Risch on CNN’s State of the Union: Biden Was Mistaken to Call for Regime Change in Russia

BOISE, Idaho – U.S. Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, today joined Dana Bash on CNN’s State of the Union to discuss Russia’s war against Ukraine.

To watch the full interview on YouTube, click here.

To download the full interview on Google Drive, click here. 

On President Biden’s trip to Brussels:

“He gave a good speech at the end, but as you pointed out already, there was a horrendous gaffe right at the end of it. I wish he would stay on script… I think most people who don’t deal in the lane of foreign relations don’t realize that those nine words that he uttered would cause the kind of eruption they did. But anytime you say, or even as he did suggest, that the policy was regime change, it’s gonna cause a huge problem.”

“This administration has done everything it can to stop escalating. There’s not a whole lot more you can do to escalate than to call for regime change. The White House tried to walk it back immediately. Tony Blinken, the secretary of State, tried to walk it back immediately. I’ll walk it back right now – that is not the policy of the United States of America. Please, Mr. President, stay on script.”

On steps Congress and the administration should take next:

“I would like to see, as both [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman] Bob [Menendez] and I talked about at that time, we'd like to see more sanctions. From my standpoint, I’d like to see secondary sanctions on every bank in Russia. I think that with what's going on there, we really can't be too tough on sanctions. We just really need to bring the hammer down. So I’d like to see more.”

“The administration, of course, they have control of Congress, and they've been very active in persuading their party not to pass sanctions. They want to do it themselves through the administration. I get that. Every administration wants to be in full control. Obviously I think Congress plays a role in this. I’d like to see some language passed through Congress.”

On the status of the war in Ukraine:

“Look, [Russia’s] losing this war… You can’t just keep trying to pound a square peg in a round hole – and it doesn't work. That’s what they've been trying to do day after day. It’s not working. Things are getting more dire at home in Russia, so I’m not surprised to see them announcing something. And I won't be surprised to see them try something differently.”

“How resolute the Ukrainian people have been is just awesome – I mean it's awe-inspiring… They’re fighting not only for their future, for their kids, their grandkids, they're trying to pass a gift off to the next generation, to the Ukrainians, that is invaluable. They’re committed to it. The Russians have found out how committed they are to it. And it has been incredibly costly for the Russians at this point.”

These remarks have been lightly edited for clarity. A full transcript can be found below:

“I really think he did need to be there and help manage the relationship. We’re fortunate to have a good ambassador there that you just had on, Ambassador Smith. Her predecessor Kay Bailey Hutchison did a good job. That’s a complex relationship when you’re dealing with 30 countries and trying to bring them all together.

“It was important that the president go there. He gave a good speech at the end, but as you pointed out already, there was a horrendous gaffe right at the end of it. I wish he would stay on script. Whoever wrote that speech did a good job for him, but my gosh I wish they would keep him on script. I think most people who don’t deal in the lane of foreign relations don’t realize that those nine words that he uttered would cause the kind of eruption they did. But anytime you say, or even as he did suggest, that the policy was regime change, it’s gonna cause a huge problem.

“This administration has done everything it can to stop escalating. There’s not a whole lot more you can do to escalate than to call for regime change. The White House tried to walk it back immediately. Tony Blinken, the secretary of State, tried to walk it back immediately. I’ll walk it back right now – that is not the policy of the United States of America. Please, Mr. President, stay on script.”

___

“I don't need to do that as much as everybody who listened to it has done that. You’ve seen the stories that have come up all over the world, because that was an announcement of a change in policy. Regime change is something that is existential – you just don't do that. The suggestion was made that we were changing policy and going to regime change. That is not the policy of the United States. That was not in the speech, as you know, that was an ad-lib of his at the end of what was a good speech. Whoever wrote it did a good job, hit the right notes. And then to have that at the end, the sour note at the end, was unfortunate to say the least.”

___

“I think the jury is out on that. You can't believe anything they say, so I don't put any stock in the fact that they're announcing that they're changing the policy. Look, they're losing this war. Anybody who is involved in operating it obviously needs to change direction or the whole thing is going to fall out from underneath them. So I’m not surprised to hear them say they're going to do something different. You can’t just keep pounding – trying to pound a square peg in a round hole – and it doesn't work. That’s what they've been trying to do day after day. It’s not working. Things are getting more dire at home in Russia, so I’m not surprised to see them announcing something. And I won't be surprised to see them try something differently.

“How resolute the Ukrainian people have been is just awesome – I mean it's awe-inspiring. They’re doing what our patriots did in 1776. They’re fighting not only for their future, for their kids, their grandkids, they're trying to pass a gift off to the next generation, to the Ukrainians, that is invaluable. They’re committed to it. The Russians have found out how committed they are to it. And it has been incredibly costly for the Russians at this point.”

___

“There's been upheaval there for eight years, as you know – there’s been a civil war essentially in the two regions that make up the Donbas. That’s not for us to decide. That’s for President Zelenskyy and his fellow Ukrainians to decide what they have to do to make peace and what they have to do to regulate their country. They’ve got two problems there, of course – they've got the Donbas and also Crimea. Those are both issues they're going to have to decide what they're willing to do to take them back.

“Frankly, with the success they're having, I wouldn't be surprised if they say no, we're not going to give it back, it’s part of Ukraine and we're going to defend it and go forward with that. I don't know what the Russians will do, but if they do fall back there, they'll have a better time defending that particular area, but those are decisions to be made by them on the ground there.”

___

“There's four game changers here that could happen. Number one, if the Russians tried to trespass on one square inch of NATO ground, obviously chemical weapons, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, all four of those would be game-changers. I think if Russia does that, there's going to be some very difficult decisions that are going to have to be made by the NATO alliance, by the 30 countries that make up NATO.

“Look, we're civilized human beings living in the 21st century. There was a horrendous mistake made in Syria when chemical weapons were used after the red line had been laid down and really nothing happened. There was no response to it. Something is going to have to be done and it's going to have to be very significant. One would hope, one would pray that the Russians would not make what would be a catastrophic mistake.”

___

“I would like to see, as both Bob and I talked about at that time, we'd like to see more sanctions. From my standpoint, I’d like to see secondary sanctions on every bank in Russia. I think that with what's going on there, we really can't be too tough on sanctions. We just really need to bring the hammer down. So I’d like to see more.

“The administration, of course, they have control of Congress, and they've been very active in persuading their party not to pass sanctions. They want to do it themselves through the administration. I get that. Every administration wants to be in full control. Obviously I think Congress plays a role in this. I’d like to see some language passed through Congress. We’ve struggled with it. We’ve made a good-faith effort – came very close but didn't quite get it done. Look, they're putting their sanctions on. The sanctions really have surprised us as far as how effective they've been. I’d encourage them to keep heading down that road.”

###