Fiona Hill, a "Putinology" expert in Washington, and the Russian-Ukrainian war she witnessed

Not long ago, I participated in a sharing session online. The speaker was a reporter who had just returned from an interview at the Polish border. She shared a lot of war stories, such as how Europeans organized, mobilized resources, and resettled Ukrainian refugees. At the end of the meeting I asked a question: What does Europe think about the role of the United States in the Russian-Ukrainian war? For example, should the U.S. take some responsibility for the outbreak of war, does Europe expect more assistance from the U.S., and are U.S. sanctions on Russia enough?

The reporter replied that in Europe, there is less discussion about the United States, and Europeans think this is a European war.

I am in Washington, and there are many intriguing things about observing the reactions of American politics, the media, and the public to the Russian-Ukrainian war. In particular, the two consecutive years of the epidemic, coupled with the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan a few months ago, have greatly dampened the confidence and enthusiasm of the American people to participate in international affairs, believing that their government should start to repair domestic problems and revive the economy. The government followed public opinion, and Biden also adhered to the bottom line in several speeches: no troops, no no-fly zone. The overall trend of American public opinion is somewhat similar to the reaction of the European people: this is a war in Europe, and the subtext seems to imply that it has nothing to do with the United States.

Does it really have nothing to do with America? There is a Russian affairs expert named Fiona Hill in Washington, 56 years old, British, proficient in Russian, later naturalized American nationality, served the three administrations of Bush, Obama and Trump, and is now an informal part of the Biden administration. consultant. She is nicknamed "Putinologist" - "Putinologist" because she not only met Putin many times, but also wrote a book about Putin, which is by far the most informative book describing the Kremlin struggle. After Russia invaded Ukraine, the mainstream media came to Fiona Hill again. The most influential one was Politico's 4D interview with her. But I want to start with a feature of her in The New Yorker two years ago.

The New Yorker painted Fiona Hill as an outlier in the Trump administration. Every time a new president is elected, in the think tank buildings on both sides of Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, there will be many experts waiting for a call from the White House. Open a revolving door, enter the policy circle, become a "national teacher", and let your mind exert the greatest influence. But Trump's election made the future of many liberal think tanks in Washington bleak. The New Yorker wrote that the atmosphere inside the Brookings Institution, the leader of the think tank at the time, was like a funeral. Fiona Hill, who worked, was the only scholar in the entire society who received the call.

She was hired by the Trump administration as a Russia adviser after an interview she gave on Fox to talk about Russia. The reporter who visited her at the time, KT McFarland, became Deputy National Security Adviser at the White House and called Fiona Hill. Some colleagues encouraged Fiona Hill to take up this position, because if there are no professionals to monitor Trump's foreign policy, there may be serious consequences, and she can become "one of the adults in the room".

The New Yorker article goes to great lengths to describe just how out of place Fiona Hill is from Trump's White House. On many occasions, Trump used her as his secretary because she was a woman. As she briefed Trump, Ivanka walked into the Oval Office in the perfect fit, trying to hide her sneaker-clad feet in shame.

When The New Yorker published this report, the Russian-Ukrainian war had not yet seen any real signs, and the article also focused on exposing the chaos of the Trump administration and how professionals struggled to keep the bottom line. But the second half of the article mentions many key facts about the relationship between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine, and now reading it again, the answers to many of the questions were written before the war broke out.

When it comes to the now-heroic Ukrainian President Zelensky, many don't realize that Zelensky was the most important party in Trump's first impeachment as US president in 2019. Trump's famous quote, "I would like you to do us a favor," was exactly what he said to Zelensky on the phone.

In 2019, the new US presidential election is about to kick off, and Trump is seeking re-election. In April of that year, Zelensky was elected, and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was recalled to Washington. At the time, Fiona Hill and Ambassador Yovanovitch met in a coffee shop outside the State Department, and the ambassador said he was puzzled by his recall. In May, as the White House drew up a list of people to attend Zelensky's inauguration, Fiona Hill sensed that Trump was inserting his cronies into Ukraine.

After Zelensky took office in May 2019, lawyer Giuliani, one of Trump's cronies, met him in Kyiv and began pressuring Zelensky to investigate the Biden son's business activities in Ukraine. In July, Trump withheld $400 million in military aid to Ukraine that had been approved by the U.S. Congress. On July 25, Zelensky had a phone call with Trump. In September, a five-page transcript of the call was leaked by an anonymous White House source, and "Phonegate" made headlines. Then, Congress launched an impeachment inquiry against Trump.

When I read the transcript of Zelensky and Trump's call, I was a beginner in Washington politics. At that time, many American media mercilessly ridiculed Zelensky's flattery of Trump, but for the first time I had a real sense of what American hegemony is usually talked about, that the president of one country can be so humble in front of the president of another country. On the phone, for example, Zelensky said to Trump, "Mr. President, you're not only 100% right, you're 1000% right." He said he lived in Trump Tower in New York when he last visited the United States. He invited Trump to visit Ukraine and said, "We can take my plane to Ukraine, or you can take your plane. I'm sure your plane is much better than mine." Zelensky even talked about Merkel and Macron in order to curry favor with Trump. After these exposures, Ukraine was very embarrassed in front of Germany and France. What's more, when Trump asked Zelensky to investigate what happened to Biden's son, Zelensky assured him that he would conduct a serious investigation and hoped that Trump would provide information and evidence. Trump's military aid to Ukraine was 55 days late.

Fiona Hill later appeared at the Trump impeachment hearing, testifying that Trump had a quid pro quo relationship with Ukraine. For this, she received death threats. "Russia wants our president to lose legitimacy [referring to Russia's meddling in the 2016 U.S. election], and Russia's goal is that no matter who is the president of the United States, Russia wants to put his hand on one end of the scale," she told the hearing at the time. After the bombardment, the White House officials who did not testify were all Trump's flies.

Fiona Hill recalled to The New York Times that in February 2008, attending Bush's White House meeting was the first time she walked into the Oval Office. At that time, the NATO summit was about to be held in Romania, and Bush wanted to discuss whether to let Ukraine and Georgia join NATO. Fiona Hill expressed concern that it would make Putin feel provocative and upset Bush and his staff. Bush's insistence on welcoming Ukraine and Georgia to NATO at the NATO summit sparked debate among several other leaders, and NATO grudgingly agreed on a compromise statement welcoming Ukraine and Georgia without setting out a clear process and timetable.

Fiona Hill has been advising the President of the United States, emphasizing that Putin is a "thin-skinned" person, who pays close attention to money, so don't despise him, let alone make provocative actions easily. But every U.S. president has overlooked the dangers of Putin. Four months after Bush Jr.'s NATO speech, Putin's troops attacked southern Georgia. "Don't dis the guy." Fiona Hill later advised Obama. But that advice, which is also often interpreted as cowardice and a lack of confidence in U.S. leadership, has led to much controversy.

The evils of arrogance and attachment to power were magnified again in the Trump era. Trump praised Putin several times and hoped to be president indefinitely like Putin. This is an old news that has been repeatedly reported by the media. Trump first met Putin at the 2017 G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany. At the dinner, Trump sat first lady Melania next to Putin, and then he sat down and talked to Putin all night. Putin's accompanying interpreter did the translation, and none of the U.S. officials knew what they were talking about. Later that night, Fiona Hill called Melania's assistant and others sitting nearby in turn to piece together the conversation between Trump and Putin. There have been many behind-the-scenes conversations like this, and no one knows what Trump and Putin were talking about. Fiona Hill has repeatedly warned that Putin is an old fox, don't let him play the United States.

In the same year, when then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko visited the United States, Trump did not receive him, but sent Vice President Pence there. After the meeting with Pence, Poroshenko lingered in the West Wing of the White House in full view, looking forward to meeting Trump for a few minutes. Eventually, he met Trump and the two shook hands. In front of many reporters, Trump said Ukraine is a corrupt country. Poroshenko responded that his government is fighting corruption, and Trump still doesn't save face for the other party, saying that Putin's attack on Crimea is reasonable, because everyone in Crimea speaks Russian. Poroshenko continued to respond, who also speaks Russian.

Poroshenko, Zelensky's predecessor, lost to Zelensky while seeking re-election. He did not get along with Zelensky. After losing the election, he left Ukraine because he faced an investigation of treason, but he returned to his homeland after the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian war and took to the streets with guns, saying he wanted to resist Russian aggression. What he said during that awkward meeting with Trump in 2017 now seems ironic: "Ukraine has been fighting for freedom and democracy without the defense and security of our allies. I I think Ukraine is a success story that was created with the United States.”

Fiona Hill, who left the White House, published an autobiography called There Is Nothing for You Here. She was born in a modest family in the north of England, her father was a coal miner and her mother was a midwife. The local economy was sluggish, and her father kept encouraging her to leave because "There's nothing for you here." She studied Russian in Moscow, got her Ph.D. at Harvard, and became a naturalized American citizen, making her one of the decision-makers of the most powerful country in the world. Floor. A recent New York Times Magazine story interviewed her through her account, linking the Capitol Hill riots, the Russian-Ukrainian war, and more, to Trump's obsessive and foolish pursuit of power. But Fiona Hill actually mentioned in the book that even without Trump, solving these huge problems of the moment will require a huge effort. After Trump's re-election defeat, many of his aides sought exposure from the media, either from the Trump camp, accusing Biden of winning the election; or claiming to be sober people in the Trump era who committed themselves to Trump for the sake of the country. But these two types of people are nothing more than seeking their own interests. Fiona Hill is the third type. She is not only sober, but also knows that she is unflattering in many circles, but she has not given up warnings to decision-makers and the public. In the past few years, many of those who have sided with her have been sinking or losing hope, and she is one of the few bucking the current. I have read her interview on Politico many times, and she not only explains how history repeats itself over and over again, but also relentlessly says, "We are already in a third world war" .