Transcript: Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan"
cbsnews.com -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 9:28:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, Media Coverage & Press Relations
The following is the transcript of an interview with Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan, taped Aug. 14, 2025, in Anchorage, Alaska, and airing on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on Aug. 17, 2025.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you for joining us in your home state.
SEN. SULLIVAN: Welcome to Alaska. The father of the U.S. Air Force called Alaska the most strategic place in the world. That's a quote by Billy Mitchell that I use a lot. And now you see why.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well -- very strategic. And I want to talk to you about a lot of things specific to the state--
SEN. SULLIVAN: Good.
MARGARET BRENNAN: -- but this is the focus of the world right now --
MARGARET BRENNAN: So from your perspective, you're a supporter of Ukraine --
SEN. SULLIVAN: I have been.
MARGARET BRENNAN: -- what does a successful Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, summit look like?
SEN. SULLIVAN: Well, look, I think the President and his team need to be commended. You know, they have put a lot of effort and energy in peace, with regard to Ukraine and Russia, like they're doing all around the world, you know, they're they're making a lot of headway on peace, whether it's the Azerbaijan-Armenia issues, Iran-Israel, Pakistan-India, they're putting a lot of energy into bringing peace to different parts of the world, but they put the most energy into this.
So, look, I think a successful outcome would be, as you know, a com- negotiating peace is very complex, very difficult. Even this kind of high level diplomacy has risks for everybody, including the president and his team. The different elements of a peace agreement, starting with the ceasefire, then you would have territorial issues, concessions or not, then you have security guarantees. But I think this is a place-setting exercise that the administration believes that if they can get a ceasefire, then you would do the other elements that I talked about, the much more complex elements, with Zelenskyy, with our European and NATO allies. So I think the President is going to assess Putin's seriousness on a ceasefire. And if he assesses that, that he's serious, and Putin agrees to a ceasefire, then I think that would be success. Then you move on to the other elements for round two. So this is really preliminary, and I would call it, you know, an exercise in place-setting for the real negotiations.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, watch for the ceasefire, and judge success based off of that. Well, the Kremlin has announced there's going to be this joint press conference. The White House says, we'll see, the president said maybe, maybe not. Vladimir Putin is being brought in from the cold. He's been isolated by the world for a reason. Do you think that this is rewarding bad behavior, by giving him this spotlight on the American soil?
SEN. SULLIVAN: Look, two things on that. Vladimir Putin is coming to negotiate with Trump because of the sanctions. I mean, don't take it from me. Listen to our European allies who are definitive on that. The reason Putin is even doing this is because of the threat of serious secondary sanctions. So I think that that is important. And, you know, in terms of American soil, look, I actually think Alaska is the appropriate place. Putin understands one thing, as you know, Margaret, strength and power. And my state exudes strength and power with a huge military here. By the way, we're having a giant military exercise going on right now. I hope Vladimir Putin sees a lot of that military power in the next couple of days. Unleashing American energy, which the President is doing. That's the weapon that Putin fears probably more than anything, when we can compete with them.
And then this is also, you know, a place that demonstrates a huge element of American power and strength, which is our allies. We have allies doing military exercises up here as we speak, the president has been doing a great job with our European allies. Gotten NATO to get to 5%, coordinating with them all week. So I think those are really important. And then finally, you know, as an Alaskan. I think it's important, from the perspective of reminding the Russians that we are quite good negotiators, including the president of the United States. You know, last time we had a big deal with Russia in America, about my state, we got this great state for two cents an acre, $7.2 million, probably the deal of the century. And I think the Russians- I think the Russians probably have to remember that too.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, exactly. Don't you think for Vladimir Putin, who, you know, allegedly wants to reconstitute the Russian Empire, that maybe has a little bit of a different meaning for him, arriving here?
SEN. SULLIVAN: Well, look, I think he has no- I mean, who knows what they think about Alaska, but I know what Alaskans think about Russia. And you know, we're a strong state, like I said. We have enormous power right here. And so again, I think for all these reasons, this is going to be a really important summit.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So- he is an indicted war criminal, for a very specific crime of kidnapping Ukrainian children. He's bombed hospitals in Syria. He's massacred people, ordered them at least, he's- he's murdered many of his own people. He's used chemical weapons on British soil. That's why he's under this kind of pressure and U.S. sanctions. Really, are you pleased that he's this close to home?
SEN. SULLIVAN: Look, like I said, I mean the- the part about --
MARGARET BRENNAN: You don't think it normalizes that, that it forgives that, that it brings him back into the fold by giving him that photo op that makes him look so powerful?
SEN. SULLIVAN: You know, peace is difficult, right? We've had high level discussions with Reagan in Gorbachev, with Stalin, with Mao Zedong. I mean, this is what diplomacy is about, when you try to end wars. And it's- the way you end wars is, you discuss them with the leaders of these countries. Look, I'm no fan of Vladimir Putin. I don't trust anything he says. The key is, when I think what the president has done when you're dealing with a dictator, is show up with strength, and that's what the president's done. Putin is coming to the negotiating tables because he's threatened by these sanctions. The president is rebuilding our military, rebuilding our energy sector, which is critical, critical to my state, and very importantly, as I already mentioned, coordinating really closely with one of the greatest strengths we have, and that's our allies. We are an ally rich nation. Putin is ally poor, and that's a huge strength of ours.
So all of these things, I think, you focus on the strength, get Putin to a ceasefire, and move forward with Ukraine, Zelenskyy, our European allies, in terms of the more complicated elements of a peace negotiation. But it starts with this. Starts with a ceasefire. And look, if President Trump assesses Putin is not being honest, you've seen, you know, a lot of frustration from the president recently saying, hey, I have these good discussions with Putin, then he's out bombing, you know, hospitals and nursing homes. If he assesses that he's not serious, then, as the president said, there'll be severe consequences. And I think that's the kind of pressure we need to keep on to try to get to what everybody wants, which is an end of this war.
Sign Our PetitionThe discussion surrounding Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan's remarks on the recent geopolitical tensions involving Ukraine and Russia, particularly in the context of a potential summit between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, raises significant issues that extend beyond mere political discourse. Sullivan's framing of the situation underscores a concerning trend of normalizing dialogue with authoritarian regimes while downplaying the complexities and consequences of such engagements. Historically, the U.S. has often oscillated between a policy of isolation and engagement with oppressive governments, a pattern that has produced mixed results and raises ethical questions about the legitimacy and efficacy of such dialogues.
Sullivan's assertion that a successful summit would center around achieving a ceasefire offers an oversimplified view of a profoundly intricate conflict. While ceasefires are critical components of conflict resolution, they do not inherently equate to peace. A historical perspective shows us that temporary halts in violence can often pave the way for further escalations. The U.S. should aim for a comprehensive peace agreement that addresses the root causes of the conflict, rather than simply treating symptoms. This echoes past engagements, such as the Camp David Accords, where superficial agreements were sometimes achieved without addressing the underlying issues, ultimately perpetuating cycles of violence and instability.
Moreover, the notion of "rewarding bad behavior" by engaging with Putin is a critical point of contention that resonates with longstanding debates about U.S. foreign policy. The history of American diplomacy reveals a troubling tendency to prioritize strategic interests over moral imperatives. Engaging authoritarian leaders can legitimize their regimes and undermine the struggles for democracy and human rights in their countries. For example, the U.S. has a history of supporting dictatorships under the guise of strategic partnership, often at the expense of local populations who yearn for democratic reforms. This approach not only erodes the credibility of American foreign policy but also emboldens tyrannical leaders to continue their oppressive practices.
Sullivan's comments also reflect a broader pattern of framing international relations in terms of power dynamics rather than justice and equity. The focus on military power and geopolitical strategy often overlooks the voices and needs of ordinary people caught in these conflicts. Civil society actors in Ukraine and other affected regions are not merely collateral in these negotiations; they are key stakeholders whose experiences should inform any discussions of peace. The current situation in Ukraine, a country that has faced significant struggles for sovereignty and democracy, illustrates the importance of elevating grassroots perspectives in international dialogues.
Finally, it is imperative to consider the implications of these discussions on U.S. domestic politics. The framing of foreign policy issues can have profound effects on public opinion and electoral outcomes. Sullivan's support for Trump's potential engagement with Putin might appeal to a specific voter base that prioritizes strongman politics, but it risks alienating those who advocate for a more equitable and just approach to foreign relations. Engaging with authoritarian leaders without addressing the moral implications sends a message that power can outweigh principles—a dangerous precedent that could undermine both domestic and international support for democracy and human rights.
In conclusion, the conversation initiated by Senator Sullivan serves as a critical reminder of the complexities inherent in U.S. foreign policy. It urges us to consider not just the immediate outcomes of diplomacy, but also the broader historical and ethical contexts that shape these engagements. As citizens, we must advocate for foreign policies that prioritize justice, equity, and the voices of those most affected by conflict, rather than merely focusing on power dynamics and strategic gains. Engaging in these discussions can empower advocates for social justice to hold their leaders accountable and push for a foreign policy that is consistent with the values of democracy and human rights.
In an increasingly interconnected world, the geopolitical dynamics surrounding nations such as Russia and Ukraine underscore the complexities of modern diplomacy and the ethics of international relations. During a recent interview with Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, he emphasized the importance of Alaska's strategic location in global affairs and discussed the criticality of peace negotiations in the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia. This commentary seeks to unpack the implications of Sullivan's remarks while also highlighting the broader historical context of U.S. foreign policy and the avenues available for citizens to engage in these discussions meaningfully.
Historically, the U.S. has positioned itself as a global leader in promoting democracy and human rights, often intervening in international conflicts under the auspices of protecting these principles. However, the congressional and public discourse surrounding U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts has often been polarized, particularly regarding relationships with authoritarian regimes like Russia. Sullivan's comments suggest a willingness to engage in dialogue with leaders like Vladimir Putin, indicating a shift toward a more pragmatic approach to diplomacy. While the potential for negotiation is critical, it raises ethical questions about whether engaging with such leaders legitimizes their authoritarian practices and undermines the principles the U.S. professes to uphold.
To be effective advocates for a coherent and principled foreign policy, citizens must understand the historical context of these diplomatic efforts. The post-Cold War era saw a shift from a clear ideological battle against communism to a more nuanced confrontation with authoritarianism in various forms. The implications of Sullivan's discussion suggest a potential acceptance of compromising human rights in favor of strategic interests. It is essential for Americans to remain informed about these historical shifts and the current implications of U.S. diplomatic strategies, thereby enhancing their capacity to engage in substantive discussions with those who may support a more conciliatory stance toward authoritarian regimes.
As citizens, there are several actions we can take to address the challenges posed by these geopolitical dynamics. First, engaging in local and national discussions about foreign policy is crucial. This can be done through town hall meetings, community forums, or engaging with representatives to express concerns about the ethics of diplomacy that prioritizes strategic gains over human rights. Furthermore, organizing educational campaigns that raise awareness about the historical context of U.S. foreign policy can empower citizens to articulate their views more effectively and hold lawmakers accountable for their decisions.
Finally, it is essential to emphasize the need for a balanced discourse that does not shy away from confronting the uncomfortable realities of diplomatic engagement. Dialogue with authoritarian leaders should not come at the expense of sidelining the voices of those who suffer under their regimes, particularly in contexts like Ukraine. By advocating for a foreign policy that prioritizes human rights, democracy, and international law, we can challenge the dominant narratives that accept authoritarianism as a necessary evil in pursuit of peace. Engaging with right-leaning perspectives on these issues requires a commitment to informed discourse, and a steadfast dedication to principles that prioritize the well-being of individuals around the globe.
In conclusion, as we reflect on the complexities of U.S. foreign policy and Senator Sullivan's remarks on the Ukraine-Russia negotiations, it becomes clear that the path forward demands a thoughtful and engaged citizenry. By understanding the historical context, advocating for principled diplomacy, and fostering open dialogue, we can contribute to a foreign policy that aligns with our values and promotes a more just world. The task of shaping these discussions falls not just on our leaders but also on each of us, as we strive to create a political climate that values human dignity alongside strategic interests.
The interview with Senator Dan Sullivan highlights several pressing issues related to international diplomacy, particularly concerning Ukraine and Russia, and the complexities of achieving peace in conflict zones. From this perspective, there are numerous actions individuals can take to promote peace, advocate for responsible foreign policy, and support humanitarian efforts. Here’s a detailed list of actions we can personally take:
### 1. **Engage with Local and National Representatives:** - **Who to Write To:** - **Your Congressional Representatives:** Find your local representative through [House.gov](https://www.house.gov) and Senate members at [Senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov). - **Sample Contacts:** - **Senator Dan Sullivan (Alaska)** Email: [Contact form on website](https://www.sullivan.senate.gov) Mailing Address: 510 W 4th Ave #101, Anchorage, AK 99501 - **Your Local Representative:** Check your state’s congressional delegation for contact details.
- **What to Say:** - Advocate for continued support of diplomatic efforts and humanitarian aid for Ukraine. - Urge them to prioritize peaceful resolutions to international conflicts and express concern about the implications of normalizing relations with authoritarian leaders.
### 2. **Support Relevant Petitions and Campaigns:** - **Petition Examples:** - **“No War with Russia” Campaign:** Search for petitions on platforms such as Change.org or MoveOn.org that advocate for peaceful negotiations and oppose military escalation. - **Humanitarian Aid for Ukraine:** Look for petitions that call for increased humanitarian support for those affected by the conflict.
- **How to Participate:** - Share these petitions on social media to raise awareness and encourage others to sign. - Set a goal to gather a specific number of signatures within your community.
### 3. **Educate Yourself and Others:** - **Reading and Resources:** - Stay informed about the geopolitical landscape by reading reputable sources such as The Guardian, Al Jazeera, and Foreign Affairs. - Host a community discussion or book club focusing on current international relations and peacebuilding strategies.
### 4. **Financial Contributions:** - **Support Humanitarian Organizations:** - Donate to organizations like the **International Rescue Committee** or **Doctors Without Borders**, which provide aid to conflict zones. - Consider setting up a recurring donation to support ongoing efforts.
### 5. **Community Engagement and Advocacy:** - **Organize or Join Local Events:** - Participate in or organize peace marches or rallies in your community that advocate for non-violent resolutions and humanitarian support. - Partner with local NGOs that focus on international peace efforts and engage with them to spread awareness.
### 6. **Use Social Media for Advocacy:** - **Raise Awareness:** - Use platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to share information about the ongoing situation in Ukraine, the importance of diplomacy, and how others can help. - Create or join groups that focus on peace advocacy and international solidarity.
### 7. **Contact National Organizations:** - **Examples:** - **Peace Action:** Email: peaceaction@peaceaction.org; Mailing Address: 8630 Fenton St, Suite 604, Silver Spring, MD 20910. - **Amnesty International:** Email: contact.us@amnesty.org; Mailing Address: 600 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Suite 302, Washington, DC 20003.
- **What to Say:** - Express your support for their initiatives, request updates on ongoing campaigns, and ask how you can get involved.
### 8. **Promote Peace Education:** - **Support Educational Programs:** - Advocate for peace education in local schools and communities, emphasizing the importance of diplomacy and conflict resolution skills.
By taking these actions, individuals can contribute to a broader movement for peace and responsible foreign policy. Engaging with representatives, supporting humanitarian efforts, and raising awareness can make a significant impact on shaping how we respond to international conflicts.