Intermediate Nuclear Force one, that was weapons in Europe. 

 

HUTCHISON: Yeah, yeah. The intermediate. And they had been violating it. They kept denying that they were violating it. And we had pictures, we had pictures of the serial number that was Russian. And we went through both Republican and Democratic administrations trying to keep that going. But finally we had to withdraw from the INF treaty because we had to have the defense against what they were building that they said they weren’t building. So I’m not gonna really question that we don’t have an agreement, as much as I would rather have an agreement that was verifiable.

 

ISAACSON: So, without the verification, we’re better off — you’re saying — without an agreement so that we can start building countermeasures. Is that right? And what would those countermeasures be?

 

HUTCHISON: That’s what we had with the INF treaty because we, we, under the treaty, both Russia and the United States couldn’t produce a defensive weapon against the INF — the intermediate missiles. And we were in compliance and they were not. And so we felt that it was better at the time.

 

ISAACSON: So if we withdraw from this New Start treaty, will we be able to build more weapons, and should we build more weapons that are defensive?

 

HUTCHISON: I think we do have to as we do think we have to have a defense. And I think that’s what we are talking about doing now, is having a defense that we know we could intercept or repel whatever they can produce, or are producing. I mean, I you know, I don’t — I like having treaties that we know can be verified. But if you can’t verify, and especially with Russia doing so many aggressive tactics with Ukraine, we see it right now. I mean, we are in a situation where we see exactly what Russia’s doing. And they’re denying it, boldfaced, not telling the truth. So I think it’s, it’s worthy question, but if we are not able to be satisfied that we can do what we need to do to protect our people, then you know, I think we are better off without a bad agreement.

 

ISAACSON: Yeah. You raised the Ronald Reagan slogan of, “Trust, but verify.” And that’s not the case. But one of the things that Reagan believed when he did it with Gorbachev — back when I was covering Strategic Arms Reduction Talks — was he felt that the treaty itself wasn’t the most important thing. The talks, the process, the negotiations actually were helpful. Do you agree with that?

 

HUTCHISON: Well, I think certainly, yes. The negotiation is where you see what the problems are. You see what their most important priority is. And yes, I think that is a certainly a valid issue. But we have also been in talks with Russia for months, if not years, about all these treaties — INF, Start, New Start — trying to get this done right. And again, I think a bad treaty is worse than no treaty. And, we just have to have the intelligence and we have to have our own protections, our own defense, so that whatever we know their priorities are which is aggression. 

 

I mean, Walter, when I was at NATO, and I’ve talked to Matt Whitaker, who’s still there, Russia wants to recreate the Soviet Union. That is Putin’s goal here. That’s why he has invaded countries that are not NATO countries like Georgia and Ukraine. And he is trying to take one step, see what we will do, and if we don’t really retaliate or stand our ground, he keeps going. And that, frankly, that’s what happened with Crimea. He took Crimea in 2014, and we sort of complained about it, said it was terrible, and then walked away, didn’t really stand up and say, leave Crimea. So they have militarized Crimea and as at the same time, violating the INF treaty. And so you have to sit there and say, How much longer are we going to watch this happen and not do enough to deter Russia’s invasions? 

 

ISAACSON: Well, let me ask you that question. Are we doing enough to deter Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

 

HUTCHISON: No, we’re not. We’re not doing enough. We should be coming down on Russia’s economy right now. Now, today or tomorrow I think we’re gonna see that India has stopped — has said they’re going to stop buying oil from Russia. That’s huge because really the countries that have been buying oil from Russia — China and India — are fueling — and including some in Europe because they don’t have other capabilities. But that’s going to start really hurting Russia’s ability to do what he’s doing in Ukraine. And you know, Walter, that the United States Senate has over 80 votes, commitments, to hunkering down on the real embargoes against country and tariffs against countries that would be continuing to buy from Russia. And so far that bill hasn’t gotten to the president. He said he would sign it. And I think passing that bill out of the Senate, taking it to the House, having the president sign it so that you have stronger economic sanctions against the countries that are fueling what Russia is doing in Ukraine, which is, it’s war crimes.

 

ISAACSON: Now tell me what about Trump’s relationship with President Putin.

 

HUTCHISON: I think, I think the president has tried to stop this war. And I…and I think…I think there have been a lot of talks we’ve seen that, I don’t know why we haven’t come down harder on Putin. I don’t know why President Trump hasn’t, especially after that terrible meeting in Alaska in which Putin was continuing to bomb Ukraine while he was, quote, talking about a ceasefire. He was bombing as he was coming over to meet in our country with our president.

 

ISAACSON: What should President Trump have done at that point?

 

HUTCHISON: Well, I think at that point we should have seen, he should have seen that Russia is buying time. He is not, he has no interest in a peace agreement. What Russia wants is to take over the coun — the part of Ukraine that he hasn’t already been able to get. That’s what the big hold up is here. And I think there has been a serious talk about having security forces that would keep a ceasefire going. And Russia has said, No, we’re not gonna have any European military in the part of Ukraine that we have taken by force. You know, it’s a very tough situation. I don’t think we’re being tough enough with the assets that we have. And I hope that especially now that we see that — Russia, Russia, in the past week Putin has had press conferences and talks in which he has said, We’re not budging. We’re not going to do anything until we can get the part of the territory that we have not been able to take by force. 

 

ISAACSON: During the President Trump’s first term, you were his ambassador to NATO. And there were discussions of the New Start Treaty that started up back then and for a while was extended. Tell me about Trump’s relation to Russia during the first term when you were an ambassador to NATO and how it’s different this term.

 

HUTCHISON: Well, we did the whole charade with Russia in the first term on the INF treaty. And we just held our ground and we said — we proved that Russia was violating. They kept denying it. They denied it all the way. And what the Europeans ask us to hold off while they explain to their country — their, their countries, their populace — that Russia was violating, and that it put us in jeopardy not to have the defensive weapons. And we gave them 60 days, and they then went to their populace and America withdrew, and NATO passed a resolution approving that and saying, Yes, that was the right thing to do. But you just have to be very clear-eyed about Putin. He will tell an untruth to your face. And we now know that second term. We certainly know that we dealt with them in the first term.

 

We had to do what was required under the treaty, which is to not have a defensive weapon. We withdrew from the treaty honorably, kept all of the requirements of the treaty because Russia was violating and never ever admitted that they had been violating it. But they were putting those missiles right on the edge of Crimea so that they would be in range of Cu — of Europe. 

 

So I think we now are more clear-eyed. I think the President Trump has been critical, somewhat, of President Putin. But I think now is the time to come down, and especially with India saying they’re not going to buy Russian oil. China still is. And I think it’s time to ramp up the pressure on the economy of Russia, which is killing people as we speak. They are killing innocent civilians. They’re destroying the infrastructure. And it’s just unacceptable for the Europeans and Americans in NATO to keep our security umbrella over our populations when we’re dealing with Vladimir Putin, who doesn’t — who has no grain of truth or honor on his side.

 

ISAACSON: Well, lemme talk about two things that are coming together right now: the end of this Strategic Arms treaty, this New Start treaty, and secondly NATO countries feeling that they no longer have absolute unconditional support of the United States. Do you think those two forces together might cause a country like Germany to say, Now we need nuclear weapons?

 

HUTCHISON: Oh, that’s a pretty stark contrast. I think, I do think we will rebuild the trust with Europeans. And I do think that the outcry about Greenland was something that the president saw and surely begins to see that we, that…Europeans are never going to be like us. They’re never going to assess a risk and begin to immediately deter that risk and have a strategy to do it. That’s America. But we are much stronger with our European allies agreeing together on what the strategy would be. I went through this when we determined that China was the adversary against our countries in the future. And the Europeans were concerned about their trade relationships with China because it’s very important for their economies. But we work together on beginning to bring the Asia Pacific countries into the summits that we have in NATO. So Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea are now part of the NATO summits because we do want to have a united front against Chinese aggression, which they have certainly proven in those other countries. And so we were building a strong alliance in that way. 

 

And, and NATO still is. But the trust factor with Europeans is real. I have certainly been talking to my European counterparts, and it’s there. And I think we can rebuild because we do have a strong historic base. And, we know that if we are going to face other major adversaries, Russia and China, that we need to have a united front and that everyone produces something. They don’t produce as much as we do, but they produce a lot. And we need to have that alliance strong. 

 

ISAACSON: In an interview with the New York Times, when asked about the New START treaty expiring, President Trump said, “If it expires, it expires. We’ll just do a better agreement.” He added later in the interview, “You probably want to get a couple of other players involved also.” What did he mean by that? And do you agree?

 

HUTCHISON: Well, for sure, because any kind of limitation we have on nuclear arms that would be verifiable would be very good. China, we tried to put China into it. That may be the point the president’s trying to make. We tried to put China into it when we started the negotiations when I was still at NATO, and having a Start treaty with a limitation on nuclear weapons capabilities with both Russia and China would make the world a better place.

ISAACSON: Ambassador to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, thank you for joining us again.

 

HUTCHISON: Thank you, Walter.