How does the US perceive the new Ukrainian power? Why doesn’t it regard our strategic partnership virtual? What does it expect from the visit of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych to Washington on April 12-13? Find answers to these questions below, in The Day’s exclusive interview with Daniel RUSSELL, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.
Mr. Russell, are you sure that the 2010 presidential election, as you said in your recent testimony at the US Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe was “a defeat for the Orange Revolution’s leaders, but not for the Orange Revolution?” Has Washington received any assurances from the Yanukovych team that the gains from that revolution will not be eradicated or destroyed?
“ I think that the election is another step forward in Ukraine’s democratic development. It’s impressive that all the candidates played by the rules in a democratic election that was judged free and fair by all international observers.
I think the election speaks for itself about the gains that continue to be made in Ukraine’s political development.”
Mr. Russell, you said that Ukraine matters to the United States and that it matters to Europe. However it also matters to Russia, which considers Ukraine part of its sphere of privileged interest. If Ukraine matters to the US, why have the leaders of our countries not met in more than a year of Barack Obama being in office?
“Vice President Biden came here on a visit last July – it’s one of the few countries that the White House chose to visit in its first months in office, and it speaks highly about how we value our relationship with Ukraine. If you look at what’s happened since the election of President Yanukovych – President Obama was one of the first leaders to call, our National Security Advisor attended the inauguration, and now your president is going to visit Washington in the coming weeks. I think, that speaks for itself about the tempo of engagement we are seeing between our countries.
“On the first part of your question, the United States supports improving relations between Ukraine and Russia. It’s quite natural. We don’t see any contradiction between a better relationship with Russia, a strategic partnership with the United States, and further integration with Europe. These are all parts of what is a very reasonable foreign policy approach.”
The new Ukrainian government will try to balance out its relations with the triangle Moscow-Brussels-Washington. But, minding that the other two capitals are closer to Ukraine than Washington, how does the United States plan to cope with the distance disadvantage?
“I don’t think it’s so much a question of distance – one of the United States’ closest partners on the international scene is Japan, and it is a lot further from the United States than some of the capitals of other countries. I think the point is, in the 21st century, we have all of these common challenges that no one country is going to be able to solve alone. And it’s going to require all of us to work together to deal with the threat of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, to deal with global warming and climate change – all these things we’re going to have to work together. So, we are going to have to come up with a different model of international relations, one in which many countries are partnering together. And we see Ukraine as one of the key partners in that effort.”
When we speak about Japan or other partners of the United States, we should keep in mind that the elite from these countries studied in the American universities, has been exposed to American culture, which is not the case with the Ukrainian politicians who recently came to power. How can our elites be bridged?
“We all have to work together, no matter what our backgrounds. There is a pretty varied group on the world stage now. If you look at the upcoming, emerging regional powers, the so-called BRIC countries – Brasil, Russia, India, China – some of them have had very close traditional ties with the United States and some haven’t. But we are going to have to work with all of them.”
How important is it for the United States to receive assurances from President Yanukovych that he will maintain the non-recognition policy towards South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and what if he opens the door to extension of the Russian Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol? These issues have been named as benchmarks for Yanukovych’s foreign policy in the testimony by Mr. Damon Wilson of the Atlantic Council at the same CSCE hearing.
“On the Black Sea Fleet, this is a matter between Ukraine and Russia. Obviously, this is the sovereign territory of Ukraine, and it’s an issue that your leadership is going to want to consider carefully. But I wouldn’t pre-judge their own freedom of action on this.
“On South Ossetia and Abkhazia, US policy speaks for itself. We will never recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia; we have made that quite clear. You know, the only countries that have recognized them are Venezuela and Nicaragua.”
During the CSCE hearing you listed the US Government’s priorities in relations with Ukraine. Now you have had talks with the Ukrainian officials. How much do your priorities coincide with those of the Ukrainian government?
“On my own visit here, we are kind of at the start, and a lot of my meetings lie ahead of me. (The interview took place on March 24. — Author). But I don’t think our priorities are that different than Ukrainian government’s. You have to understand, despite the change of leadership in our country and in your country, the interests between our two countries and our shared agenda haven’t changed, because the international problems we face haven’t changed.”
Still, you may have heard that some critically-minded analysts in Ukraine say our strategic partnership is virtual. What would you say to such characterization?
“I don’t think it’s virtual at all. I think, it’s a very real thing. Strategic partnership is more than just a phrase or a charter, or a series of words – it’s really an agenda for practical cooperation. If you look back at the Charter, you see it covers almost all the major areas of our relationship: economics, trade and investment, defense and security cooperation – it’s all there. It’s an agenda and it’s one we need to fill out.”
The former Ukrainian Administration wanted to include in the Charter some more concrete security guarantees or assurances for Ukraine. Do you think it’s possible?
“On the security assurances, we believe that those assurances remain in place, that nothing has changed. And that’s why we joined the Russian Federation on December 4 in stating that, in reaffirming this. That said, it’s certainly an issue we can discuss within the framework of our strategic partnership in future.”
How may this strategic partnership be affected by the intention of the new Ukrainian Government to pass a law proclaiming Ukraine a non-aligned nation? What would this mean for security cooperation between the United States and Ukraine?
“We’ve heard President Yanukovych say he wants to pursue strategic partnership with the United States, and we are going to take that at face value and work on that basis. As far as Ukraine’s foreign policy, that’s the choice for Ukraine and its elected leaders to make, and we are going to respect those choices. That said, I think, both of our countries and our peoples have a lot to be gained by trying to develop more practical cooperation within the framework of our strategic partnership.”
Can you confirm or deny reports that the new START agreement will not be signed in Kyiv because of the position of your government, which, in the words of a Russian official quoted by Kommersant-Ukraine daily on the basis of anonymity, “is not ready for quick rapprochement” with Kyiv and “does not yet understand fully what kind of government Ukraine now has?” US expert Samuel Charap told The Day that another reason not to sign the agreement in Kyiv could be the intention of the new Ukrainian power to make the non-aligned status official for Ukraine.
“On the START agreement at this point, we are very encouraged by the results of our recent talks, but the agreement is not done. And what we are trying to focus on now with Russia is finishing the agreement and getting it to the point where it could be signed. And then we will address all these other questions, including about the venue.”
Coming back to Ukraine, you have heard Yanukovych’s statement about his intention to combat corruption. Does this mean that the Millennium Challenge Corporation will restart its program in Ukraine, which was stopped?
“We welcome President Yanukovych’s comments about making corruption one of his priorities. This is something I hear frequently from my business community when we talk about trade and investment in Ukraine that this is the issue that they believe should be addressed as one that would make a very big difference in the investment climate here and Ukraine’s ability to attract foreign investments. The Millennium Challenge Corporation chose to end its programs here because they were not satisfied with the level of cooperation with Ukraine. At this point there are no plans to restart that program.”
What signals should Ukraine send in order to restart this program?
“The Millennium Challenge Corporation is a very different program, it’s not a traditional US government assistance program. I think first, if there is interest on Ukraine’s part, they should talk directly to the Millennium Challenge Corporation.”
Will Ukraine use this new chance of cooperation with the Obama administration? Your colleague Chris Smart spoke about a window of opportunity when speaking to Prime Minister Azarov?
“We view the new leadership in Ukraine as a new opportunity, a chance for us to build on our already strong relationship and see if we can take this to a new level. I agree — it is a window of opportunityу for both of us.”
As for the future visit of Mr. Yanukovych to Washington, what does the United States expect to achieve during this visit?
“I think you have to put this visit in context. President Obama is hosting a nuclear security summit in Washington and over 40 world leaders have been invited to attend the summit. The main purpose of the summit is to deal with what we believe is the very real threat of nuclear terrorism and nuclear smuggling, which President Obama talked about in his speech in Prague last year. And what we want to achieve during the summit is a common understanding of that threat and to do all we can both to secure nuclear materials and to try to deal with the very real threat of nuclear smuggling. That’s the real purpose of the summit and I think, if you look at the visits of all the heads of state who will be attending, that’s how you should look at it in terms of results.”
Ukrainian side wants to get from this visit a “long-playing” effect.
“I think this visit will be an important step forward in our relationship, but it will be one of a series of actions taking our relationship forward.”
In your testimony you mentioned the possibility of improving the relations with our country through exchange of students, cultural exchange. Was your voice heard in the Senate, will it allot money for this program to be extended?
“Exchanges, we found, when you’re talking about leaders, as you mentioned, are very important. It’s important for our societies to have a relationship, because partnership is more than just a government-to-government interaction, it needs to be relationship between peoples and societies, and one of the best ways to increase mutual understanding is to have our students study in each other’s country and have a chance to make connections which in many cases will last throughout the professional life. So we see these programs as important. We already have a pretty robust exchange program, particularly at high-school, university, and postgraduate levels. It’s something we’d like to increase. But don’t forget, like you, we are dealing with the effects of the global recession. I think we’d like to increase the programs, but we have to see obviously what the budget will permit.”
Where do you get information about Ukraine?
“We are very fortunate to have a very capable and talented US Ambassador here, leading the large team at US Embassy in Kyiv. Obviously, they are our main source of information. We receive press summaries, multiple ones, each morning from our Embassy here, including what appears in your newspaper Den. Well, we get a lot of information. I think we’ve all been very impressed by the vibrant political culture here and by the free press. That’s one of the hallmarks of Ukraine today. And you should be proud to be part of that.”
Have you been to Ukraine before?
“ Yes.”
Can you compare?
“It’s a huge difference. I made my first trip to Ukraine in the winter of 1992-93 after the break-up of the Soviet Union. I was on one of the first delegations that came here to negotiate the basic economic agreements between the United States and Ukraine. I will tell you, it was very different here then, in February 1993. I think it’s a real testimony to what has been done. Sometimes, when we’re all very critical of day-to-day events, we need to look at how much change has taken place since that time here and to be proud of that. At the same time, there’s a lot that still needs to be done.”
Is fatigue of Ukraine fading away?
“I have heard this term, I have seen it used in the press, Ukraine fatigue. I just think it’s asking the wrong question. I think we need to look at what’s possible in the future and I mean, as I said in my testimony, we see Ukraine as a strong partner. We see Ukraine as a net contributor to the global security; we see Ukraine’s economy developing. I am very hopeful. I would say it’s exactly the opposite.”
