Speaker 1: Today, during a ninety minute phone call with President Trump,
Speaker 1: Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to limit a tax on
Speaker 1: Ukrainian energy infrastructure for thirty days, but decline to accept
Speaker 1: a broader cease fire. According to a statement from the
Speaker 1: White House, the readout you can see on your screen
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg TV or YouTube. Quote, leaders agreed that the
Speaker 1: movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure
Speaker 1: cease fire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of
Speaker 1: a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full cease fire
Speaker 1: and permanent peace unquote.
Speaker 2: But Ukraine's President Voladimir's Lensky said the call shows Russia
Speaker 2: is not ready for a truce, adding quote, it cannot
Speaker 2: be that Russia will hit our infrastructure and we will
Speaker 2: keep silence. We will respond, So joining us now with
Speaker 2: more here on balance of powers. Chuck Hago, former Secretary
Speaker 2: of Defense under the Obama administration, Mister Secretary, thank you
Speaker 2: so much for your time. How easily can an energy
Speaker 2: and infrastructure cease fire turn into a full truce?
Speaker 3: Well, I guess we'll see. But I think the bigger
Speaker 3: point here is we cannot allow the dictator who invaded
Speaker 3: another country Ukraine to determine the conditions of any kind
Speaker 3: of preliminary ceasefire, and I think we've got to be
Speaker 3: very careful with that. I mean, it's clearly in the
Speaker 3: interests of Russia the terms that they discussed today, in
Speaker 3: the conditions that mister Putin put on any further discussion
Speaker 3: about a ceasefire. We should have learned in nineteen thirty
Speaker 3: eight that you cannot play kate appeasers, and we've got
Speaker 3: to be together on this, with Ukraine, with Europe, and
Speaker 3: I hope that's the way the President is approaching this well.
Speaker 1: Mister Secretary, it's great to have you on Bloomberg. You're
Speaker 1: not the first today to refer to the Ammunich. You
Speaker 1: wouldn't be the first to refer to Yalta either, And
Speaker 1: the optics here are awfully important. The fact of the
Speaker 1: matter is, you could headline this by saying Russia today
Speaker 1: declined to accept a ceasefire offer, just flat out. We
Speaker 1: know for a fact that Vladimir Putin wants the US
Speaker 1: military aid to be stopped to Ukraine before signing on
Speaker 1: any ceasefire. So are we just kind of playing around
Speaker 1: the edges here? Some have suggested he just wants a
Speaker 1: chance to regroup.
Speaker 3: Well, I think that's right. Again, we can't allow mister
Speaker 3: Putin to determine the conditions, and I think it would
Speaker 3: be absolutely wrong, very dangerous if we agreed to that
Speaker 3: condition that mister Putin has laid out to withhold our
Speaker 3: intelligence and our continued military assistance to mister Zelenski and
Speaker 3: Ukraine for obvious reasons. I mean, it's clearly in Russia's
Speaker 3: interest here, and this is not the way you approach
Speaker 3: the negotiation or the begin of a negotiation for peace.
Speaker 3: And again, let's remember who invaded whom here. It was Russia, unprovoked,
Speaker 3: and what they have done to Ukraine and the people
Speaker 3: is unbelievable. And we've obviously not seen anything like this
Speaker 3: since World War Two. So we've got to be very
Speaker 3: mindful of this and very disciplined, very smart, and work
Speaker 3: with our allies, with our friends, because this has ramifications.
Speaker 3: How this comes out has major consequences for the world
Speaker 3: in the future. China's watching it, others are watching it.
Speaker 3: So let's be very smart in how we handle this
Speaker 3: and very distant.
Speaker 2: Well, it strikes us, mister Secretary, that this conversation between
Speaker 2: Trump and putin today happened eleven years to the day
Speaker 2: of the legal annexation of Crimea. If Russia is allowed
Speaker 2: to keep any part of Crimea or the other Ukrainian
Speaker 2: territory roughly twenty percent of the country that it currently occupies,
Speaker 2: and that is what becomes the status quo. What does
Speaker 2: that actually do to the question of the sovereign territorial
Speaker 2: integrity of Ukraine and the incentive perhaps Russia may have
Speaker 2: to further pursue a changing of those borders.
Speaker 3: Well, you've just defined consequences, you just defined what could happen,
Speaker 3: and something is going to happen, not just the end
Speaker 3: of this war, but how it ends. And again, just
Speaker 3: a cursory reading of history over the last one hundred
Speaker 3: years should inform us. I mean, we are the greatest
Speaker 3: most powerful nation on earth and Russia is not. Russia
Speaker 3: is not even close. And we've got friends, we've got allies,
Speaker 3: we've got NATO. But we have the right on our
Speaker 3: side here. We've got morality and doing the right thing
Speaker 3: at the right time. So let's not forget all of that.
Speaker 3: Who we are as a country, the kind of leader,
Speaker 3: global leader we are that people look to, people will
Speaker 3: follow US on this, and again I say there are
Speaker 3: immense consequences that are going to come out of this
Speaker 3: in how it ends.
Speaker 1: Secretary, we spoke on the early edition of Balance of
Speaker 1: Power today with retired General Ben Hodges, who I think
Speaker 1: you know well, former Commanding General US Army Europe. He
Speaker 1: had a cautionary note, struck a similar tone maybe that
Speaker 1: you are right now about negotiating with Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 3: Here's what he said.
Speaker 4: I think Vladimir Putin has actually zero interest in any
Speaker 4: true long term settlement as long as he remains in power,
Speaker 4: and that his ultimate objective still remains the destruction of Ukraine.
Speaker 4: So I didn't hear or read anything about Russia backing
Speaker 4: away from their ultimate objectives.
Speaker 1: With that said, Chuck Hagel, is it possible to find
Speaker 1: or maintain a piece in Ukraine without security guarantees from
Speaker 1: the US?
Speaker 3: I don't think so. I mean, you can talk about
Speaker 3: mining interests in someone and so on, but that's all nonsense. No,
Speaker 3: our security interests are are clear, and any long term
Speaker 3: piece for Eastern Europe, by the way, I don't think
Speaker 3: can be legitimately had maintained without US involvement and commitments
Speaker 3: along with our NATO partners in Europe. I mean, let's
Speaker 3: not forget here. This is the first time this has
Speaker 3: happened since World War Two in Europe. One country invades
Speaker 3: another country. I mean, what the hell are we thinking?
Speaker 3: And let's be smart about this and let's get real
Speaker 3: about this. The US has security interests, we have economic interests,
Speaker 3: we have global strategic interests in how this ends in
Speaker 3: helping protect our friends and our allies, our commitment, our work.
Speaker 3: We're not the world's policeman. No. I don't say that
Speaker 3: we've never been. But when you look at the post
Speaker 3: World War two world order that we built along with
Speaker 3: our friends and our allies, collective security NATO the most
Speaker 3: successful collective security institution in the history of man. We've
Speaker 3: kept the world peace since World War Two, no World
Speaker 3: War three, no nuclear exchange, more people free, more people prosperous.
Speaker 3: I mean, are we going to throw that away or
Speaker 3: risk all that? We should be wise in how we
Speaker 3: project out as to then what happens and how does
Speaker 3: this end, and how do we want it to end
Speaker 3: to maintain that kind of peace now, I mean, we've
Speaker 3: had problems in the world. We still do, but we've
Speaker 3: had a pretty good run since World War Two, and
Speaker 3: that's because of American commitment, trust that people have in US,
Speaker 3: in our leadership.
Speaker 2: Well, and because the country took a step away from isolationism. Arguably,
Speaker 2: mister Secretary, where we're taking a step more towards isolationism
Speaker 2: now under this administration, not just in terms of actual
Speaker 2: hard power being provided to other countries, but there's soft
Speaker 2: power questions as well. I know you signed on to
Speaker 2: the Amikus brief surrounding the dismantling of USAID warning of
Speaker 2: the dangers around that. You just described to the US
Speaker 2: as the greatest country of earth on Earth, that we
Speaker 2: should have the strongest rather some leverage in these conversations.
Speaker 2: But what does the potential destruction of US soft power
Speaker 2: do to our ability to actually be a credible mediator here?
Speaker 3: Well, A great deal of our power in the world
Speaker 3: since World War Two has come as a result of
Speaker 3: so called soft power that's helping other nations. In fact,
Speaker 3: that was the whole intent of a post World War
Speaker 3: two world order to build institutions and opportunity for all
Speaker 3: people for freedom and education, prosperity, and most important, hope.
Speaker 3: And so soft power through USAID been a critical part
Speaker 3: of that since nineteen sixty one, and every president, Republican
Speaker 3: or Democrat has strongly supported that, every Congress has because
Speaker 3: they know it's helping friends, it's helping our partners, it's
Speaker 3: helping us, it's helping our strategic interests. For example, And
Speaker 3: I know Evelyn is going to be on after me
Speaker 3: and Evelyn and I worked together at the Pentagon when
Speaker 3: I was secretary in twenty fourteen when we had the
Speaker 3: Ebola outbreak in Western Africa. The Pentagon was very involved
Speaker 3: in helping clean that up. But that's a good example
Speaker 3: of pandemics. How USAID helps us stay ahead of pandemics
Speaker 3: that start somewhere else. But all the assistants that we
Speaker 3: give these countries and development and hope that all plays
Speaker 3: to our benefit our friends. We could not project power
Speaker 3: in the world today and be the powerful country that
Speaker 3: we are without friends, without allies, without alliance as well,
Speaker 3: partnership that cuts directly to our economic interests as well.
Speaker 1: Appreciating the spirit of your answer when it comes to
Speaker 1: allies and partnerships, Secretary Hegel. Donald Trump likes to show
Speaker 1: up at the podium with a list of egregious spending
Speaker 1: that they have found, according to the doge of putting
Speaker 1: on plays and printing comic books and so forth in
Speaker 1: other countries. With what you just said, I wonder if
Speaker 1: you also would support reform at USAID if it's needed.
Speaker 3: Oh, of course, I mean any company, any big institution,
Speaker 3: any program in our government. We can go in and
Speaker 3: find things that we can do better. I'm sure there's
Speaker 3: some fraud. I'm sure there's some abuse, no question. But
Speaker 3: let's do it the smart way. Let's do it the
Speaker 3: right way. Do it the way Bill Clinton did when
Speaker 3: he came into office. He said the same things. He
Speaker 3: didn't say quite the way mister Trump has said him.
Speaker 3: But we need to clean up waste, fraud, and abuse
Speaker 3: in government. He worked with the Congress. That's the smart way,
Speaker 3: that's the right way. You put people in those positions
Speaker 3: to help you do that. Within your own administration, who
Speaker 3: know who understand, who are experience. What does USAID really do?
Speaker 3: Work with the Congress, the oversight committees. Where can we
Speaker 3: get better, Where can we root out this fraud abuse?
Speaker 3: Of course, we can do that every department in our government. Listen,
Speaker 3: I'm all for that. When I was in the United
Speaker 3: States Senate, I championed some of that. But you don't
Speaker 3: do it the way President Trump is doing it. You
Speaker 3: just arbitrarily cut. Because what that does for one thing,
Speaker 3: we lose the trust and confidence of longtime friends and allies.
Speaker 3: And when you lose trust, which is the coin of
Speaker 3: the realm in everything in life, it's hard to regain it.
Speaker 3: And so you start there. But yes, I'm all for
Speaker 3: cleaning up government, cleaning up anything. But do it the
Speaker 3: right way, do it the smart way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, spoken like a senator as well as a former
Speaker 1: Secretary of Defense, Chucky. It's great to have you back.
Speaker 1: I hope we'll see you again. Come see us again
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg TV and radio. Of course, he was secretary
Speaker 1: in the Obama administration. We thank you, sir for the insights.