前拜登白宫国家安全顾问杰克·沙利文说唐纳德·特朗普乌克兰总统弗拉基米尔·泽连斯基周六在罗马给了他“第一线希望”，他说他有一段时间了，因为这与现任政府对乌克兰战争的态度有关。
“(会议)给了我一段时间以来的第一线希望，因为我迄今为止看到的是川普总统让弗拉基米尔·普京获得美国对克里米亚的承认，俄罗斯非法占领并吞并了克里米亚。...他向普京承诺，乌克兰不会成为北约的一部分，他也向普京承诺，他可以保留他非法入侵和占领的所有领土，”沙利文周六在周日播出的采访中告诉《本周》的联合主播玛莎·拉达茨。
他继续说道，“普京给他的是什么?目前为止什么都没有。但今天，泽连斯基站出来说他认为这是一次很好的会晤，这让我想到，“好吧，也许特朗普总统看到普京正在把他引入歧途。”事实上，特朗普总统公开表示可能会这样。"
川普和泽连斯基周六在圣彼得大教堂私下会面，之后参加了教皇方济各的葬礼。这是两位领导人自二月份在椭圆形办公室举行的会议演变成摄像机前的激烈争论并导致泽连斯基被赶出白宫以来的首次会面。
泽连斯基周六在X上的一篇帖子中说这是一次“很好的会面”，并补充道:“我们一对一地讨论了很多。希望我们调查的每件事都有结果。保护我们人民的生命。全面无条件停火。这将防止另一场战争的爆发。非常具有象征意义的会晤，如果我们取得共同成果，它有可能成为历史性的会晤。”
在会晤后的另一篇社交媒体帖子中，特朗普对俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔·普京采取了更为批评的语气，提出了他对俄罗斯实施新制裁的可能性。总统还表示，最近俄罗斯对乌克兰平民区的袭击让他“认为也许[普京]不想停止战争，他只是在利用我。”
沙利文说，“俄罗斯挑起了这场战争，而不是乌克兰，是俄罗斯——特别是弗拉基米尔·普京——是实现停火的主要障碍，有几次特朗普总统似乎已经明白了这一点。今天可能就是其中的一个时刻。不幸的是，每当有一丝承认普京负有责任的迹象时，特朗普总统都会迅速反击，对乌克兰施加所有压力，并对俄罗斯做出更多让步。我希望这种情况不会再次发生。”
沙利文自1月份离开白宫后就很少公开发言，他告诉拉达茨，他“保持沉默”，部分原因是他“不想成为后座司机”。
“当我在任时，有很多人指手画脚，”沙利文说。“但当你看到车开始向悬崖倾斜时，你必须说点什么。”
他继续说道，“在不到一百天的时间里，我所看到的是美国的信誉和对我们的朋友和盟友的信任受到严重损害，美国在政治制度、市场和创新方面的吸引力受到严重损害。最重要的是，我看到中国从中获益。”
特朗普政府与俄罗斯谈判的方式
Raddatz:当你担任国家安全顾问时，拜登政府在这方面毫无进展，试图制裁俄罗斯，但你没有与俄罗斯接触。所以你现在是说。与俄罗斯接触是可以的。当你回头看的时候，你会做一些不同的事情吗?
沙利文:首先，我们确实与俄罗斯进行了接触。我们有多种渠道与俄罗斯人对话，我们通过这些渠道与他们对话-
Raddatz:但肯定不会像现在这样。
沙利文:不，因为我们在任时认识到的一件事是，普京当时不准备坐下来达成一项能为乌克兰带来公正的协议。
因此，我们认识到，在执政的最后几个月里，我们必须为乌克兰建立更多的影响力。我们增加了军事装备，我们加强了制裁，我们没收了俄罗斯资产的收益，我们让欧洲和我们站在一起，所有这一切。
因此，我们给了新团队相当多的筹码，让乌克兰在谈判桌上获得一笔好交易。我希望他们最终不会浪费这一优势。
美国和伊朗新一轮核谈判
沙利文:听着，当我们离开办公室时...伊朗正处于自20世纪80年代以来，也许是自1979年伊朗革命以来的最低谷。他们失去了主要代理人真主党，他们失去了防空力量。我们曾两次直接抵御伊朗的导弹袭击，并表明伊朗不可能真正对以色列造成严重伤害。
因此，外交和交易的条件已经成熟。我认为他们有可能达成协议。我认为，该协议的内容与奥巴马总统和克里国务卿在奥巴马政府中达成、被唐纳德·特朗普撕毁的协议不会有太大不同。看到该协议的许多批评者站出来支持特朗普的产品，我会觉得非常有趣。但我自己认为应该有一个外交解决方案，而且我相信这是可以实现的。
特朗普政府做对了什么
沙利文:在100天内很难想出一个好的例子。我是说，有些事情他们已经把我们所拥有的向前推进了-
Raddatz:移民?
沙利文:-在运动中。是的，我的意思是，他们在移民问题上做了一些事情，但老实说，当你把它与不给人们正当程序并把他们送到萨尔瓦多监狱相比，这种损害比他们所能实现的要大得多。
我想我真的可以支持胡塞的某些步骤。你知道，我们对胡塞采取了军事行动。他们已经加快了步伐。我仍然相信，我们需要把它与胡塞人的更大战略目标联系起来。但我认为这是一个有一些连续性的领域。
关于国防部长皮特·黑格斯的争议
Raddatz:你肯定关注了与你的继任者迈克·华尔兹(Mike Waltz)的信号聊天，不小心把它透露给了一名记者，但也关注了皮特·赫格塞斯(Pete Hegseth)在那些信号聊天中发的关于发射F-18战斗机的短信，以及它们将在什么时候对也门发动攻击。有没有-你认为这些应该是机密信息吗?
沙利文:听着，我想你已经从各方面的情报专业人士那里听说了那是机密信息，但它指出了一个更大的问题，那就是海格塞思部长的密友和顾问离开了海格塞思的五角大楼，并写了一篇文章说五角大楼完全混乱，唐纳德·特朗普应该取代皮特·海格塞思。
这是我听过的最响亮的号召。因此，这个信号问题是我们在100天内在五角大楼看到的许多措施中的一个例子，这些措施对这座建筑的未来和我们武装部队的未来提出了真正的问题。我不是说那是他自己的朋友和顾问。
Trump-Zelenskyy meeting is 'first sliver of hope I've had in a while': Former national security adviser Jake Sullivan.
Former Biden White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said the meeting between PresidentDonald Trumpand Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Rome Saturday gave him "the first sliver of hope" he said he has had in a while as it relates to the current administration's approach to the war in Ukraine.
"[The meeting] gives me the first sliver of hope I've had in a while because what I've seen to date is President Trump giving Vladimir Putin U.S. recognition of Crimea, which Russia illegally occupied and annexed. ... He's given Putin a promise that Ukraine will not be part of NATO, and he has given Putin a promise that he can keep all the territory that he has illegally invaded and seized," Sullivan told "This Week" co-anchor Martha Raddatz on Saturday in an interview that aired Sunday.
He continued, "What is Putin giving him? So far nothing. But today having Zelenskyy come out and say he thought it was a good meeting, makes me think, 'OK, maybe President Trump is seeing that Putin is leading him down the garden path.' And in fact, President Trump said publicly that that might be the case."
Trump and Zelenskyy met privately in St. Peter's Basilica on Saturday before attending the funeral for Pope Francis in Vatican City. It was the first time the two leaders met since their February Oval Office meeting devolved into a heated argument in front of cameras that resulted in Zelenskyy being kicked out of the White House.
Zelenskyy said Saturday it was a "good meeting" in a post on X, adding: "We discussed a lot one on one. Hoping for results on everything we covered. Protecting lives of our people. Full and unconditional ceasefire. Reliable and lasting peace that will prevent another war from breaking out. Very symbolic meeting that has potential to become historic, if we achieve joint results."
And in a separate social media post after their meeting, Trump took a more critical tone toward Russian President Vladimir Putin, floating the possibility he'd impose new sanctions on Russia. The president also said recent Russian strikes on civilian areas in Ukraine makes him "think that maybe [Putin] doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along."
Sullivan said, "Russia started this war, not Ukraine, and it's Russia -- Vladimir Putin in particular -- who's the main obstacle to getting a ceasefire, and there have been moments when it seems like President Trump might have gotten that. Today may be one of those moments. Unfortunately, every time there's a glimmer of recognition that Putin's responsible, President Trump snaps back and puts all the pressure on Ukraine and makes more concessions to Russia. I hope that doesn't happen again."
Sullivan, who has not spoken publicly much since he left his post in the White House in January, told Raddatz that he "stayed quiet," in part because he "didn't want to be a backseat driver."
"When I was in the seat, I had a lot of backseat drivers," Sullivan said. "But when you see the car start careening towards the cliff, you got to say something."
He continued, "What I've seen in less than a hundred days is terrible damage to America's credibility and trust with our friends and allies and terrible damage to America's appeal in terms of our political system, our markets, and our innovation. And most of all what I've seen is China reaping the benefits."
On the Trump administration's approach to negotiating with Russia
Raddatz:When you were a national security adviser, the Biden administration went nowhere with this, with -- with trying sanctions with -- you didn't engage with Russia. So now you're saying. It's OK to engage with Russia. When you look back, would you have done something differently?
Sullivan:Well, first of all, we did engage with Russia. We had multiple channels to talk to the Russians, and we talked to them through that --
Raddatz:But certainly not in the way they are now.
Sullivan:No, because one of the things we recognized while we were in office was that Putin was at that time not prepared to come to the table to do a deal that would generate a just piece for Ukraine.
So we recognized we had to actually build more leverage for Ukraine and in the closing months in office. We surged military equipment, we tightened sanctions, we seized the proceeds of Russian assets, and we got Europe to come along with us and all of that.
So, we handed off to the new team quite a bit of leverage for Ukraine to get a good deal at the table. I hope they do not end up squandering that leverage.
On new nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran
Sullivan:Look, when we left office ... Iran was at its weakest point since the 1980s, maybe since the Iranian revolution in 1979. They'd lost their main proxy, Hezbollah, they'd lost their air defenses. We had defended Israel twice directly against Iranian missile attacks and shown that Iran couldn't really do serious damage to Israel.
So, the conditions were ripe for diplomacy and for a deal. And I think there is a possibility that they could get a deal. I think that deal in its elements won't look too different from the deal that President Obama and Secretary Kerry produced in the Obama administration that Donald Trump ripped up. And I will find it very interesting to see a lot of the critics of that deal come out in support of what Trump produces. But I myself believe there should be a diplomatic solution here, and I believe there's one achievable.
On what the Trump administration has done right
Sullivan:It's hard in 100 days to come up with a good example of that. I mean, there are things where they have taken forward what we had --
Raddatz:Immigration?
Sullivan:-- in motion. Yes, I mean, they've done some things on immigration, but honestly, when you balance it against giving no due process to people and send them to -- sending them to El Salvadorian prisons, that damage is so much greater than what they've been able to achieve.
I think there are certain steps with respect to the Houthis that I could really get behind. You know, we took military action against the Houthis. They have stepped that up. I still believe that we need to connect that to a larger strategic end game with the Houthis. But that would be an area where I think there's been some continuity.
On the controversies around Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth
Raddatz:You've certainly followed the Signal chats with your successor, Mike Waltz, accidentally giving that away to a reporter, but also what Pete Hegseth texted on those Signal chats about launching F-18s and what hour they would be launched in attacks on Yemen. Is there any -- do you believe those should be classified messages?
Sullivan:Look, I think you've heard from intelligence professionals across the board that that's classified information, but it points up a larger issue, which is a close friend and adviser of Secretary Hegseth left Hegseth's Pentagon and wrote an article saying the Pentagon is total chaos, and Donald Trump should replace Pete Hegseth.
That is a clarion call if I've ever heard one. So this Signal issue is one example among many of the kinds of steps we've seen in 100 days at the Pentagon that raise real questions about the future of that building and the future of our armed forces. And that's not me saying that that's his own friends and advisers.
