PBS wonders how much Trump contributed to the Ukraine invasion

A book tour by Marie Ivanovich, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and former impeachment witness, took her to PBS on Tuesday, where Newshour Host Judy Woodroff and Amanpur & CompanyIts Christian Amanpur wondered how former President Trump played a role in Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine.

Woodruff suggested that Trump sent a kind of “signal” to Putin: “But when it came – the catastrophe of what happened in Ukraine under former President Trump, he pushed you out of your job, at first glance, did it send a signal?” Do, to Vladimir Putin, about the United States?

Ivanovich reiterated Trump’s usual description of putting his personal interests above the country:

… It was an administration that was about things other than our own national security interests. It really was, you know, later I think the copy was published and Whistleblower alleged that it was an administration, a president doing business in his office for his personal and political gain. And it hints at Putin and other bad actors in the world that you can make a deal, can’t it?

He then goes on to say, “I think Putin, in Trump’s years, although US government policy was very strong, in Trump’s years, I think Putin saw exactly what he got. He needed that.” The amount of the President [Trump] Thinking about Ukraine, he blew it up as a weak pan.

Kiev Ivanovic’s term began under President Obama, who refused to provide lethal assistance to Ukraine, arguing that it would increase risk. Trump changed the policy, and neither did Woodruff nor Amanpur:

Volodymyr Zelensky’s call, which turned out to be a transactional call, says that, as you know, our weapons and our help to you can depend on you – you are throwing dirt on my political opponents. First of all, I would like to ask you, materially and in essence, how dangerous it was for many NATO countries to lay down arms on the kind of assistance that they were providing to Ukraine? Did it then make a material difference in Ukraine’s defense capabilities?

Ivanovich also ignored Obama’s role when he declared, “Well, it always makes a difference, if not materially, certainly indicates US support because we are Ukraine’s strongest partner.” He then proceeded to make the same claim that he had made earlier with Woodruff.

If Woodruff and Amanpur had been real journalists, they would have asked if Ivanovich agreed with Obama and whether he had threatened national security in 2014 by not reacting strongly enough to annex Crimea.

These categories are sponsored by visitors like you

Here is a transcript of the March 15 show:

PBS News Hour

3/15/2022

7:28 PM ET

Judy Woodruff: In your book, there it is – it’s the story of your life, your journey in foreign service, doing foreign service, representing the United States. But when it comes – the catastrophe of what happened in Ukraine under former President Trump – he pushed you out of your job, at first glance, did it send any kind of signal, you think, to Vladimir Putin, the United States?

Marie Ivanovich: I – I think it could indicate to those who were watching, and perhaps Putin was one of them – that it was an administration that dealt with issues other than our own national security interests. It really was, you know, later I think the copy was published and Whistleblower alleged that it was an administration, a president doing business in his office for his personal and political gain. And it hints at Putin and other bad actors in the world that you can make a deal, can’t it? Because if you help the president in any way, you can go and do your own thing and I think Putin, in Trump’s years, although the US government policy was very strong, in Trump’s years, I think what Putin saw is what he did. Got exactly what was needed. The amount of the President [Trump] Thinking about Ukraine, he blew it up as a weak pan. And I think the other thing is that the president’s views on NATO were well-known, and many of his senior advisers have said that he would probably have expelled the United States from NATO if he had won a second term. . That would probably be the death knell for NATO.

PBS Amanpur & Company

3/16/2022

1:30 AM ET

Christian Amanpur: Let’s go back to your book and come back – the issue that has put you in front and center and made you a family name. And it was, apparently, Trump’s first impeachment trial that he called a perfect call. The call turned out to be a transactional call to Volodymyr Zelensky that, you know, our weapons and our help to you could depend – you are throwing dirt on my political opponents. First of all, I would like to ask you, materially and in essence, how dangerous it was for many NATO countries to lay down arms on the kind of assistance that they were providing to Ukraine? Did it then make a material difference in Ukraine’s defense capabilities?

Marie Ivanovich: Well, it always makes a difference, if not materially, of course it indicates US support because we are Ukraine’s strongest partner. We have provided more humanitarian, economic or security assistance than any other country. And for the President of the United States, as was revealed, sending a signal to Ukraine ready to trade our security assistance and truly our national security values ​​and interests for his personal and political gain, perhaps we could not do that. Ukraine does not really have a back, maybe we are not the strong partner that Ukraine needs because, don’t forget, Ukraine was still at war with Russia. But it also sends a message to Putin and other bad actors around the world that he is a president who cares about his own interests.