MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
So let's talk more about what a security guarantee for Ukraine could look like. We're going to ask John Bolton this. He served as national security adviser during the first Trump administration. He was also the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush. Ambassador Bolton, welcome. Thanks so much for joining us once again.
JOHN BOLTON: Well, thanks for having me.
MARTIN: So before we get to the specifics of what a security guarantee could look like, can I just get your top-line reaction to the events of the last couple of days, the separate meetings with the two presidents and the European leaders?
BOLTON: Well, I think there's a lot of movement, a lot of motion, but no real substantive change. There's no indication at all that Russia has in any way changed its objective, which is to bring Ukraine into the greater Russian Empire. Nor is there any real sign that Zelenskyy is prepared to do the sorts of things that Russia has demanded of President Trump, such as ceding a substantial part of the Donetsk Oblast or province, which the Russians have not yet been able to conquer militarily. So I think the motion has been interesting and is likely to continue because Donald Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize. But in terms of actual movement toward a settlement, I don't see it.
MARTIN: So, OK, in recent days, there's been a lot of talk about land concessions by Ukraine in exchange for peace. But I also want to say again that Putin's pretext for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine was the possibility of Ukraine's NATO membership. NATO membership is a security guarantee. So given that, what indication is there that any security - is there any security guarantee that President Putin would accept?
BOLTON: Well, there's a lot of loose talk in the West about security guarantees, and many observers have pointed out we gave Ukraine security guarantees with the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. That didn't deter Russia then. People throw around this talk of an Article 5-like provision. You know, Article 5 in the Treaty of Washington created NATO, is famous for the line that an attack on one will be deemed an attack on all. And nobody forgets the line - nobody remembers the line a little bit further down in Article 5 that says that each party will - and I'm quoting now - "take such action as it deems necessary." Close quote. So that could mean sending Ukraine a note saying, we're very distressed to hear that Russia has invaded you again. We wish you all the best and do let us know how it turns out.
Article 5 in NATO means something because of the U.S. force behind it. Now, Donald Trump has said that there will be no boots on the ground. He has said something vague about air power, which a lot of people have taken to mean, OK, well, we'll be all right then. It'll be all right. Well, what air power does he mean? I'm not being critical. I'm just asking the question. Does he mean U.S. A-10 Warthog close air support aircraft involved protecting British and French troops on the ground? Does he mean U.S. B-52 and B-2 bombers striking strategic Russian targets to relieve pressure on the British and French troops? Does he mean fighter bombers going in after Russian positions? Does he mean he's willing to accept American combat with Russians in the air, conceitedly, but combat with Russians to protect the European peacekeeping force? Or is he talking about C-130 transport planes? It'd be nice to get an answer there.
MARTIN: So are European militaries capable of providing the type of security that you've described to Ukraine or some measure of participation by the United States an essential element for this to be credible at all?
BOLTON: Well, I don't think they've thought through what they really think they're going to do. Are they talking about - I mean, and it would be helpful to say, what's the mission of this force? Is it to defeat a potential Russian incursion? Is it to be peace enforcement, where there would be combat? Or are they really talking and hoping and praying what they want is a U.N. peacekeeping force where the only use of force for the peacekeepers is in self-defense? These are two very different missions, and the requirements are obviously very different as well. That's - this to me is all indication. There's a lot of hot air out there. That's what diplomats do frequently. Even political leaders engage in hot air. But the substance here is pretty thin on the ground.
MARTIN: Before we let you go - just 30 seconds left here - do you think that this is essentially a distraction to keep the war going because Putin thinks he has the military advantage at this point?
BOLTON: Well, I think Putin's doing just fine at the moment. I think what we've not done for 3 1/2 years, frankly, is given Ukraine what's necessary, not simply to avoid losing the war, but to win the war. And I don't see again any indication, whether by the United States or by the Europeans, that's about to change. And as long as the real pressure that U.S. and Europeans could put on strict sanctions, harshly enforced, vigorously enforced, I think Putin thinks he can get away with it.
MARTIN: That's John Bolton. He served as the national security adviser during the first Trump administration. Ambassador Bolton, thank you so much for joining us.
BOLTON: Well, thanks again for having me. 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.
