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