The US remained a strategic partner of Ukraine regardless of who – a Democrat or a Republican – was residing in the White House. The US provides the greatest amount of military assistance to Ukraine, and the congressional Republicans and Democrats are unanimously in favor of sending lethal weapons to this country. Barack Obama, the incumbent president, opposes such a move, believing that it might trigger an escalation of hostilities in the Donbas. On January 20, Republican Donald Trump will take office as the head of the world’s most powerful nation, his unexpected defeat of the establishment having introduced uncertainty to US foreign policy prospects under his presidency. Of course, we are most concerned about whether the new administration will continue to provide military support to Ukraine and whether the US will be able to join the Minsk process, which has stalled because of Russia’s unwillingness to meet its obligations under the relevant agreements. The Day discussed all these topics and many others in an exclusive interview with US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie YOVANOVITCH. We started the conversation by asking why Americans voted against the establishment.
“WE NEED TO HAVE A STRONG RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE”
“You probably know that I cannot comment on domestic politics in the United States. So, I’d refer you to all of the analysis that is out – not only in the American media and obviously over social media, but also in European and, frankly, Ukrainian press has a lot of analysis.”
May you explain for us the meaning of Trump’s slogan “Make America great again.” What kind of strength may we see from the new administration?
“It’s early days of the transition in the US. It will be confirmed what the foreign policy and domestic priorities will be during the transition and the early days of the Administration.
“Turning to American-Ukrainian relationship, it has been very positive and very strong for the past 25 years, especially for the past three years. I would expect that to continue, because it’s been a bi-partisan consensus, whether we’ve had Republican presidents or Democratic presidents, that we need to have a strong relationship with Ukraine and we want to be supportive of Ukraine’s reform efforts.”
We agree with Trump’s statement that Europe should spend more money on defense and carry more of the burden of defense spending in NATO. Ukraine spends more than five percent of its GDP now. How may relations between Ukraine and the US develop in the security sphere, and will we get more military support and receive lethal weapons, as promised here in Kyiv by ex-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich?
“It’s been a longstanding US policy – again over multiple Republican and Democratic presidents – that each of the NATO member countries should pay their full share and be responsible for the collective security of Europe and North America. So, there is no change there at all.
“In terms of the US-Ukraine security relationship, I think that it’s very strong thriving. We’ve provided over $600 million of security assistance to Ukraine over the past couple of years. Whether it is working at Yavoriv – I don’t know if you’ve had an opportunity to go out there to see the ground training component where we work with the Ukrainian forces – I think, frankly, the most important part of our assistance is training, because it helps prepare Ukrainian soldiers for the challenges that they face in the east and otherwise in defense of Ukraine.”
I was present during the third debate between Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012. And the latter said that Russia was a geopolitical foe. And this warning was ignored. But now we see revanchist Russia which has illegally annexed Crimea and continues aggression in eastern Ukraine directly and through its separatist proxies. Do not you think it happened because NATO was telling Russia again and again that it was a defensive block and moreover, the NATO allies started to decrease defense spending, or in other words, why had nobody seen that Russia was becoming a real danger not only to its neighbors but to NATO as well?
“You mentioned NATO in this context. I think NATO is probably the most successful mutual security pact in the world ever. Part of the reasons NATO is able to be flexible and to meet the challenges of each era – we certainly saw that in the Cold War, we saw that in the 1990s where NATO reached out to former Warsaw Pact countries and the Baltic countries in the early 2000s and expansion of the NATO membership – is because NATO is a security collective, but it’s also one that is based on common values and common principles. And that’s, I think, the key to NATO’s success. During that entire period continuing today, NATO has reached out to other countries, including Ukraine – so there is NATO-Ukraine Council, and I think there’s going to be a meeting of that at upcoming NATO Ministerial in December. All of these kinds of fora and organizations help us to meet the challenges of the time.”
“SANCTIONS WILL NOT BE LIFTED UNTIL CRIMEA IS RETURNED TO UKRAINE”
But you see Russia grabbing some Georgian territory, Crimea in Ukraine and continuing aggression in the Donbas. And NATO can do nothing…
“What you see is that the United States is very supportive of Ukraine in those efforts. We’ve already talked about the $600 million plus in security assistance, whether it’s training, whether it’s equipping – and I can give you sort of a rundown of the kind of equipment we provide including pretty sophisticated anti-mortar, anti-artillery radars that have saved countless lives. So, I think we are very supportive in terms of providing assistance in Donbas. We also have an entire sanctions regime which has been coordinated with the Europeans, Australia, Canada, and Japan. That’s why it is so successful – you can see it is successful by the attempts of Russia try to weaken the sanctions.
“On Crimea, the international community has been very solid and very united that Crimea is Ukraine, and that those sanctions will not be lifted until Crimea is returned to Ukraine.”
It is well known that when introducing the sanctions, Obama hoped that they might change Putin’s calculations and force him to reverse his actions in Ukraine. But this has not happened…
“What you have seen is, instead of steady push westwards, it has stopped. The line of contact is obviously not set in stone, we have seen the Russian-controlled separatists pushing forward a little bit in certain places. But it’s more or less where it was before. I think probably scholars are going to debate for many years which exact measure played the most important role in that: whether it was the brave actions of the Ukrainian volunteers and military, whether it was the military support that was provided, whether it was the sanctions regime, but I think, a combination of all of that and the unified condemnation of the international community did force a recalculation on Russia’s part.”
“UKRAINE IS FRANKLY TO BE COMMENDED FOR ITS CAPABILITIES IN THE EAST”
You mentioned in your first interview that it was not the right time for Ukraine to become a member of NATO. But we have shown during the Euromaidan that we share the NATO values and want to join the North Atlantic alliance to have security guaranties which we believe we can only have in this unique collective security system. By the way of a reminder, our country has given up the world’s third nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees in accordance with the Budapest Memorandum which was signed by the US as well. Can you tell us how can we defend ourselves against Russia, while not being a member of NATO?
“I will say a couple of things. First of all, I think, the Ukrainian military is doing a very fine job of defending Ukraine’s territorial integrity right now. Obviously in 2014, it was perhaps a slightly different story, but over the past few years we’ve seen how the Ukrainian military has become much more capable. And that’s why we put so much emphasis on our joint training in Yavoriv, because it is important to build up those capabilities. So, in first case I think that Ukraine is frankly to be commended for its capabilities in the east.
“With regard to NATO membership, as you see over the past 25 years, NATO membership or the various kinds of associations with NATO – that all involves a process. It is absolutely grounded in shared values, principles of democracy. Again, that’s why NATO is such a successful organization. But it’s also about the capabilities of the military. In advance of the NATO summit in Warsaw in July, the Ukrainian Government put out the SUB, which is basically a blueprint, a strategy for how Ukraine will become a NATO interoperable military by 2020. That is a really ambitious goal, I think we would all agree, and we believe in being ambitious. It’s only by pushing that one actually gets to where one wants to go. There is a number of things that Ukraine needs to do in order to become that interoperable force. And the first thing is setting the legal, legislative framework to actually implement the SUB. So, you need the legislation, so that you can then actually move forward with the various reforms. And there are a number of tasks that need to be done, because reforming a military as large as Ukraine is not an overnight task. We have General Abizaid working with the Ukrainian military. He is obviously a revered and very respected general in United States and internationally. Having that kind of senior level of view for you to know what are challenges, what you need to look at first I think it is valuable to have an adviser at that level.”
You mentioned the capability of the Ukrainian military. But do not you think that Ukraine having status of the US’s major non-NATO ally would improve this self-defense capability?
“We provide a lot of security assistance.”
But this status implies more military aid and assistance to US’s major non-NATO ally…
“Why don’t we focus on what we are doing right now? (Laughing.) The United States has been very generous to a very strong and capable partner in Ukraine. We see, whether it’s in actions on the ground or the evaluations of our military colleagues, that Ukraine can make very good use of that support.”
As we know, the attempts to resolve the crises in the Donbas, in fact, to stop Russian aggression, started out as the Geneva format with participation of Ukraine, Russia, the EU, and the US, but afterwards, due to unknown reasons, the Normandy format was created which gave birth to Minsk-2. But anyway, we are not seeing any progress in implementation of that agreement. How can you comment on this?
“Right now, there are two diplomatic processes – the OSCE-Minsk process and the Normandy Four process. The US is trying to be as supportive and as active as possible to move those, to provide support, in the first instance to Ukraine, as well as our diplomatic partners – France and Germany – to move forward towards diplomatic resolution of this crisis. We don’t see a military conclusion, so that means that we really need to double down on diplomatic efforts and we are trying to do that.”
“WE ENCOURAGE MOVING TOWARDS AN AGREEMENT ON THE ‘ROAD MAP’”
But the latest Normandy format meeting of foreign ministers in Minsk did not achieve any success. The Ukrainian-proposed “road map” of the implementation sequence for Minsk-2 was not signed. Maybe, it is time for the US to join this format to make real progress? Because even President Alexander Lukashenko said recently that without the US, there was no hope of resolving the conflict in the Donbas.
“As I said, the diplomatic process is as outlined and we are very active in terms of supporting. We have constant consultations and are active in trying to provide support to the parties in the negotiations. We think it is really important, because sometimes it’s forgotten that right here in Ukraine, in Donbas, there are people who are fighting and dying, maybe, not everyday, certainly every week, and there are hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people, there are people that remain in the non-government controlled area that are living in appalling circumstances. So, the stakes are very high for these negotiations to be successful. We want to do whatever we can to assist in that process. That includes, obviously on the diplomatic negotiating front, we want to help parties, but we are also active, as are many other international actors and organizations, on humanitarian side. Because especially now, that winter has set in, it is really critical.”
As Russia does not meet its obligations under Minsk-2, maybe it is time to strengthen the sanctions? Or how, in your opinion, can Moscow be forced to meet its obligations?
“As I mentioned before, we are very supportive of the parties to negotiations. That includes Russia that we have discussions with on how Russia can meet its obligations under the Minsk Agreement and certainly we encourage moving towards an agreement on the ‘road map.’ We think that is really very important sequencing how steps are going forward.
“Also, in terms of the ceasefire – actually making the ceasefire real rather than just on paper. There is a key issue of disengagement in four areas. In Stanytsa Luhanska we see constant breaking of the ceasefire, and that of course impedes the actual disengagement. I know that disengagement is viewed by some in Ukraine as very controversial – we see it as a positive step because it allows forces to pull back so the likelihood of breaking ceasefire is less. And we would like to see those disengagements in four spots actually implemented.
“We also think, for example, in Zolote, where the separatists are not allowing the opening of that bridge to the vehicular access, to have that access is really very important, because we are talking about real people who have real needs to go back and forth across that line of contact. Ukrainians don’t have things left to do – it’s incumbent upon Russian-controlled separatists to do what they need to do.
Why not put more pressure on Russia so that it makes the separatists to do that?
“In our discussions, that is the essence of the sorts of conversations that we have.
“I would also add – to remind, since we’ve talked about this before – clearly, the sanctions play a role as well. We have periodic sanctions maintenance packages to strengthen and expand the sanctions. The most recent ones were within the last month. And they have effect.”
“UKRAINE IS A HUGE COUNTRY, HUGE EDUCATED POPULATION”
Ms. Ambassador, in your 2002 interview for Den, you expressed hope that in the next 10 years Ukraine would be moving to strengthen its economy, passing necessary legislation for American investors to be sure that should they meet some problems here, they would be fairly resolved by the Ukrainian judiciary. How do you think, why has your prediction not come true in Ukraine? Why do not we see the world’s biggest company Apple in this country?
“First of all, I think that progress has been made, particularly in the past three years. The business climate is key to attracting foreign investment, but also, I would argue that this is necessary for all investment, most importantly, Ukrainian investment, so that when there is a successful business here that it expands and continues to reinvest in the Ukrainian economy rather than off-shoring their wealth. I think we have seen some progress over the past few years. But clearly, when we look at what is necessary for the economy to really boom, the issue of corruption needs to be tackled in a really serious way. The business environment to include fixing the tax structures, so that companies get their VAT reimbursement in a timely basis – we are talking about millions and millions of hryvnia every month; companies are counting on this to move their payrolls and so forth; if they can’t count on it, they can’t really expand their businesses. The issues with customs are well-known and need to be tackled – I think Prime Minister is ready to do that.
“Thirdly in this basket of issues is intellectual property rights. So, a company like Apple or Microsoft – everything that they’ve got is really between their ears – they want to make sure that if they put new ideas and new products out there – new computers, new software – that it is not going to be copied and kind of illegally distributed. So, Ukraine needs to strengthen its intellectual property rights laws and regime. That is absolutely critical.
“The other big basket of issues is infrastructure. Ukraine is a huge country, huge educated population; a Ukrainian can be a smart, savvy employee in Ukrainian or American businesses. But there is also big market. So you need roads that get from point A to point B, that can speed trucks and cars and everything along the way. You need bridges, you need railroad trucks that work, and the actual railroad cars. For example, with agriculture, and especially grain, there is a deficit in the number of railroad cars. We have American companies that are interested in participating in this. So, it requires the Ukrainian partners to step up and agree.”
So, will you advise American companies to come here or wait a bit more?
“I am very optimistic about Ukraine’s future. We tell American companies, as I’ve said right now, that this is a huge country, with big market, with great educated workforce, and a lot of capabilities – Ukraine’s own software sector is booming – there are a lot of things that are attractive about Ukraine. But we also note that they need to do their due diligence – they need to talk with Ukrainian partners, they need to talk with American companies that are here in place, they need to look at the tax, the customs, and other issues that are here and that impede investment in Ukraine. But we think that there are great possibilities here. We want to see more American companies and more American investment here.”
“THE ESSENTIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT HAS CHANGED”
Ms. Ambassador, you have missed two revolutions which happened while you were absent here. (Smiling.) Some experts call Ukraine a champion of revolution. How do you think, why did two revolutions happen here over such a short period of time?
“When I was here – I left in 2004, as you know, before the [Orange] Revolution, in July – the Ukrainian people, I think, wanted a government that is transparent, a government that is accountable, that would provide services for the people – we have this saying in the United States found in our Declaration of Independence, ‘the government by and for the people,’ – but maybe many didn’t think it was possible. It took a trigger, the elections, for the Ukrainian people to demand that. Fast forward to 2016, what I see now is that the essential relationship between the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government has changed. Whereas before not many people would expect that, now they do expect transparency, accountability, and results. And they are willing to work for it. That’s hugely important. Because that is how you move reform, how you move change, how you move your nation forward.”
Your predecessor Ambassador Pyatt said that the police reform was the most successful one in Ukraine. Have you seen other examples of successful reforms in Ukraine?
“Yes. We see all kinds of reforms. For example, with regard to anti-corruption, there are three new anti-corruption structures that have been established – NABU, SAPO, and NAPC. I think all of them need to be reinforced, they are new organizations, but nevertheless we are seeing results. We’ve seen that NABU is able to do some pretty interesting investigations. SAPO has been able to bring a number of cases to court and gotten some results. NAPC was able to shepherd the filling out of the e-declaration statements and clearly that was really important. But all of them need additional resources to really be able to work to their full capacity and they need to be independent from any kind of political decision-making. With NABU, it’s important that they have independent wiretapping authority. For all three, it’s important that there is a special anti-corruption court. Because if you have a vetted group of individuals that does investigations and is free of political input, if you have a prosecutor that is independent and courageous, but you still have the same court system, you can have the same results. So, that’s why it’s important to have a special court or chamber that deals only with anti-corruption issues. And with NAPC, we are now moving to the even more important phase which is phase two where there is a review of declarations, where if necessary they would be referred on for investigation, prosecution. And it is important that individuals be held accountable if they have ill-gotten gains, if they have stolen from the state or from the Ukrainian people. Whether that was done in a private capacity as a business person, or whether it was done in a capacity of a public servant. It is important to hold people accountable and I think that is what the Ukrainian people expect.”
What impressed you most about that e-declaration story?
“I think the most important thing was the fact that over a hundred thousand public servants actually filled out a very detailed e-declaration statement and filed it electronically, so that the Ukrainian people, journalists, others could actually see what their assets are. So journalists such as yourself or civil society watchdogs who are watching this can see whether there is conflict of interests. But it’s also in the first place available to law-enforcement organizations and of course they are now doing their review. It is really important step forward for Ukraine.”
Don’t you think that e-declarations should be filled out by founders of oligarch-clan systems as well, who amassed great wealth in the previous period?
“I think the e-declaration system has to do with government workers, public servants, and an issue of conflict of interests and transparency within the government sphere. What you are talking about I think in many countries is handled through the taxation system. So, in the United States, for example, everybody has to fill out a tax statement. It is a voluntary system, nobody comes to you and says you must do this. But it is an obligation by law, and people take it seriously, and there are penalties if you do not do it and if you do not pay your taxes. So, people fill out every year, April 15 – we dread the day – you fill out your tax return and you pay your taxes. That is the way that people are held accountable in non-governmental sphere.
Ms. Ambassador, you spoke about accountability. What, then, can you say about the Gongadze case, where even today, we see that those who ordered the killing of journalist in 2000 have not been prosecuted? Don’t you think that the public should be properly informed who was behind this killing, and they should be brought to justice?
“Of course, it is important. I mean whenever anybody is killed – and obviously this was especially tragic case – there needs to be full accountability, there needs to be investigation and those who are guilty of the crime need to be held accountable, need to be prosecuted and they need to go to jail.
“Obviously, this has been a terrible thing for family, but also more broadly because it is such a high-profile case of investigative journalist who was doing brave work. And so there is political aspect as well. If it’s still possible, it’s important for the Ukrainian government to bring those who committed this crime to justice, to hold them accountable. There are other incidents and crimes out there – killing of Pavel Sheremet this summer. I know that there is an ongoing investigation. I know that the National Bureau of Investigation is working very hard on it. I think it is important to bring that case to conclusion as well. Then there are other issues as well, such as the firebombing of Inter, cases of intimidation of journalists. The environment here for the media is very different than it was in 2004 when I left and much, much better. But there is room for improvement. And this is something that, in a democracy, needs to be taken very seriously.”
Can you comment on the statement made by MP Oleksandr Onyshchenko who said he had provided to the American justice system some documents which incriminate Petro Poroshenko of corruption?
“We have seen these reports as well and I have to refer you to Department of Justice. Generally, we in United States do not comment on any kind of law-enforcement matters. As a matter of law, we can’t discuss visa issuances. We can’t discuss denials of visas. And we can’t discuss visa revocations. I’d also just add that you as a journalist, whenever you are looking at a story – obviously, all of this information has been put out by one individual. We have a saying in the United States: ‘consider the source.’”
ON THE CLOSED FORUM “THE REFORM F_CKUP NIGHT” AND VIRTUAL TRIAL OF YANUKOVYCH
Ms. Ambassador, you mentioned the need for transparency in Ukraine’s reform process. I was told that you took part in “The Reform F_ckUp Night” event which was a closed forum. Don’t you think that discussions of this kind, especially when dealing with reforms, should be open to the public and journalists as well?
“I think there were journalists present.”
But they were not registered as journalists…
“This was what I saw. There were about 500-600 people. It was actually a very positive event. I wasn’t quite sure what it was going to be. But I think it was a group of people committed to reform, committed Ukrainian patriots. And they wanted to review, where is Ukraine after three years, what are the lessons that have been learned about what works, what doesn’t work, and how we can keep on pushing forward to implement the kind of reforms that the Ukrainian people are demanding. How can we do better, and how can we attract more people to come into government, because government service is hard and you have to work with many organizations, many different people. It is not like I am going to say: OK, I am going to do this and tomorrow it is done. You have to gain consensus, you have to move things forward through parliament, through bureaucracy. So, people can get tired. It was people coming together, celebrating some of the accomplishments, but also looking to see how we can do better. As I said, there were a lot of people there, it was filmed certainly and I think a lot of it is on YouTube. So, it’s hard to say that it was completely closed. Just because a meeting is by invitation, in this case, it does not necessarily mean that there is no transparency. I think we all understand whether it is in business, whether it is in government or whether it is in civil society, there are going to be some events that are going to be organized in a different way. And this was one of them. I was not sure what to expect but I actually think it was a very positive event.”
What do you think about the virtual [in absentia] trial of former president Viktor Yanukovych?
“I think the most important thing is that this process in the end deliver justice to those who died, to the families of the Heavenly Hundred, and the Ukrainian people. It is important for the families, but also to the Ukrainian people, to know what happened, to get the facts. And to bring those who are responsible to justice.”
“I HOPE THAT THE BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UKRAINIAN PEOPLE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS STRENGTHENED”
Can you tell us about your priorities for your term in Ukraine, or in other words, what do you plan to achieve during your mission in our country?
“First of all, I hope that while I am here, the bilateral relationship between Ukraine and the United States, between the Ukrainian people and the American people, is strengthened – it’s strong now, I hope that when I leave I can say that I helped make it a little bit stronger. And the way to do that is to help Ukraine with its internal reform process. Ukrainian people, as you pointed out, have twice said they want a different kind of Ukraine. They want a Ukraine that is a part of Europe, that is a democracy, that is a market economy, prosperous, and they want a country where there is rule of law, where everybody is treated equally and you are held accountable – given credit for what you do right but held accountable for where things have not gone well. Across the board, we are trying to help Ukraine in its internal reform process, whether it is in terms of the justice system – on Monday we will be kicking off the second part of a very comprehensive justice reform program where we’re partnering with key stakeholders in moving the court system forward – so, the justice sector; anti-corruption really key across the board; also in terms of key economic reforms, in terms of banking sector, in terms of privatization efforts, and so forth. And of course there are political issues as well – electoral reform law and other things. It is really important to help Ukrainian stakeholders come to consensus on moving these processes forward. That’s one very important area.
“Second very important area, of course, is supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. And I think we covered that very comprehensively in terms of the support package that we have provided and continue to provide to Ukraine. This is a key priority of ours. And I think that between those two areas, we have a full and robust relationship not only with Ukrainian government stakeholders but with civil society and press and other areas as well. It is really important to Ukraine, but also to the United States, that Ukraine succeed, because if Ukraine is a prosperous democracy with rule of law that has control of its own borders, first and foremost that is important for the Ukrainian people, but also it’s a country that would be a strong partner for the United States. That is why it is in our interest as well. Obviously, we are doing everything we can to pursue these two goals.”
On coming to Kyiv, Ambassador Pyatt promised to learn Ukrainian but ultimately did not succeed, because, as he said, it was a very difficult time. What about you, will you study Ukrainian?
“I have been trying to learn a little bit of Ukrainian – so far, not super successfully. But I will keep on trying. But do not put it down as a promise.”
