In line with expectations, another meeting between Secretary of State Kerry and Russian President Vladimir Putin, held on March 24 and lasting four hours, did not see any breakthrough in solving the crisis in the Donbas, nor did it advance the cause of freeing Nadia Savchenko, who had been sentenced to 22 years in prison by a Russian court despite absence of evidence.
The key topics of the meeting, as reported before, included Syria, Ukraine, and North Korea. At the press conference held after the meeting, Kerry talked a lot about finding a common ground with the Russian side on ways to resolve the situation in Syria, but at the same time, he stressed that the Minsk Agreements had to be implemented immediately and in full by all parties to the conflict. And only after the Kremlin has complied with all the provisions, including by returning control over the Ukrainian-Russian border to Ukraine, Barack Obama will be “ready to lift the sanctions.”
Secretary Kerry also said that he had mentioned Savchenko and that Russia had to allow her return to Ukraine, and since it was an issue of humanitarian nature, it had to be resolved immediately. According to him, Putin hinted that “at some point,” the parties might address the issue of the Ukrainian pilot’s release.
The Day turned to former US Ambassador Herbst is Director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council for a comment on the results of Kerry’s talks with Russian president and Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov, with the latter meeting lasting four hours as well.
“It’s clear that they have focused on Syria. My reading of that press conference suggests that they had a generally positive conversation on Syria. There were certain points of agreement. I mean, for example, the American side is pleased that the amount of bombing by the Russians has dropped seriously. The ceasefire is broken, but there is far less fighting than there was. So there is some satisfaction on that. It’s unclear from the public information whether Moscow is more flexible on the issue of Assad’s leaving.
“On Ukraine, it was almost a perfunctory message. It’s clear that they talked about it, it’s clear that there was no real progress in that conversation, and all that I can say is what Secretary Kerry said was all reasonable.”
How do you understand Kerry’s words that during his meeting with Putin, he raised the question of the need to immediately release Savchenko, and he had the feeling that at some point, the parties will be able to resolve the issue, or not. “We will clarify it,” the secretary of state noted at the press conference.
“Well, there’s nothing in that statement to draw conclusions about her fate, except the fact that Kerry mentioned her, which is good, at some point.”
Will the fact that Viktor Bout and Konstantin Yaroshenko were mentioned during the talks in Moscow play any role in Savchenko’s release? Could they be exchanged for the Ukrainian pilot?
“I know that the Kremlin has been trying to get them out of jail, they have been trying to get Bout released from the time since he was seized somewhere in Asia, maybe in Thailand. I have no idea if this is a real possibility. Certainly, it is important to get Nadia Savchenko freed. Whether the United States has responsibility in terms of giving up an international criminal, is another matter. If the Russians release somebody else, maybe they will see advantage in that.”
By the way, we have seen again Russia urging Ukraine to implement all the provisions of the Minsk Agreements, but it did not promise to deliver on its own obligations…
“Well, what Lavrov said is the hard line Kremlin position, which remains their negotiating position. Obviously, there will be no solution to the crisis in Donbas and the Minsk process will not achieve any success if this remains the Russian position. But my sense from talking to people here in Kyiv over these three days, talking to people in other capitals is that in fact, there is more flexibility to the Russian position than Lavrov was saying publicly in Moscow.”
Now, it was good to hear Kerry mentioning Ukraine’s sovereignty and maintaining sanctions till the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements. But what can really force Russia to fulfill its part of the arrangements, or in other words, force Putin to change his plans for Ukraine?
“I think that overall, Western powers have made a contribution to the solution. I think that contribution should and could be greater. But they have made a contribution, principally through sanctions, but also providing economic support and even certain types of military support to Ukraine. It may be that the West should provide more support, it may be that support, its providing, is going to be enough to help persuade the Kremlin to stop its aggression. I mean, we know that sanctions are hurting Russia, we know they want them lifted, we know that their military and political campaigning in Donbas has failed. Well, we don’t know they are looking for a way out, I believe they are considering how they can get a fix to their problems, self-created for themselves.”
We know that Germany insists on holding elections in the Donbas, although there are no conditions for this at the moment. But even Victoria Nuland stated during the March 15 hearing in the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs on the occasion of the second anniversary of the Maidan that elections in the occupied territories had to be held before this fall. It seems that Europe and the United States put pressure only on Ukraine urging it to fully comply with the Minsk Agreements, while there is no such pressure on Russia and the separatists, who have not complied with the agreements’ first provisions. What do you say to that?
“As I understand it – well, I’m no longer a US diplomat and I don’t represent US government – but my understanding is that here is the American position that, yes, Minsk should be implemented, all the Minsk obligations put on Russian and Ukrainian sides, but the logic of Minsk is that there are certain things that have to happen first: there has to be a real ceasefire, to this day there has been no real ceasefire, there has to be a minimum of movement of heavy weapons away from the firing lines, and they need to be placed in specific areas which are monitored by the international community. Now this has not happened, and the fault for this lies overwhelmingly on Moscow, not on Ukraine. Only after these things happen, you have a prisoner exchange included there perhaps, have a new local election law passed by the Rada, and the constitutional reform. So, I think that in Europe they kind of understand that. So, when they tell Ukraine ‘Implement your provisions,’ they are not about to lift sanctions, because they understand that Russia should do more than Ukraine.”
How do you see other countries attempting to get Ukraine to change its constitution? Perhaps the situation calls for different wording, say, changing or passing of certain laws on the special status, and not talking about changing the constitution?
“There is a problem with what you have just said, and that is that your president agreed to these terms. And I understand that the constitutional reform is a controversial matter here. I was a diplomat for 31 years, and I understand that this Minsk Agreement with all its flaws is the vehicle for solving this problem. So, with that, I don’t think that Ukraine can dismiss this need for constitutional change, but I do believe that Ukraine can make this constitutional change in a way that protects its interests and maintains its territorial integrity.”
By the way, how do you characterize the Obama Doctrine, recently covered in The Atlantic, which Lilia Shevtsova called a “withdrawal in an own shell” in her comment for The Day, and what do you say to the words of the occupant of the White House who said that “Ukraine, as a non-NATO country, is going to be always vulnerable to Russian domination, no matter what we do”?
“I spent so much time criticizing president’s policy on Ukraine. I think he deserves credit for being strong on sanctions, but I think he has been weak in understanding the dangers of this crisis. Russia is one of the world’s two largest military powers, one of two great nuclear superpowers, and when a nation that is strong is invading its neighbor and changing borders by aggression, it’s a world crisis which requires American leadership to fix. So I think the president has been seriously mistaken in the way he evaluates this crisis as represented in other places, in the article by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic. To me, that’s one more reason for Ukraine to do what’s required by the Minsk, to make sure it maintains the support of the West via sanctions against the Kremlin for resolution.”
What do you think about Barack Obama’s statement in The Atlantic, that the belief in the possibilities of projected toughness is rooted in “mythologies” about Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy? But we know that tough policy resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
“I think that President Obama in that article was trying to not just explain his foreign policy, but the reasons for it. My impression of the president, on the basis of some time I have spent with him when he was a senator, and on the basis of watching closely his foreign policy, is that the great idea for him is to avoid mistakes, very large mistakes of his predecessor, who by reckless engagements in Iraq, and even somewhat reckless engagement in Afghanistan, had seriously hurt the country. So, he wants to avoid that, and that’s honorable, and I think that President Obama conducted a very intelligent, politically brave policy regarding Iran. The problem is, he uses the same logic here in Ukraine, where it doesn’t apply at all. Again, my sense is he is not comfortable with the concept of great power conflict, and therefore, he has interpreted Ukraine in a way that he is not called upon to take strong measures against another large power. That’s psychologically convenient for him, but I think it does not serve the interests of the United States, and does not serve the interest of stability in Europe.”
I would like to hear your opinion about Donald Trump, the likely presidential candidate of the Republican Party, who has made some controversial, in our view, statements about Ukraine, calling it a problem for Europe.
“Trump is a gentleman who has a very strong will, who likes to get his way, and who regularly says what he wants without necessarily understanding the consequences. Things he says, especially recently, regarding Russia and Ukraine, I think are simply ill-informed. But I don’t know whether they will represent his policy when he becomes president, because he says one thing one day, and something completely different the next day.”
What do you think, will Clinton thrash Trump in the presidential election, as the latest polls suggest?
“I think we’ll be foolish to believe those polls. What Trump has demonstrated over the past six months is his ability to win even when all the experts say he is going to lose. I have no idea what will happen if Trump and Clinton are the two candidates for the presidency. I do think that he will seriously criticize her, and it’ll have an impact. Whether it will be enough to elect him, is a whole different question.”
Judging from recent news, it looks like Volodymyr Hroisman is set to become the next prime minister of Ukraine. In your opinion, is he a good choice for Ukraine to cope with the challenges faced by our country?
“Hroisman had success as the mayor of Vinnytsia. He demonstrated he could be a reformer, but I think now, he will simply be seen as a soldier in General Poroshenko’s army, so to speak. And it’s unclear what will be the perception, the impact of these perceptions. I know that people in the West understand there has been some serious progress on reform over the past year and a half, but they think that the current political crisis in Ukraine is a great misfortune for Ukraine, and they are unhappy that this crisis was created by the top leadership of this country. And of course, they don’t understand at all, how Mr. Shokin can still be the prosecutor general.”
Since you have been talking with representatives of different political forces over the past three days, what is your impression: do they want a change of Cabinet or a snap election?
“People of Ukraine or their representatives will determine whether there will be a new election. I personally don’t have a strong opinion on this. I think on the one hand, it will be unfortunate, because Ukraine should be reforming right now, not doing politics. And it is politics that makes this crisis almost a tragedy. The IMF is not giving the money Ukraine needs because of this crisis. It seems that Ukrainian politicians don’t care so much about the country, they are trying just to improve their own political situation. That’s unfortunate, because that conforms to old stereotypes. When I testified last week, I laid out a framework for analyzing which points out that reform is coming in Ukraine despite the top leadership, so that shouldn’t be forgotten. But unfortunately, you don’t have strong direction for change from the top.”
As you know, President Poroshenko is to visit the US for a nuclear summit. What do you think he has to bring to Washington so that this visit is successful?
“I think if there is no new government, if Mr. Shokin is still prosecutor general, when President Poroshenko gets to Washington, I think he will receive a very cool reception.”
