The next is a transcript of an interview with retired Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, former nationwide safety adviser within the Trump White Home and a CBS Information contributor, that aired on Sunday, Oct. 2, 2022.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The Trump administration nationwide safety adviser in 2017, retired Lieutenant Basic H.R. McMaster, who joins us. H.R., thanks for updating us on what's taking place on the bottom in Ukraine with the Russian invasion. I wish to get your response to what Protection Secretary Austin referred to as a big growth on the battlefield prior to now 48 hours. What do you see taking place, and what do you forecast is Vladimir Putin's subsequent transfer?
LT. GENERAL H.R. MCMASTER: Hey, good morning, Margaret. It is nice to be with you. Effectively, this can be a great victory for- for the Ukrainians. And it is a victory that I believe that they may flip right into a cascading collection of defeats of Russian forces. That is the- the encirclement of Lyman and the- and the Russian forces pulling again, but in addition, within the final two days, the Ukrainians additionally concurrently defeated a Russian- a Russian counterattack and in addition made progress additional within the south close to the strategically necessary metropolis of Kherson. And I believe, Margaret, what we is perhaps at right here is de facto on the precipice of- of actually the collapse of the Russian military in Ukraine, an ethical collapse. And- and I believe they have to actually be at a breaking level. When you have a look at simply the numbers of casualties, the huge space that they are making an attempt to defend, and now, in fact, Russia is making an attempt to mobilize conscripts and ship them to- to the entrance untrained. And I believe it is essential to- to additionally perceive that these forces which are in full retreat now out of Lyman had been actually the primary spherical of mobilization. Bear in mind when Putin was making an attempt to recruit an increasing number of individuals with paying about three-times the- the typical wages to get so-called volunteers to go ahead. These forces had been swiftly skilled, thrown into that entrance, and these are the forces which are collapsing good proper now.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Effectively, and as that occurs on the battlefield, rhetorically you hear President Putin increase the quantity, once more dangling that nuclear menace on Friday, and there was one other Russian chief who talked about utilizing low yield nuclear weapons. It is not clear what NATO or the U.S. response could be if Russia used a nuclear tactical weapon on the battlefield in Ukraine. What do you assume it needs to be?
LT. GENERAL H.R. MCMASTER: Effectively, I believe the message to him is if you happen to use a nuclear weapon, it is a suicide weapon. And- and the response from NATO and the US does not must be nuclear. Initially, I'd say, Margaret, he is underneath excessive strain. I imply, you- you may have the failures on the battlefield, which we talked about, but in addition the mobilization is failing. I imply, what he is finished is he is mobilized virtually 300,000 individuals to depart the nation. These are- these are males who had been fleeing to neighboring international locations to- to flee this- this conscription. And you've got the Russian individuals now saying, okay, I believed this was a particular army operation that Putin mentioned, hey simply depart this to me, don't be concerned about it. Now, he'll them to bail him out with this- with this mobilization, and what you are seeing among the many hypernationalist group of- of bloggers and- and- and even on state media, is a blaming of the army. And what the army goes again to Putin is saying, hey, it isn't our fault. We simply want extra troops. So, it is this cycle that he is responding to with the one quiver he has left, which is to, you recognize, to- to- to threaten using a nuclear weapon. However, I will let you know, Margaret, I do not assume a nuclear weapon is usable there, you recognize. So, I believe that we must take it critically. We now have to, however we must not permit this to cow us by way of the help for the Ukrainians.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Proper. Effectively, the opposite weapon he has is power, in fact, and monitoring this potential sabotage on the gasoline pipeline. I wish to additionally ask you about- whenever you had been in workplace again in 2017, which is the primary time that the US gave off- offensive weapons to Ukraine, I bear in mind whenever you had been put in that place of getting to clarify a dialog then-President Trump had with Russian officers within the Oval Workplace, the place he talked about labeled data. And also you- you referred to as it wholly applicable on the time. Given what is going on on now with this investigation into the labeled materials at Mar-a-Lago, had been you ever uncomfortable with the previous president's dealing with of labeled data?
LT. GENERAL H.R. MCMASTER: Effectively, Margaret, bear in mind, I left in February, March of 2018. However whereas I used to be there, I didn't see any issues in dealing with of- of labeled data. And, and what you are speaking about actually is a session through which the President didn't disclose labeled data, however someone leaked it. After which it was revealed within the newspaper. So the labeled information- I believe it is necessary is to return to that interval, and that provision of javelins of the defensive capabilities to the Ukrainians was actually necessary and, and the argument I made to President Trump on the time, was, hey, these people who find themselves telling you that it is provocative to supply Ukraine with defensive capabilities, really, what provokes Putin is weak point. And he was persuaded by that argument. And I believe that argument continues to be related in the present day. I imply, as Putin is encountering these difficulties, I believe it is now time to take away among the restrictions that we placed on ourselves by way of the help to provide the Ukrainians and I am speaking about actually lengthy vary surveillance capabilities, tied to lengthy vary precision strike. And, that is actually what they want, I believe to take care of the momentum militarily at this stage.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I've a observe up query on that, however only a button up the query I requested you, that was a no, you had been by no means uncomfortable with the hand dealing with of labeled data?
LT. GENERAL H.R. MCMASTER: No, you recognize what Margaret, there have been programs in place. I do not know what occurred to these programs. However- but- however I used to be by no means uncomfortable with it whereas I used to be there. However you recognize, that was a very long time in the past now.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. I do know whenever you're in workplace, you by no means like answering counterfactuals. However you are not in workplace, so was Vladimir Putin so dedicated to this invasion that he would have gone by way of with it it doesn't matter what?
LT. GENERAL H.R. MCMASTER: I do not assume so. Take into consideration all of the help that we have given now to the Ukrainians. What if we had finished that just a few years in the past? I believe Putin could have come to the conclusion. Effectively, Ukraine can not be- can't be subsumed at a suitable value. And naturally, he was unsuitable in all of the assumptions that led to the invasion. And he is been confirmed unsuitable by brave Ukrainians who're defending their sovereignty. However I believe deterrence by denial for us was a failure. I imply, in most of the actions that we took, within the months before- earlier than the invasion, virtually I believe inadvertently inexperienced lighted it, you recognize, pulling our forces out of the Black Sea, itemizing all of the issues we weren't going to do. And I believe the administration has recovered from that very properly. However- however I believe now's the time, Margaret, to elevate restrictions on the help that we're given Ukrainians to allow them to end this battle on their phrases.
MARGARET BRENNAN: All proper, H.R. McMaster, thanks very a lot to your perception in the present day. We'll be again in a second.