>> as russia launches a new offensive, what's at stake in ukraine this week on "firing line." >> we are supporting ukraine because it is in our national-security interests. >> she's a state department veteran with more than three decades of experience. marie yovanovitch served in embassies from mogadishu to moscow and then as an ambassador three times over. she became the top diplot in ukraine in 2016, where she pushed for refm... >> the old oligarch system is still clinging to life, and corruption is its life pport. >> ...but watargeted by a smear campaign and removed from her post by president donald trump in 2019. >> i heard very, very bad things about her for a long period of time. >> yovanovitch was a key witness in trump's first impeachment hearing. >> as we sitere testifying, the president is attacking you on twitter. >> it's very intimidating.

>> as putin continues his assault and biden works with american allies to respond, what does ambassador marie vanovitch say now? >> "firing line with margaret hoover" is made possible in part by... and by... corporate funding is provided by... >> ambassador marie yovanovitch, welcome to the "firing line." >> thank you for having me. >> you served in the foreign service for 33 years, including in moscow, just after the fall of the sovietnion. your years of service give you unique insights into russia's invasion into ukraine.

and just this week, russia began a new offensive in the east. will you take stock, ambassador, of where the war stands right now? >> well, i think we're in a new and dangerous phase of the war where the russians have taken the last several weeks after the ukrainians chased them out of their country and they are regrouping and rearming andepositioning. and donbas is really taking a pounding. and i think what we're expecting is a pretty major land war, the likes of which we haven't seen since world war ii. >> who is winning right now? >> you know, i'm n sure that one can categorize it as winning and losing. i think that the russians have embarked on a war of choice. and i think, in response, the ukrainians are fighting an existential fight. they are motivated, they are capable, and they are not going to lose.

>> you have an extensive network of friends and contacts throughout the country from your two times that you served in ukraine. what are you hearing from ur frnds and contacts right now? >> well, what i'm hearing increasingly over the last couple weeks after we've seen, you know, the killings in bucha, we're seeing mariupol just devastated, and my ukrainian friends, i think all ukrainians are just increasingly angry. they are the ones who are kind of encouraging me not to give up hope. they are the ones who are saying, "we are fighting for our freedom, you know, and we're fighting for your freedom, too, because this is about something bigger than just ukraine." >> in a speech last week, the cia director, lliam burns, warned that increasing desperation could prompt putin to launch some sort of a nuclear attack. burns reminded us that russia'

military dtrine allows for the use of nuclear weapons in order to de-escalate a conventional military threat. do you think, knowing what you know about putin, that he would escalate with nuclear weapons? >> yeah, well, as madeleine albright used to say, hope is not a policy. and, you know, i hope that that is not the case. but i think what we've seen with vladimir putin over the years in his various wars, whether it is syria, chechnya, ukraine, georgia, that he doesn't seem to have any limits to what he is willing to do. and the russian military, as you said, it's in their doctrine to use tactical nukes, escalation to de-escalate. so i certainly hope that we're not going to see that. you know, it just doesn't bear thinking about, really. >> what should be done by the u.s. and our allies if russia does deploy tactical

nuclear weapons? >> well, president biden has said that russia would really regret it. and i hope that vladimir putin listens to those warnings. i wish i could tell you, you know, the perfect answer to, you know, a really difficult question of what should the right response be to using nuclear weapons? i hope what happens is that we are able to draw in the rest of the countries that are sitting on the fence now, wondering, you know, who is going to win this war, that we are ab to convince europe to cut off the spigot to russian energy, because that would really, really hurt russia. >> you worked closely with joe biden when he was the vice president of the united states and you were the american ambassador to ukraine. and i've heard you say that he is walking a

"very, very narrow path," trying to both support ukraine and deter russia, but without crossing a line that would broaden the war. so far, that hasn't been enough to change putin's calculation or, frankly, meet president zelensky's pleas for assistance. what else should the white house be doing thamight change the ajectory of this conflict? >> well, i understand, from the readout of president biden's call this week with other leaders in the alliance, that more sanctions are going to be coming down the path, and i think there's probably going to be additional security assistance, as well. and i think, right now, it's down to timing, because, you know, we could have the perfect assistance package, security assistance package, and it gets there in three months. it needs to be there now. >> throughout the buildup the invasion, the biden administration was clear that it was not going to consider

direct military intervention. now, you have warned that taking options off the table could be interpreted as a sign of weakness by putin. would it have been better to leave some ambiguity about the united states as possible response to a russian invasion of ukraine? >> i'm not sure to what extent putin is looking at us and what we're doing and what we're not doing. we are carefully calibrating everything we do. we've got loads of lawyers from every agency looking at what is escalatory and what might set putin off. but i don't think putin is playing in that same ballpark that we are. he is looking not at what we say. he's looking at what we do. and at is why the security assistance we're sending, the sanctions is so important. >> are there things, you think, that could have been done earlier, though?

might deterrence have worked if we had taken different actions? >> i think, you know, it's clear now that we should have provided them with javelin missiles, anti-tank missiles early on. by the time we gave the vote or provided those anti-tank missiles to the ukinians, it felt like it was a little too little, too late, although it was important that they were delivered. and then, of course, during the trump administration, the javelins got caught up in president trump's own desire to, you know, get a personal favor, a political favor from a foreign leader -- in this case, zelensky. and so that delivery was held up. the second delivery was held up in the trump administration. i think, you know, had we provided weapons earlier on in this administration, i think that would have sent a signal. but, again, i think that putin

miscalculated, fundamentally, that he thought the west was weak. he did not think that president biden and other leaders would be able to unite and unite strongly. putin thought his own military was effective and strong. and he fundamentally does not understand ukraine and the ukrainians and that he may think they're not a country, but, in fact, they know they are and they are demonstrating it every day. >> you have just mentioned putin's many miscalculations. >> mm-m. >> do you think, because of those miscalculations, that putin's endgame has changed in any way? >> well, you know, it's hard to know what's in putin's head, but it's my own belief that if he's successful in the donbas, he will keep on going, because i think that he wants to re-create -- you know, whether you call it the russian empire or the soviet union, he wants to bring those,ou know,

newly independent countries, the former soviet republics, back into the fold. he told us as much when -- you know, on the eve of the war back in february. and i think he needs it. and i think that we need to take that threat seriously, because if putin prevails, we are going back to a world where might makes right. that is not good for america. it will make us less secure,le it will make us less prosperous, and it will make us less free. >> in annterview last week, former president donald trump described russia's war in ukraine as a "genocide," using language that matches president biden's. now, there are people who have pushed back on this characterization, because the designation of genocide requires legal review. french president macron has resisted using that word. and as ambassador in armenia, you actually had some experience with how delicate

this terminology can be. from your diplomatic work and based on what we've seen in cities like mariupol and bucha, are presidents trump and biden correct to be using the language of "genocide"? >> well, i think that, you know, as a supreme court judge said about a different set of iss we know it when we see it, right? i mean, we can feel it and we're seeingt, you know, whether it's online or in photos or oour tv screens. and it sure feels like genocide, i think, to ornary people. you're absolutely right that there will be endless legal reviews, and they will come up with a decision in a number of years. but i think for ordinary people, you know, people like you and me, that's what it looks like. that's what it feels like. it probably is. >> as a diplomat, you have lived and worked in several parts of the world, and you document many of those experiences in your new memoir, "lessons from the edge."

and when you departed kiev in may 2019 after being recalled as the ambassador by the trump administration, you planned to tell your staff in a farewell,i love ukraine. that's why i came back." but you write in your book that you were too emotional to get those words out. it's clear that you saw promise there for a new democracy. what was it about ukraine and the people of ukraine that you think has unified them in defiance to vladimir putin? >> i mean, ukrainians are unruly and they don't want anybody tellinth what to do. they certainly don't want americans to tell them what to do, but they really don't want russians to tell them what to do, and we're seeing that now. i really see the election of volodymyr zelensky, you know, the protest candidate, the comedian who plays, you know, this accidental president, and he, you know, didn't have much of a campaign, but people knew him. he was in their living rooms throh his tv series.

they loved him as a comedian and they entrusted h with the presidency. and, you know, there was a lot of skepticism, certainly in the elites in ukraine and around the world, but i think we are now seeing why they trusted him and that their trust has been rewarded. >> you overlapped with ukrainian president zelensky as he turned, as you mentioned, from comedy to politics and exceeded the expectations of many leaders -- not just in ukraine, but around the world. you've called that transformation remarkable and said that -- you know, you've even referred to him as the churchill of our time. what is it about his leadership that has made it so successful in this moment? >> he comes across as a man of the people and he's doing what the people of ukraine are doing. he is staying. >> [ speaks native language ] i mean, here is a man who is fighting for his country, and people recognize that. they recognize it in ukraine

and they recognize it around the world, and i think you see the response. there's the raw courage. there's so, you know, just the extraordinary communication skills, where he knows what to say to his own people, but, moreover, he knows what to say to foreign audiences, as well. you know, when he talked to the british parliament, he echoed churchill's remarks. when he talked to our own congress, he talked about 9/11 and pearl harbor. and he does it in a respectful and historical way, but he also isn't afraid to goad people a little and really challenge them to -- our leaders, i mean -- challenge them to live up to their ideals. >> president trump has claimed that this invasion "never would have happened in the trump administration." i've heard that you have also suggested that putin

might not have gone to war if trump was still in office. and you said, "you don't need to go to war if you're getting everything you want through other means." tell me what you meant by that. >> trump was... very dismissive of nato. i mean, "dismissive" is obviously a diplomatic word. very critical of nato, critical of our allies, and his close associates, including john bolton, have said that if he had won a send term, he would have pulled us out of nato. i mean, why go to war, if you're vladimir putin, if the united states is going to present, you know, kind of the corpse of nato on a silver platter? you don't need to do that. >> i mean, how do you think the invasion would have been different if trump had remained as president? >> i think thatrump would have provided putin with enough of what he wanted that, you know, perhaps he wouldn't have invaded. >> so if trump had had a second term and you think

that putin wouldn't have invaded because of that, what would ukraine look like? >> so, we are now getting into -- you know, this is why diplomats are told never to answer theoretical questions. >> not to -- yeah. >> so we're getting into areas of -- you know, i mean, it's a hypothetical question, right? i don't know what trump would have done and i don't know what putin would have done, but i can't see trump, president trump, standing up for ukraine the way president biden is right now. >> you testified during president trump's first impeachment, and you've said that the call between president trump and zelensky, "sent a signal to authoritarian leaders around the world, certainly including putin, that they could cut deals with the former administration." given everything that's happened since the first impeachment and since that initial call between president trump and president zelensky,

how do you reflect on those moments, given what's happened to ukraine now? >> it's just really painful for me to think about how we should have been reaching out of hand to a young and untried president -- president zelensky in this case -- and, instead, the president of the united states was holding up military assistance, asking for, you know, a favor, though, a personal favor from a foreign leader to aid him in his own election campaign. i mean, it really weakened the united states, but it also, to a certain extent, weakened ukraine, as well, where instead of us providing that stalwart support, we were using ukraine as a pawn. and i think that was very damaging all the way around.

>> of the widespread smear campaign that you experienced before you were recalled as ambassador, you write... you know, rudy giuliani was a key part of that smear campaign against you. what are the consequences of a private citizen influencing the president of the united states and the highest levels of u.s. poli, like the appointment of a u.s. ambassador? >> well, you know, my understanding is that there are a number of cases pending against rudy giuliani, and i hope that justice is done. >> was a new precedent set in that experience?

>> well, i think that, you know, in the end, what happened is, there was an accountability of sorts, because it all became public. and i think that there are many reasons why president trump was not re-elected, but i think that a portionf it has to do with rudy giuliani and how he and his advice helped the president not only be, yoknow, impeached once, but, frankly, impeached twice. so, you know, i think there is some justice there. >> as a foreign service officer of 33 years, you write quite a bit about the state department. and in your book, you also write a bit about secrety pompeo, who was the secretary of state at the time you were recalled back to washington from ukraine. you write...

can you describe some of those betrayals? >> so, secretary pompeo is a super-smart guy. i mean, he graduated first in west point. he knew better. he knew better than to politicize the state department. and, yet, that's exactly what he di and, you know, i think back to this famous quote that politics should stop at the water's edge, that, you know, we can -- you know, in our big, brawling democracy, we can disagree about stuff, but when it comes to our national security, we should be speaking with one united american voice. and i think pompeo did a lot to undermine that principle, and i think it's damaging. >> was tt his only betrayal? >> well, i mean, how much time do we have? [ lahs ] i think it's well-known that he is an ambitious man.

and so the state department, it appeared to many of us, was only a stepping-stone to, you know, the next big job, that he was using the state department to further his own political ambitions. and, again, i think the state department should be above politics. it pretty much always has been in the past, and i think we need to get it back into that lane. and i think, you know, this administration's trying to do that. >> it is well-known that he is ambitious, and it's also well-known that secretary pompeo is looking quite seriously at a run for the presidency. what are your thoughts about his potential candidacy for the presidency? >> running the united states government is an even bigger job than running the state department, and i would say that he was not a success as secretary of state, so i certainly wouldn't want to entrust the presidency to secretary pompeo. >> you just said he was not a success. do you care to elaborate on that? >> when i look at how he

undermined the institution that he was in charge of, you know, and i think back to president trump, where he talked about the state department and made some snide joke about the deep state over at the state department, implying that we were not loyal to the united states government or certainly not to him... >> you know what i'd like to do? i'd like them to go back to the state department or, as they call it, the deep state department. >> ...and secretary pompeo, who is the head of the state department, snickered. he stood there and snickered. you know, that's not leadership. i mean, i don't think pompeo was unique in pandering to the president, but when we choose our elected leaders, we want profiles in courage. we want people who are ethical and have integrity and show real leadership skills. and i didn't see that

in secretary pompeo when he was running the state department. >> one more last one about nato. as you and i both know, the debate over nato is not new. in 1987, in fact, before the dissolution of the soviet union, william f. buckley jr. hosted a program that was called "pull out of nato?" professor melvyn krauss argued that nato had made the west weaker, not stronger, by encouraging european allies to depend on us for their own defense. take a look at this. >> i am very concerned that we have made allies into weak allies. we know what the status quo has given us. it has given us peace, but it also has given us a demoralization and a crippling of our allies, where we have to do more and more and more against the soviets. and, quite frankly, i feel that we're spread too thin. >> i wonder if, given your diplomatic experience in europe and in eastern europe in particular, do you agree that it is

important for nato to continue in its peacekeeping function? >> well, why mess with success? i mean, i think that there's always been a debate about nato, but i think nato has proven to be the most successful defense pact in the history of the world. and the reason that it is so successful is that it is based on shared values. >> you have spoken and written about the need to tend to democracies and to cultivate them in order to avoid complacency. if americans are taking democracy for granted today, what is your prescription for how we fix it? >> well, i think we all need to become more involved in our communities and in our -- and in political life. i mean, you know, the founders back in the day,ou know, they never imagined that there would be a political class and the rest of us would do other stuff.

they were imagining that people would rotate in and out of congress and in other parts of politics. i'm not sure that that is completely realistic, but i do think that having more people involved -- you know, educated and involved, and that's, you know, going back to the importance of a free press, because without having that kind of information freely available for citizens, it's hard to have a fully functioning democracy. >> well, ambassador marie yovanovitch, you have served our democracy for 33 years, and we are grateful for civil servants like you, for your sacrifice, and i'm grateful for your time here on "firing line." thank you so much. >> thank you for having me. >> "firing line with margaret hoover" is made possible in part by...

and by... corporate fundinis provided by... ♪♪ >> you're watching pbs.

[announcer]: this program was made possible in part by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [david]: life has become so challenging, filled with toxic stress, an overwhelming sense of isolation and anxiety. but there is another way, a way that helps you awake to a new and better life, a way filled with peak experiences, a way that leads ultimately, to enlightenment. [chopra]: the best way to define enlightenment is to discover and experience your true self.