By Lucy Komisar
The Realist Review
Oct 12, 2025

Hillary Clinton a few days ago replied to my question about Ukraine at the Council on Foreign Relations. She and colleague John Sullivan are revealed as either liars or so ignorant of reasons for the U.S. Ukraine war as to be utter fools.

John Sullivan, Keren Yarhi-Milo and Hillary Clinton, screen shot.

This opens at the Q which is 57 minutes in of the video here. Go below for the full video. And here for the transcript.

This was a fly-on-the-wall event where you see the delusions of people who make U.S. foreign policy. The Council on Foreign Relations meeting was hosted by the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs Dean Keren Yarhi-Milo who talked about the common biases when policymakers and intelligence community try to understand the intentions of an adversary. About mirror imaging, the idea that you tend to think about the adversary thinking in exactly the same way that you do, an inability to empathize, put ourselves in the shoes of the other. Biases that we tend to see that make us misunderstand and misperceive the intentions of the adversary. She said it happens in the United States, repeatedly. All important.

And then the panelists proceeded to violate every bit of advice the dean gave! Forget about policy, hunker down on psychology, which distorts policy.

Keren Yarhi-Milo herself said “[if] you want to understand the Ukraine, the decision to invade Ukraine, what’s driving this, you have to really understand Putin’s psychology, and the reference point, and how it all about, in his mind, regaining the Soviet empire.” So she knows what is in Putin’s mind, though he has never ever expressed that!

John Sullivan, U.S. Ambassador to Russia 2019-22, then deputy secretary of state under Anthony Blinken/Biden, says “the decision to invade Ukraine, what’s driving this, you have to really understand Putin’s psychology, and the reference point, and how it all about, in his mind, regaining the Soviet empire.” He said, ‘I once had a conversation with my then-boss Secretary Blinken. And we were talking about what Putin is like. And, you know, he’s often compared to a gangster. And I didn’t want to make an ethnic reference, or if I made one it would be one that would be from my own tribe. So I’m from South Boston. And I started talking about Whitey Bulger.” Bulger is a mafia style crook, now in jail. Is that Sullivan’s tribe?

“And I mean, you’ve got to understand, you can’t understand Putin unless you really understand where he’s from, what he’s about. He’s a tough kid from Leningrad, right? And not understanding who—his sense of grievance, his sense of loss. He adds: “He is committed to the proposition that the great geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century was the demise of the Soviet Union. …He doesn’t lament the demise of Soviet communism. He famously says, if you’re not nostalgic for how we lived in Soviet days you don’t have a heart, but if you want to return to Soviet communism you don’t have a brain. I mean, it’s hard to be the richest person in the world with a billion-dollar palace in Sochi.”

So, Putin is like the Bulgar of the American politics of Boston, not Russia. In fact, there is no evidence that Putin is richest person in the world (seems to be Elon Musk) and also no evidence of this palace. But who cares about evidence! And even his “you don’t have a brain” quote contradicts what Putin said! But who cares! It was a surreal event.

Clinton got closer to the truth, when she said, “… it’s been our experience, and certainly the research shows, that you introduce, through this over-personalization, volatility. And really, the volatility becomes a greater driver than your credibility, your ability to really read this person, to manage this person, to try to shape the events.” But she didn’t challenge Yarhi-Milo or Sullivan on Putin. And she didn’t like me raising the point.

I asked a question. “My name is Lucy Komisar. I’m a journalist.

“I was very impressed with the Dean’s analysis of how one should look with empathy and look at the other side. And then I saw in the discussion of Russia absolutely the opposite. I didn’t hear anybody talk about Kissinger and Kennan talking about not moving NATO one inch to the east, the 2014 American-sponsored coup that threw out an elected Ukraine head of government because he was too pro-Russian, the new government bombing the Russian speakers for eight years.

WESTIN: (Westin is anchor of Wall Street Week, Bloomberg). There’s a question here, right? I’m sorry, ma’am, is there a question in here? Is there a question? This is a speech. I’m sorry. [My comment so far is way shorter than others are allowed to speak without interruption, as long as they don”t challenge the speaker.]

Q: And then Ambassador—yes—Sullivan’s utter misstatement of Putin, who said—

WESTIN: Yeah, a question has to have a question mark at the end.

Q: Let me finish. That the Soviet Union, anybody that wanted it—that talked about it being collapsed, that it was a tragedy, but anybody that wanted to have it come back had no brain. Why did you not talk about any of these facts? And instead of that do a lot of armchair psychologizing about Putin and his motives?

HILLARY CLINTON: First of all—(applause, this is the Council, cheerleaders of the Deep State!)—I reject the premise of your question. I think you have gone into a lot of misstatements. (Applause.) I don’t agree at all about a lack of empathy and understanding. You know, both John and I have spent a lot of time with Putin trying to understand. And what we finally understood is that he wants to destroy the West and destroy the United States.

[Comment: Surreal, delusional! Especially since it’s the U.S.-NATO that wants to destroy Russia. Former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote in his 2014 memoir “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War” that, “When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world.” Translation: “to U.S. hegemony.”

Clinton: And you may disagree with that. You may have a more benevolent view of what he did, invading—you know, first of all, making up Chechen war, invading Georgia, invading Ukraine twice, threatening his neighbors, being Assad’s air force. I could go on and on. So you have your view. I do not think it is the view supported by history. And certainly not the view of what we’re seeing today.

I would commend to you, if you’re willing to read it, a recent study out of the University of Munich talking about what if Putin could win. Because there’s no doubt, with his latest drone activity and what he’s trying to do to intimidate everybody from Poland to Romania to Denmark to Italy, he is sending a message that you had better back off from supporting Ukraine, a free and independent country that has every right to chart its own sovereign future—just like Poland did joining NATO, just like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania did joining NATO. Putin and Russia don’t have a veto over what free and independent nations can choose for themselves. It’s time he understood that and got over both his history and the greater history that has kept him imprisoned and kept Russia poor, an extractive commodity market that could do so much more on behalf of its own people. And you and I have a disagreement. (Applause.)

No time here to go into the fakeries said of the drones (some coming from Ukraine and Poland), the Islamic Chechen war when Islamic terrorists were good guys, Georgia in 2008 invaded South Ossetia, which had declared independence, Russia was provoked to send troops into Donbass after 8 years of Ukraine bombing ethnic Russians there. Note that these were Deep State operations, including the Georgia war. Romania, Denmark, Italy???? Evidence? If Russia is so poor how can it invade Europe? Or how does its extractive market-based economy have a higher growth rate than the U.S. and Europe? Why does anyone believe what Hillary says?

WESTIN: I will add only that I am so happy for the Council and for the United States of America where we can have this sort of discussion.

CLINTON: Absolutely.

WESTIN: There are a lot of places in the world we could not have had this sort of discussion, which is only beneficial.

Following Westin’s assertion that at the Council one could have this discussion, I was threatened by the Council director of meetings that I could be defenestrated (removed from membership) for asking my question. This is relevant in an era where from cancel culture to deportations, free speech in the U.S. is under attack.

Her email:

Subject: 10/8 CFR Event
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 21:16:34 +0000
From: Nancy Bodurtha NB*******@*fr.org
To: LK@

Dear Lucy:

Following your disregard of the moderator at last evening’s discussion with Secretary Clinton, Dean Yarhi-Milo, and Ambassador Sullivan, I write to remind you that CFR’s code of conduct is explicit in the expectation that members exhibit the highest levels of courtesy and respect toward speakers, moderators, staff, guests, and one another.  CFR reserves the right to drop or suspend members for any conduct that is prejudicial to the best interests, reputation, and proper functioning of the organization.  

Sincerely,
Nancy

Nancy D. Bodurtha
Vice President, Meetings and Membership 
Council on Foreign Relations
58 East 68th Street, New York, New York 10065
tel  212.434.9466  
nb*******@*fr.org  www.cfr.org

My response:

Following my remarks, Westin said: “I am so happy for the Council and the United States of America where we can have this sort of discussion. There are a lot of places in the world where we could not have had this sort of discussion, which is only beneficial.”

I guess you don’t agree. Should I ask him if my question was “prejudicial to the best interests, reputation, and proper functioning of the organization”? Of course, there are countries where questions like mine would not be allowed. Was your message to me directed by [Council president] Mike Froman or your own idea? BTW, NOBODY intimidates me!

and

The best interest of the Council is to promote diversity of views and expression, not to try to shut down minority views.

Lucy Komisar

She did not respond.

Hard to know if my view is “minority” since people have often thanked me for questions they did not raise themselves.

Council officials should inform Nancy Bodurtha that it is not appropriate to threaten journalist members for asking challenging questions of powerful political figures.

And they may want to read John Mearsheimer’s 2014 article published in the Council’s own Foreign Affairs and since updated by his frequent writings, “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault – The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin.”