[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Let's dive right in because we're very happy to have today, former US ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor. As many of you will remember, he became a public figure in 2019 during the first Donald Trump impeachment hearings when Taylor testified that Trump had been pressuring President Zelenskyy with a collection of policy threats and offers to get Zelenskyy to announce investigations into Joe Biden and whether Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election in support of Hillary Clinton rather than Russia in support of Trump, but there was much more to Taylor's career than that.

He graduated from West Point and served in the Vietnam War, where he earned a Bronze Star and other medals. He played a leadership role in the 1990s in US assistance to Afghanistan and Afghan refugees after the Soviet occupation there ended. He was the first director of the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office for President George W. Bush in 2004 and 2005 after the US invasion there. Under President Obama, he oversaw US assistance to some key Arab nations during the Arab Spring.

He did his first stint as ambassador to Ukraine for President Bush starting in 2006 and was back again as US chargé d'affaires under Trump. I could go on. He's now vice president for Russia and Europe at the US Institute of Peace. In recent appearances at Texas A&M University and elsewhere, he laid out three scenarios for how the war in Ukraine might end. We'll hear them. Ambassador Taylor, we really appreciate that you're joining us today. Welcome to WNYC.

Ambassador Taylor: Brian, it's great to be here. Thank you very much for having me.

Brian: First of all, how surprised are you that Putin didn't just try to seize the Donbas region in Eastern Ukraine that has the Russian separatist movement, but instead, he's trying to take the entire country?

Ambassador Taylor: Right, Brian. He effectively already controlled that part, but this is a very good reminder that this war that Russia is fighting, is imposing on Ukraine, totally unjustified, totally unprovoked, began in 2014. We remember that Putin invaded Ukraine. First, in Crimea and then in Donbas, in answer to your question. Again, totally unprovoked. This war has been going on for eight years, coming on nine. It is a grinding war.

Before this war in February started, Brian, 14,000 Ukrainians have been killed. Putin already owned in some real sense that portion that he'd occupied. The Ukrainians never agreed. The Ukrainians always maintained and still maintain that territorial integrity that the internationally-recognized borders of Ukraine include Donbas and Crimea and they're continuing to fight that.

Brian: What's your impression from your long experience in Ukraine about how divided the people of the Donbas region are between people who want to remain part of Ukraine and people who want autonomy or want to be part of Russia? Similarly, in Crimea, where Putin, of course, annexed that area in 2014, but there doesn't seem to be the resistance movement from what I've read that there would be in the rest of Ukraine if he occupies the whole country.

Ambassador Taylor: Brian, you're exactly right. There's a real difference between the parts of Ukraine, that is Crimea and the occupied part of Donbas, in terms of the attitudes of people who live there compared to the attitudes of Ukrainians who live outside of those areas. Outside of those areas, including-- so we have to remember that in Donbas, there are two oblasts. There are two kinds of states, if you will. One is called Donetsk and the other is Luhansk.

The Russians occupy part of Luhansk and part of Donetsk. That together is called Donbas. He occupies part of Donbas. In the occupied part, because they've been living under occupation and under control of the Russians, this applies to Crimea as well, they have heard nothing but the Russian version of this story. They have been told over and over that the government in Ukraine is not a legitimate government. They're even called fascists and neo-Nazis.

Again, the Ukrainians who are living under occupation have heard this for eight years. They can be forgiven for expressing those views. That in contrast, Brian, to all of the Ukrainians who live outside, even the Ukrainians who live in the unoccupied parts of Donetsk and Luhansk, they, like the rest of Ukraine, are united in their opposition to Putin. They're united in their opposition to this unprovoked invasion, this aggression. The Ukrainian people, including those people in unoccupied Donbas, including the rest of the nation, are totally focused on their own independence. As we see, Brian, they are heroically fighting for that independence.

Brian: You're talking about Russian propaganda and successful brainwashing basically in areas of the country that they control. I'm curious for you as a diplomat and diplomats do negotiation. If you see a negotiated solution as either possible or acceptable to end the ongoing atrocity of the slaughter of civilians around Ukraine, I've read scenarios written by people who are not apologists for Putin that suggest perhaps an autonomy vote in the Donbas, those regions that you described, recognizing the Russian annexation of Crimea, where there doesn't seem to be a resistance, and Ukraine wouldn't join NATO but could form independent alliances with the US or other NATO nations individually. Do you think Ukraine would or should go for something like that?

Ambassador Taylor: Well, the right question is "would" because this is a decision for Ukrainians in the first instance. President Zelenskyy has done a brilliant job of leading his nation. He is representing the views of Ukrainians who will answer exactly that question that you've just posed. I know, we all know, President Zelenskyy has said that he's looking in the first instance for ways to stop this war.

Clearly, he wants to stop this killing and destruction that the Russians are pouring down on cities across the country. Sure, President Zelenskyy wants to stop that. He's been proposing negotiations for as long as it started. He said just recently, he's been proposing these negotiations for two years. Sure, there is a possibility for negotiations and these negotiations on the Ukrainian side have to be led by the Ukrainians.

That is, all of these proposals that some people are making are useful and interesting but are not going to be in effect. They're not going to be actual until President Zelenskyy decides this is where he wants to go. In answer to your question, Brian, President Zelenskyy has said that he's looking to secure his country. He wants to provide security for Ukrainians across the Ukrainian nation, including the occupied territories eventually.

He's looking for how to secure them, how to provide that security. He had thought that NATO would provide that security. He had thought because he'd been told that, at some point, Ukraine would join NATO. As we know, the NATO leaders in 2008 said that Ukraine would, they didn't say when, someday join NATO. Well, President Zelenskyy has concluded now, recently, that that's just not going to happen in time.

President Zelenskyy wants to be able to provide security to his people now. He realizes now that that's not going to be NATO. NATO is not going to be the answer in the near term. He still wants to provide security and he's looking for other ways to do that. You're right. He has been thinking about other options and it might be outside of NATO. There are models, Brian, in Europe today that might be attractive.

For example, Austria is a member of the European Union, not a member of NATO. It has the ability to defend itself. It has the ability to make its own decisions. It's autonomous. It's sovereign. It's recognized within its borders. That's not a bad model for President Zelenskyy if he's interested. I just want to emphasize the point that we can all talk about this and others can make suggestions. In the end, the decision for negotiations and what goes in those negotiations has to be President Zelenskyy's team and the Ukrainians.

Questions that you rightly raised, Brian, that is, what would be the status of Crimea? What would be the status of occupied Donbas? What would be the status of weapons that would be from other nations like the United States or NATO? These decisions are important decisions and they will be made in the first instance by the Ukrainians. My view is that we should support President Zelenskyy in those negotiations.

He's eager to have negotiations. The Russians haven't been. The Russians have delayed, have stalled, have said, "Oh, it's not the right time." They've sent people to these negotiations that are not empowered to make any decisions or even make suggestions on these negotiations, so the Russians are not there. The Ukrainians have been, they have been serious. They've sent serious people to these negotiations. The Russians haven't, but the short answer to your question is, yes, it is possible that negotiations will end this war.

Brian: Do you have a sense then of the Ukrainian people in the western parts of the country and how much appetite they have for continuing to suffer these atrocities, these war crimes really against civilians in pursuit of territorial integrity involving the Donbas or even Crimea or the people of Kyiv or the people of the Lviv or the people of Ivano-Frankivsk willing to keep being slaughtered as complete innocent civilians in this conflict for the sake of territorial integrity in the East, or more willing to make a compromise because, of course, as you say, it's not up to us, it's up to them, but we all feel so bad about what's taking place there?

Ambassador Taylor: We feel horrible about what's taking place there. We feel angry about what's taking place there. We can't believe that in this time in 2022, there's a monster in Moscow, exactly what you say, that is killing civilians day after day, intentionally shelling apartment buildings, hospitals, schools. It's appalling that these war crimes-- As you rightly call them, these are war crimes. It's appalling that these continue today. Then you ask, are the Ukrainians willing to fight? The answer, Brian, is yes.

It's not just those in Lviv in the western. It's not just those in Kyiv in the center. It is across the country. Of course, they hate the killing. Of course, they want it to stop. Of course, they want President Putin to stop the killing and withdraw his forces. They want the Russians to go home. They say that over and over. Even in the cities, Brian, like in Kherson, one of few major cities, not even a major city, one of few cities of any size where the Russians occupy, the citizens of Kherson go out every day in opposition to the occupiers. They yell at them, "Go home. Go home."

Brian: Risk their lives in doing so.

Ambassador Taylor: Right, Brian. They are willing to fight.

Brian: Listeners, your opportunity to ask a question of Ambassador William Taylor about Ukraine. You can ask about the Ukraine-related impeachment of Trump, which you probably know William Taylor for as related. I'll get to a few questions about that or anything else relevant. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or tweet a question @BrianLehrer. That's where some reports in recent days are describing the war as a stalemate, meaning roughly that Russia is failing to seize control of the Ukrainian government, but Ukraine and the western sanctions are failing to push Russia to withdraw. I'm wondering how much you would characterize it in those terms.

Ambassador Taylor: Looking at the range of the country that is looking across Ukraine, it is a stalemate of sorts. That said, Brian, my hesitation to call it a stalemate is that there's dynamic. That is, the Russians are attacking in some places and, again, killing civilians. They're attacking civilians downtown in the middle of cities that are occupied by Ukrainian citizens. The Russians are lobbing missiles and artillery into these.

That's not a stalemate. There are places where the Ukrainian military, heroic as it is, is pushing back against the Russian military and actually counteroffensive, pushing the Russians away from some of these cities. In particular, around Kyiv. You're right. It is not achieving what President Putin thought. Undoubtedly, President Putin heard from his generals before he pulled the trigger on February 24th and invaded Ukraine.

Before he did that, I'm sure his generals told him, "Mr. President, we can go into Ukraine. We can be in Kyiv in two days. We can install the puppet government there that you want us to do, Mr. President. We can do that. We'll be there because Ukrainians will fight and we're strong." I'm sure the Russian generals told President Putin that. It turns out, Brian, that they were wrong. They were wrong on multiple aspects of that advice. They were wrong to think that the Ukrainians wouldn't fight.

They were wrong to think that the Ukrainian military was not capable and was not determined to resist them. They were wrong to think that their own forces, that the Russian troops would be good enough to get there. Here we are. We're on day 28, Brian. Day 28. The Russians thought that they'd be in Kyiv in two days on February 26th. Well, here it is, March 23rd, day 28 of this invasion and the Ukrainians are holding them off. That's a bit of a stalemate.

That might be a good thing, Brian, because if Putin realizes that the Ukrainians are stronger, tougher, fiercer, fighting harder than he thought and if he realizes that the Russian military is doing poorly, is not able to provide fuel for their tanks, is not able to feed their soldiers that are invading Ukraine, if he realizes he's got a big problem and these sanctions are hammering his economy, Vladimir Putin has big problems. If he realizes that, then going back to your earlier question, Brian, then he may sit down to negotiate. That's what we're after. That's exactly what we talked about earlier about a negotiated settlement.

Brian: We'll continue in a minute with Ambassador William Taylor. You may not be surprised to hear, Ambassador, that our lines are full. Our 10 lines are all full up once I invited people to call in with questions for you. We're getting some questions via Twitter as well. I definitely want to bring up one of your three scenarios on how the war ends, which is that somebody takes power away from Putin and Russia. We'll get into a little Trump impeachment, Ukraine stuff too. Brian Lehrer on WNYC.

[music]

Brian: Brian Lehrer on WNYC with the former US ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor. Neil in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hello, Neil.

Neil: Yes. Good morning, Brian. Thank you, Ambassador. My question is actually, as an ambassador, a diplomatic one, a legal one, President Biden and all of NATO for all the support and the sanctions and the arms supplies to Ukraine did not want to have Polish MiGs fly to the NATO airbase in Germany and go into war from there. What would be the legal or diplomatic issue of those Polish MiGs simply being flown directly to Ukraine? Ukraine still has an air force that's making a limited number of sorties and just simply the direct route. I never even understood why they had to go first to a NATO base instead of giving them to Ukrainians who will use them.

Brian: Thank you, Neil. Ambassador?

Ambassador Taylor: Neil, it's a great question. It's a very good question. This was a very interesting proposal. This proposal responded to the plea from President Zelenskyy. The plea from many Ukrainians that I've heard, that you've heard, that NATO has heard, that President Biden has heard, the plea to close the skies, the plea to somehow shield Ukrainians from this bombardment from the skies.

This bombardment comes not just from Russian aircraft, it comes from ballistic missiles. They're firing ballistic missiles, short-range, medium-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles into the cities. President Zelenskyy has pleaded for some way to close the skies to protect his people, Ukrainians, from this attack, from these various ways that they are shelling into these cities. A couple of ideas, a couple of proposals have been made.

One, just very quickly, is to send NATO aircraft or US aircraft over Ukrainian skies to shoot down Russian airplanes. President Biden has decided in response to that proposal, that would be a confrontation between US aircraft and Russian aircraft. That conflict, that fight, that battle between American and Russian would escalate. He doesn't want, the Russians don't want, no one wants an escalation to an all-out war between Russia and NATO.

That proposal didn't go anywhere. Then there were proposals and, Neil, this gets to your question about these MiGs. President Zelenskyy has said, "Well, if you can't fly your own planes over my country, over Ukraine, to shoot down these Russian aircraft, then at least give us the capability to do that." The Poles initially-- Actually, the Americans, we identified this idea and talked to the Poles about it because the Poles, it turns out, have some Soviet-era MiG jet aircraft that the Ukrainian pilots know how to fly.

That would be a good match. That would respond to President Zelenskyy's request, "If you can't do a no-fly zone enforced by NATO pilots or American pilots, then at least give us the aircraft that we can do that." That idea was discussed. There was some initial indication that this could work. The problem here was it got very public, which is not the way you want to provide weapons to your ally.

You don't want to have these negotiations among NATO allies between the Poles and the Americans and how to get these planes from Poland into Ukraine. Neil, you made the good point that the most direct way to do that would just be for Polish pilots to get in these airplanes, fly into Ukraine, land somewhere, take the Polish pilots out, put the Ukrainian pilots in, and they could then go about the business of trying to defend themselves against these Russian aircraft.

The problem, of course, is exactly the same problem. That is, if the Poles are flying aircraft into Ukrainian airspace, they're going to be in direct conflict with Russian aircraft. That's the same problem that we just talked about, about the no-fly zone. You would have NATO pilots in conflict with shooting down and being shot down by Russians. Again, that would lead to a much broader war, which neither side wants, so that was not an option.

That was a good idea, Neil, and they looked for other ways to do that. The Poles said, "Well, look, we will fly these aircraft into an American base in Germany and then the Americans can figure out how to get them there." The idea would be that maybe American pilots would do it. Well, for the same thought process that we just talked about, that wasn't going to work. Then the question is maybe we can get these MiGs into Ukraine somehow, get them across the border so that the Ukrainian pilots can get in those airplanes and take off and go to battle with the Russians, which is what we're doing in some real sense with these other weapons that we're providing.

We're providing anti-aircraft weapons. They're called stingers. We provide them to the Ukrainians and they're doing a great job with it. We provide the anti-armor weapons. These are called Javelins. They are extremely useful and effective against Russian tanks. The Ukrainians are doing a great job with these. That would be the idea, but it got so public and problematic that that didn't work either.

Where we are now, Brian, is still going back to President Zelenskyy's request, his plea to somehow give him the capability to knock down these Russian airplanes and to defend themselves against these attacks from the sky. President Zelenskyy made a brilliant, impassioned plea for this to the US Congress. He said, "Americans, remember Pearl Harbor. Your sky was black with enemy aircraft coming to attack you. Remember that day on December 7, 1941." President Zelenskyy reminded. He said, "Remember 9/11. Again, you were attacked from the sky. I want the ability to defend myself against those kinds of attacks." He made it very, very relevant, very personal with Americans. It was a great speech.

Brian: Ambassador, briefly on this follow-up because I want to get to some other points. Colonel Alexander Vindman was on the show last week, who, of course, was another witness in the Ukraine-related Trump impeachment hearings. He was suggesting, I hope I'm not misquoting him, that maybe there isn't as much of a risk as many people think of a wider war with Russia if we were to engage in a no-fly zone or let the MiGs fly from US bases in Germany because Russia just doesn't have the military for it. Putin wouldn't have the stomach for it to then invade Poland if Poland was a launching point for the MiGs or anything like that and that maybe we overestimate that risk. Briefly, do you have an opinion about that?

Ambassador Taylor: I do, I do. It's one thing for Alex and I as civilians now to say, "Well, maybe President Putin wouldn't do that. Maybe he doesn't have the stomach for it." It's one thing for us to say that we think, "Oh, maybe there's some decent chance that he wouldn't actually start this major war if one of his airplanes was shut down." President Biden doesn't have that luxury and the NATO leaders don't have that luxury.

NATO leaders have to carefully examine whether or not they are willing to go into a situation that could conceivably, and they measure the risks to define conceivably, the risk of a broader war. I hear a lot of people say the Russians don't want this and it's true. They don't want a wider war. They will lose against NATO. In the end, Brian, they will lose against Ukraine. This is a consequential decision for people who have all the information about the Russians, about the Ukrainians, about NATO, and the capabilities.

[crosstalk]

Ambassador Taylor: I have to believe that President Biden has thought about this carefully.

Brian: Your three scenarios for how the war will end that you were talking about last week. One is a negotiated settlement. One is the horrible prospect of Russia taking over the government, Zelenskyy running a government in exile, and a long resistance on the ground in that country. The third one involves Putin being replaced. Let me ask you about a version of that that the listener is asking about. This is a listener tweet. Listener asks, "What are the chances of a Putin assassination?"

Ambassador Taylor: It's a great question. I think the chances are probably pretty low. I think that the questioner asked the right question about what's going on in Russia. What's going on in Russia is that the situation is getting very bad for Russian families. It's getting bad for Russian economy because of these sanctions. That's having an effect on the Russian people. That's got to have an effect overall on the Russian government.

It's also getting bad on the Russian military. The Russian military is suffering horribly. The Russian military has lost about 10,000 Russian soldiers. Brian, the Russians lost about 15,000, 16,000 Russian soldiers in Afghanistan in 10 years, over 10 years. Now, they're at 10,000 after a month, after 28 days. This is a problem for the Russian military. The Russian military is not happy about this, I am sure.

They are being exposed for not being very good. They're not happy about it. The Russian people are not happy about it. The Russian oligarchs who are sanctioned and can't use, can't access their money, they can't travel, they're not happy about this. The Russian economy is draining investors. President Putin has a lot going against him. However, I think it's still a low probability that President Putin will be assassinated. There are big problems that he faces.

Brian: Assassinated or replaced. I've heard it said that this isn't like the Soviet Politburo days, where the Premier was accountable to a group of people in a certain respect who were also at the top of the hierarchy. He's really an autocrat now and there is no equivalent to the Politburo to have a chance of removing him. How much do you agree with that?

Ambassador Taylor: Oh, I agree with that, but that doesn't say that the people around him are powerless. That doesn't say that President Putin doesn't have to worry about anything. He has to worry about a lot as I just said and he's got to worry about people around him. I'm sure he's being vain. We see these pictures of how he has meetings and he's pretty far away from everyone. Just saying that he's got to worry about that as well.

Brian: All right, we've got a few minutes left. I want to ask you two questions. One about the Trump impeachment relationship to this and, one, an even much bigger sweep of history question. Most of our listeners know you came to public attention during the 2019 Trump impeachment hearing detailing the quid pro quo offers and threats that Trump was making to President Zelenskyy.

There was apparently a moment when Zelenskyy almost acquiesced and went on Fareed Zakaria's show on CNN. It's been said to announce an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden, but it didn't happen. What's your understanding today of how close Zelenskyy came to caving to Trump's pressure and why it didn't happen?

Ambassador Taylor: Brian, President Zelenskyy was under a lot of pressure even back then. We're talking about in 2019. As you and I just discussed a little while ago, the Russians invaded his country, President Zelenskyy's country, Ukraine, in 2014. In 2019, the country had been at war for five years. 14,000 Ukrainians had died by that time. President Zelenskyy had run on a campaign to ending the war.

In order to end the war on his terms, on Ukrainian terms, he needed the support of the United States. He needed the support of the US government and the US president at the time was Donald Trump. President Zelenskyy, he wanted to end this war. He knew he needed the United States' support. He wanted to sit down with President Trump and had this conversation. President Trump had invited him to the Oval Office when President Trump had congratulated President Zelenskyy on his big win, on his landslide win in the spring of 2019.

President Zelenskyy wanted to go there and have that meeting and get the support of the United States government in his attempt to end the war on his terms. When he had this, he had a phone call as we now know, very notorious phone call, very famous phone call in July of 2019, where President Trump in the context of discussion about Javelin missiles-- We were talking earlier with Neil about the Javelin missiles.

In the context of that conversation, President Trump asked for these investigations. Exactly what you said. President Zelenskyy had no idea. What was the connection there? What was the connection? He wanted US government support and here was a request to do something political. The Ukrainians were confused, "What are we being asked to do?" They resist. They were not interested in getting involved in our politics.

I was there. I was in Kyiv at the time, of course. My guidance, my suggestion, my recommendations to President Zelenskyy and his immediate staff were, "Don't get involved in US politics. Do not." Nonetheless, they got this pressure and the pressure heightened. They were told, "Well, you can go on this TV show when you're in New York for the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September."

There were some plans to do that, but the system worked, Brian. The system worked. There was a whistleblower. There were members of the Senate who got in touch with President Trump to call him off on this demand. President Zelenskyy didn't go onto that show to make any announcements about any investigation. They were under pressure to do that. They might have done it. It's a good thing they didn't. In the end, the weapons came.

Brian: Republican senators saved him is what you're saying. Do you think anything about the events that caused the first Trump impeachment contributed to Putin's decision to invade now?

Ambassador Taylor: Hard to say, Brian. Hard to say. Certainly, President Putin recognized this confusion coming from the United States government. Confusion because most of the government, as you just said, the Republican senators and Democratic senators, indeed, the whole Congress was very supportive of Ukraine, very opposed to Russia. Yet at the very top of the administration, there was this more friendly voice for President Putin. That indicated that there was not total unanimity within the US government for the policy of strong support for Ukraine.

Maybe President Putin thought that he could get away with this more broadly if he thought that the United States was not united, if he thought the United States was pulling back from its leadership role because of what President Trump had been saying. If so, he was very much surprised when he did invade and found that the United States had not pulled back. The United States was leading a coalition against him and leading this coalition in support of Ukraine. If he was misinformed, if Putin thought that the United States was not going to step up, he made a bad mistake.

Brian: Last question, Ambassador, big picture question and off the topic. You've seen service in many areas of US policy that did not turn out very well. I'm not saying your fault, but the decisions of the Presidents, the policy decisions didn't always work out that well and sometimes in big ways. You fought in Vietnam. You served in post-Soviet Afghanistan, which eventually produced Osama bin Laden.

You led the first Iraq reconstruction just as the resistance there was gathering strength. You represented the US to Egypt and Libya and Syria during the Arab Spring. All those went bad from a democracy standpoint and, of course, the horrific slaughter in Syria. Again, not to blame you for any of it, but are there lessons from the collected failures of US foreign policy that you've witnessed close-up that you think should inform the future?

Ambassador Taylor: Brian, this is a very good question. I have given thought to exactly that list of areas where I and others have served that have not turned out well. Yes, I think the big lesson is one that would have us recognize the importance and the power of the state, the government that we're trying to support and that we need to listen to. In this case, President Zelenskyy, but there were others along the line that knew what was best for their countries.

We, in some cases, came in, thought that we had a better idea or that we had some suggestions or recommendations for some of these governments that may or may not have been applicable to their societies, their culture. We should recognize that and we should support the values that we do. I have no doubt and make no apology for supporting the values of democratic governments, of open governments, of a market economy. No question that those are the right things certainly for the United States.

If those same values and those same mechanisms and those same forms of government are applicable to other governments and other people, which I'm sure they are, it's up to those governments and those people to adopt them. They are in the best position to decide how to do that. Most people do want to be able to elect their own government. Most people do want to have a market economy where they can make decisions. Most people do want to be able to have a rule of law rather than the rule of individuals. They know how to get there. In most cases, they know how to get there.

If we can give any advice on that, we should do it. If our advice is mainly in the form of our model, of our example, we should do it, which brings up a good point. People are going to say, "Yes, our democracy is not perfect." That's certainly true and we've seen that recently. It's not perfect. We have to have that humility, but we have to believe in ourselves. We have to believe in the values and the efficacy of democracy. If we believe it and if we can implement it, then others will follow and they get to decide. That's the big message there, Brian.

Brian: Former Ambassador William Taylor, now vice president for Russia and Europe at the US Institute of Peace. Ambassador, thank you for so much time and for your thoughtfulness today.

Ambassador Taylor: Brian, thank you very much for having me. It's a pleasure to talk.

Brian: Brian Lehrer on WNYC, much more to come.

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.