[Salon] The Ambassador Caught Between Ukraine and Trump



https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-ambassador-caught-between-ukraine-and-trump?utm_source=pocket-newtab

The Ambassador Caught Between Ukraine and Trump

In her first major interview since testifying against Trump, Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, discusses Russia’s war on the nation and Trump’s attack on her.
March 1, 2022
Marie Yovanovitch former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine testifies before the House Permanent Select Committee on...
Marie Yovanovitch testified before Congress as part of the 2019 impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump’s actions toward Ukraine.Photograph by Kevin Dietsch / UPI / Alamy
In thirty-three years of diplomatic service, Marie Yovanovitch was never one of those Washington creatures aglow in self-regard. The big public profile wasn’t her thing. Indeed, if you told her that she would end her diplomatic career by being fired by Donald Trump and testifying in his first impeachment proceedings, she would have been mortified.

Masha, as almost everyone calls her, was in my college Russian class years ago, though her skills were, as the pitiless transcripts reveal, infinitely better than mine. She served in Embassies in Somalia and Russia; in various roles at the State Department; and then as the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, to Kyrgyzstan, and, from 2016 to 2019, as an Obama appointee, to Ukraine.

In Kyiv, Yovanovitch spent much of her time trying to cajole Ukrainian officials and businesspeople to move beyond a culture of corruption, an impulse that earned her some influential enemies. In 2019, she fell victim to a smear campaign organized by, among others, corrupt officials in Kyiv, Trump’s lawyer Rudolph Giuliani, and the right-wing media. Deemed disloyal to Trump—“a stooge,” according to Giuliani—she was summoned back to Washington and summarily fired. Meanwhile, Giuliani and others were trying to get the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who had business dealings in Ukraine. Trump, in his fateful telephone call to Zelensky—a crucial milestone in the chain of misdeeds that led to impeachment—said that Yovanovitch was “bad news.” Yovanovitch, in her testimony to Congress, four months later, said, “Our Ukraine policy has been thrown into disarray, and shady interests the world over have learned how little it takes to remove an American Ambassador who does not give them what they want.”

Yovanovitch’s parents emigrated from Europe to Canada after the Second World War and then came to the U.S. She grew up in Kent, Connecticut. After her appearance before Congress, she became a kind of Trump-era folk hero—the modest professional diplomat turned whistle-blower. Her memoir, “Lessons from the Edge,” will be published in mid-March. We recently spoke about events in Ukraine and Russia, as well as her experiences with the Trump Administration. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Masha, it must be painful to watch as Putin’s Army invades a place you lived in and cared about so much.

This is now an overused word, but it’s devastating. It’s devastating for me on a personal level. More importantly, it’s devastating to so many of the people whom I know in Ukraine and who are bravely fighting the Russian military.

Are you hearing from those friends?

I am. I’m also hearing from friends who were lucky enough to be able to leave Ukraine. And I’m hearing from people who are now in Poland, who are trying to help refugees or trying to provide supplies to Ukraine. It’s a desperate time.

Did this take you by surprise?

On the one hand, Putin has been signalling this for a long time, both in his rhetoric and in his actions. There was that speech in 2005, when he said that “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the twentieth century was the breaking apart of the Soviet Union. There was his calling out of NATO, in 2007, at the Munich Security Conference. And there was his invasion of Georgia, in 2008, which was a seminal moment—and where we reacted, perhaps, not strongly enough. Putin is a bully. If he isn’t met with strength, he’s gonna keep going.

Was there intelligence that Putin could invade Ukraine?

Well, I retired from the State Department back in 2020, so I don’t have access to the intelligence anymore. But, yes, I’m sure that there were all sorts of privileged communications. One of the things that the Biden Administration has done, which I can’t remember seeing before, is quickly declassifying intelligence and sharing it with the world. I’m sure not everything was declassified, but an awful lot of it was, and it took away some of the element of surprise.

Putin has a litany of resentments and reasons for his actions. They include the eastward expansion of NATO, and whatever the U.S. intelligence agencies may or may not have done to help foment the collapse of the Soviet Union. He also points to our actions in Kosovo and Iraq, the sense that the U.S. acts with impunity. A lot of people who are horrified by the invasion point to these factors, too. How would you respond?

Well, that’s certainly the Russian narrative, Putin’s narrative. But what should we have done differently? What should we have said to the countries of Central Europe, who had fears of their own, and fears that they would be left in a no man’s land? Should we have said, “Yeah, we’re just not interested”? I think that would’ve been a mistake. You know, the thing about the United States and NATO and the European Union is that we have ideas. We are about democracy and freedom and capitalism and security, as well as individual liberties. It’s a fact that people are better off under democracies.

And, since World War Two, that has been the single most important driver of American influence and power. Yes, we have a big military. Yes, we have a strong economy. But it’s our ideas that attract others. Russia under Putin doesn’t really have that power of attraction. He only has the power of coercion, and we are seeing that now in Ukraine in a brutal way.

I’m not saying that the U.S. has always acted perfectly. We’ve certainly made our share of mistakes. But NATO is a defensive alliance. It does not pose a threat to Putin or Russia. In fact, the leaders of Europe and President Biden were trying to ratchet down tensions before all this.

How far will Putin take this? The invasion hasn’t gone the way he would’ve liked, but maybe time is on his side. The sheer volume of arms is on his side. What does he want here?

I think he wants to control Ukraine. When I was in the country, from 2016 to 2019, I always felt that he didn’t really want to own Ukraine, because then there’s at least a modicum of responsibility. He would have to provide services. But he wanted to make sure that Ukraine didn’t have the power of self-determination. He wanted to keep it in his sphere of influence. What he discovered—due, ironically, to his own actions, particularly the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of the Donbass—was that he is the single biggest driver since independence, in 1991, of bringing the Ukrainian people together.

When I was in Ukraine in the early two-thousands, nobody knew the words to the national anthem. By the time I came back, in 2016, everybody knew the anthem. They put their hands on their hearts. The same is true now, as Russian troops are targeting kindergartens.

Would Ukraine have been better off as a member state of NATO?

Yes. Looking back over the long history, there were opportunities. But smaller countries that are caught between giants often try to find a balance between powers. That was certainly the foreign policy of President Leonid Kuchma in the late nineteen-nineties and early two-thousands. There was also an opportunity under President Viktor Yushchenko. But the Ukrainians declined to walk through a semi-open door.

Was that Ukraine’s mistake, or NATO’s?

Ukraine, frankly, still has a lot of work to do before it’s ready to join NATO. There’s the matter of reforms.

But right now, rather than looking to the past, at what could have been, we need to look forward. And we need to look at what Putin and Russia are doing in Ukraine. We need to see how we can support the Ukrainians in what is an existential struggle and a threat to European security. That means it’s also a threat to the United States, because we have treaty obligations under NATO. Putin has been very clear. He is about tearing down the liberal, rules-based international order that was established after World War Two.

To what extent is Ukraine a democracy?

It’s a developing democracy. Think about where the U.S. was after just thirty years of independence. It’s a struggle. It takes time not only to establish the institutions, but also to develop the culture, especially if you’re coming out of a Communist state. It’s the work of a couple of generations. But I think they’ve made a lot of progress. And, as we’ve discovered here in the United States recently, we can’t take democracy for granted. We need to continue to nurture it and defend it.

When you look back on it, what was the effect of the Trump Presidency on Putin and his behavior toward the United States?

I can’t say for sure. Nobody’s in Putin’s head. But I think that he found it encouraging when President Trump, at the infamous Helsinki summit [in 2018], chose not to believe his own intelligence agencies [about Russian interference in the 2016 election]. He took Putin at his word publicly. That was a real blow.

Why do you think Putin decided to invade now and not during the Trump Presidency?

There are probably a lot of factors. President Zelensky is a Russian speaker from the east of Ukraine, and has a real affinity for Russia and Russians. He came to power [in 2019] to do two things. One was to get control of corruption. The second was to achieve peace in the Donbass. He was incredibly popular in Ukraine, and got a seventy-per-cent-plus mandate. Putin was hopeful that this was going to work out very well for himself. And it didn’t. Ukraine continues to turn west. When Zelensky came in, he was ambivalent about NATO, but over the years his appeals to NATO member countries have been increasingly strong. I think that Putin senses that he has nothing to offer Ukraine, that time may be running out.

The other thing is that it’s no secret that our country is divided. Putin himself has tried to exacerbate some of those divisions. Clearly, the withdrawal from Afghanistan was not a shining moment for the United States. The Nord Stream 2 decision [not to impose sanctions on a proposed pipeline that could carry gas from the Russian coast into Germany]—which now has been reversed, thankfully—was in place. I think he thought, Hmm, you know, they’re not going to react strongly. NATO and the E.U. are not cohesive. I can take advantage of this moment.

He’s finding out now that this calculation was wrong. Diplomatically, Biden and [Secretary of State] Antony Blinken have done an incredible job of keeping the allies together. And every day our policies get stronger.

Let’s talk about Zelensky a little bit. This is not somebody who was your biggest fan. We’ll get to that a little later. How do you think he has performed in recent weeks?

I think there is a pre-invasion Zelensky and a post-invasion Zelensky. It’s no secret that he was very critical of the United States for revealing the intelligence and warning our public, the Ukrainian public, and the publics of the world about what was coming. But that intelligence proved to be correct. Zelensky had said that he had different intelligence and came to a different assessment. He was concerned, understandably, about the impact on Ukraine’s economy.

But I have to say that, once he accepted that it was likely that the Russians were going to invade, he has been phenomenal. He has displayed great courage. He has displayed leadership. And he’s the made-for-TV President!

It almost seems disrespectful to say so on such a day, but here’s a Jewish, Russian-speaking comic actor who became President. It’s as if Jerry Seinfeld or Jon Stewart had become President in our country. And yet look!

He’s done a phenomenal job. He’s also winning the Twitter and Facebook wars, which are impacting the kinetic war. He is inspiring his people, and he’s inspiring the world. I just hope it can continue.

Do you think it can?

This is a long, long game. The Ukrainian leadership, the U.S. and European leaderships, need to be in this for the long haul, because what happens now, and what happens over the next several months, is going to have a huge impact, not just for Europe, but I think for the world. And we need to step up.

We all spend a lot of time, much of it futile, trying to imagine what’s inside Putin’s head. But his military operation, to put it mildly, is not going as well as he might have hoped. And, despite the domestic crackdown in recent years, and maybe worse to come, there are demonstrations against him in dozens of Russian cities. Is there any possibility that this leads to the end of Putin in power?

I agree that the security services will crack down on these demonstrations; the more people who come out, the more will be arrested. It’s also worth remembering that this is the seventh anniversary of [the liberal reformer] Boris Nemtsov’s assassination—gunned down near the gates of the Kremlin! And his killers have not been brought to justice. The independent media barely exists in Russia today. The human-rights group Memorial has been closed. And yet we still see people doing the right thing!

Will that lead to regime change? It’s hard for me to believe. Putin’s inner circle is very small, and I don’t even know how much influence they have. It seems very little.

Putin charges the Ukrainian government with being neo-Nazi.

Rather than delving into crazy conspiracy theories, I think what’s important is just to understand that this is about President Putin. It’s about his actions. It’s about a military invading a peaceful neighbor. It’s crazy to talk about de-Nazification when you have a Jewish President. It’s beyond the pale. It’s the disinformation that we’ve been seeing for years now. And it’s all part of the playbook that we need to counter.

Your father was born in Chita, in Siberia, and your mother was born in trying conditions in Germany. They eventually made it to Connecticut. How did their lives influence your choice of career?

Thank you for asking about my parents. I really wanted to honor them in this book. They came here with nothing after World War Two, and, like so many immigrants to the United States, they believed in hard work, the power of education, going to church, doing the right thing. And so I had a pretty strict upbringing—there were a lot of lectures and things. But what mattered was the power of their example, their belief that, in the United States, there was opportunity.

My parents were teachers, so they brought up not only my brother and me but generations of students who still remember them. So you want to give back. I love politics. I love history. I love travel. I like different cuisines. And it just seemed like the Foreign Service was the right place for me. And, for three decades, it was.

What, in rough terms, are your politics?

I’m probably kind of middle of the road, tending toward liberal.

In “Lessons from the Edge,” you describe in vivid detail your dismay watching Trump’s Inaugural Address. You were already Ambassador to Ukraine at the time. What did you think his Presidency was going to mean for you and the job and diplomatic relations?

I’m a professional. I’ve served Republican and Democratic Presidents and followed their policy lines. That doesn’t mean that you don’t have your own opinion. It doesn’t mean that you don’t argue for a particular set of actions. But, once a policy line is set, professionals implement those policies.

So, with regard to a Trump Administration, I wasn’t sure what was going to happen, but I hoped and even believed that President Trump, especially since he was not experienced in foreign affairs, would follow the traditional Republican foreign-policy line. And, in that respect, I thought that Ukraine would probably do all right. In fact, for most of the time that I was there, the foreign policy toward Ukraine was pretty similar to what it had been under Obama.

When was the first indication that maybe things were a little different?

All new Administrations are chaotic. Continuity of government is one of the challenges that we have in the United States. I wasn’t that surprised that this was the case with the Trump Administration. But that chaos, with regard to decision-making, never really stopped.

It was amateur hour, in a way.

I suppose that’s one way of putting it, although there were some really good people in the Trump Administration who knew what they were doing.

You spent an enormous amount of your time concerned with corruption in Ukraine. At what point did you start to sense that not only were Ukrainian officials resenting your attention but that this was having an effect back home, that you were being considered a pain in the neck?

Or another part of the anatomy? You know, nobody likes to reform, not in the U.S., not overseas. It’s hard work, right? Even if you don’t have a personal stake in it. And many of the people in the Ukrainian government did have a personal stake [in the status quo], because some of the reforms being suggested would have stopped the party.

So I wasn’t surprised that there was pushback from the Ukrainians. But, after about a year [under Trump], I started to hear things: somebody coming to me or to somebody else in the Embassy and saying, “Hey, is she doing a good job, what’s going on here?” Or a lobbyist going to somebody at the National Security Council and saying, “You really need to replace her.”

One of the biggest surprises in the book was a passage about Zelensky, who not only didn’t defend you to the Administration but criticized you. You write:

Remarkably, Zelenskyy piled on. He called me a “bad ambassador” and said he agreed with Trump’s assessment of me “100%.” Even more ominously, he requested information “for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine, as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich.” Zelenskyy got my name wrong and my title backward, but it was clear what he meant: I was at risk of prosecution in Ukraine.

This came on the heels of Trump saying, “Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow.”

Yeah. It was remarkable. It was chilling that Trump would focus on me like that. It’s frightening—the most powerful man in the world.

What about Zelensky’s attitude toward you?

Maybe I’m wrong, but I think that he was catering to Trump. I think he knew what Trump wanted to hear. And so he was certainly ready to give it to him. I met with Zelensky a number of times. We had a perfectly normal relationship.

What was your impression of him then?

The first time I met him, I was expecting to meet a comedian, a really funny guy. And he was funny, but he was also really serious. He wanted to present himself as a businessperson, as somebody who had built up an entertainment conglomerate, which he had. He’s a self-made millionaire. He wanted to make it clear that he had executive skills. He was very proud of the fact that he had built up a business empire and how successful it was in the Russian-speaking world.

You were caught in the crosshairs of history. Trump’s men wanted you out of the way. Corrupt Ukrainian officials wanted you out of the way. And you ended up not only fired by the President but testifying in his impeachment trial, after the Administration warned you against it. How did you approach that testimony? You showed up to Capitol Hill in sunglasses, looking ready.

Well, I try to be as prepared as possible—though the sunglasses are actually my prescription glasses, which darken in the sun! But I wanted to let people know that I’m just like everybody else. I think it was important for our country that I testify, and that many others testify, so that the truth could come out. Everybody has their own part to play in our democracy. And, you know, sometimes it’s helping with the P.T.A. and sometimes it’s far more dramatic.

As you were sitting there, getting ready to testify, I’m sure you were prepared for all kinds of questions. But did you figure it was a given that Trump would get off?

I have a bifurcated personality: the Slavic background, which is always negative and pessimistic, and the American in me, which is always very hopeful and optimistic. I certainly felt that if selling out our national-security interests for personal and political gain didn’t merit a conviction, then I didn’t know what did. But I was there as a fact witness. I was not there to be asked what my personal opinion was. I did my duty. But, looking at the makeup of the House and the Senate, I have to say it wasn’t clear to me that he’d be convicted.

A friend in D.C. told me that, not long after the testimony, you walked into the Blues Alley jazz club and the crowd went nuts.

Well, it wasn’t quite like that! But, yeah, it was a very nice and reaffirming moment. People appreciated what I’d done. I got that message through many, many letters from the American public. It was affirming because there were others who felt that what I did was wrong.

Masha, we are only four or five days into this terrible assault on Ukraine. Is there any way you see this ending soon?

As a diplomat, I always hope that negotiations will lead to some sort of positive conclusion. I have to say, though, that I don’t have a great deal of hope for the negotiations at the border. I think it’s just more of the same, where Putin is putting out all this chaff to deter and distract. Looking at the composition of the Russian delegation—they’re not sending their heavy hitters. So, how serious is this, really?

But the Russians are finding that the Ukrainian military and people are fighting harder than they expected. They’re also finding out that their own logistics can’t keep them going, though they haven’t yet deployed everything they could, which is frightening to me.

I just got a text from the mayor of Kyiv, which is surrounded now on all sides. So, what is going to happen? I’m not being very articulate, because this is actually something that profoundly disturbs me. There are the policy elements of this, but then there’s also the personal element, the people who are fighting for a free Ukraine, people who have targets on their backs, literally. There are people you know who will die. It’s just very difficult to think about.



This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.