LEILA FADEL, HOST:
For another view of next steps for the U.S. and European nations, let's turn to Richard Haass. He's president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and author of the Substack newsletter Home & Away. Good morning, and welcome back to the program.
RICHARD HAASS: Good to be with you, Leila.
FADEL: So, Richard, you wrote recently that a security guarantee that involves Ukraine giving up land creates risks, and that looks like exactly what may be being asked here. What are the risks that you see?
HAASS: One risk is simply the precedent. Essentially, it rewards aggression. One of the principal rules - some would say the only real rule in the world, Leila - is that territory cannot be acquired by military force, and this would seem to violate that. And then secondly, the question is, what Russia - you know, what land would Russia get where it could potentially put forces there, which would then give it a forward area from which to threaten the rest of Ukraine? So it's not clear to me why this would be part of any peace plan.
FADEL: So are you saying that this sort of peace plan has gotten off to a very flawed start from the beginning? Because this is something that we heard pretty much since the Alaska meeting happened.
HAASS: Yeah. I have real doubts about it. In part, it's one-sided. People use the phrase land swaps or transfers, but it all seems in one direction from Ukraine to Russia. I don't see that Russia's being asked to give anything up. I think more broadly also, this is the sort of issue that's saved for what we call in diplomacy final status talks - questions of territory, questions of populations, these really thorny, fundamental questions.
My biggest issue right now is, why did President Trump - when he met in Alaska with President Putin, why did he switch from pushing for a ceasefire for pushing for a final, durable peace? This is far more demanding. It would take much more time. It brings in all these difficult issues. I think, well, the smartest approach would be to get a ceasefire and shelve some of these issues where, quite honestly, as you just heard, the gap between Russia and Ukraine is enormous.
FADEL: Let's talk about that gap. I mean, we just heard that many of Ukraine's leaders want full NATO membership. They feel that's the only way to deter Putin. Russia doesn't want any NATO presence there. Is there any way to reach a compromise, given these completely opposite positions?
HAASS: Why I'm skeptical - but also it would take enormous time and that means the war continues, and we've seen that in the last 24 hours. So even if Russia and Ukraine were both negotiating in good faith, it essentially would mean, you know, months more of war while these issues were hammered out. So, again, maybe my skepticism is misplaced, but then I'd say, let's nail down a ceasefire almost without getting into any of these issues. Just stop the fighting without prejudice. No one has to give up on any of their territorial or other claims. And then you could begin a process of trying to negotiate these very difficult, long-term issues.
FADEL: There's very little we actually know about this idea of a U.S. security guarantee, right? What would it look like for Ukraine, other than President Trump mentioning air support? To what extent do you think the U.S. should be involved in Ukraine as part of any future security deal?
HAASS: I believe the single most important thing we can and should do is to make a long-term pledge to provide Ukraine the means, the military and intelligent means, to defend itself. That is the principal security assurance we should be making. It's what Ukraine needs. It also sends the message to Vladimir Putin that more time and more war will not give him more results. That is what we should be doing. I actually agree with President Trump. I don't think there's a place for boots on the ground. And assurances outside of NATO raise as many questions as they answer. So I would think the critical thing is for the United States - and here, I'd say Congress should get involved. Why don't we have Congress back it as a matter of law to provide a long-term commitment to Ukraine's security?
FADEL: A lot of people who know Russia well question Vladimir Putin's intentions here and whether he's serious about ending this war at all. What do you think the U.S. should do if there's no ceasefire and if Vladimir Putin just continues this war and his ambitions to take as much of Ukraine as possible?
HAASS: Well, people should be skeptical of Putin's ambitions. He put them out on paper six months or so before he invaded Ukraine in a few - 3 1/2 years ago. He really wants to eliminate Ukraine as an independent sovereign country with ties to the West. We should be pressuring Russia with sanctions if it doesn't act reasonably. And more important, we should be committing ourselves to Ukraine's defense. Put on the table a long-term arms and intelligence support policy of Ukraine. That would get Putin's attention more than anything else.
FADEL: That's Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
