Results of President Petro Poroshenko’s one-day visit to Washington prompted very cautious comments in Ukraine. Most experts’ opinions were along these lines: “We saw a lot of applause, but little concrete help, in particular no lethal weapons which are needed by the Ukrainian army to resist Russian aggression.” Meanwhile, how the results of the visit are assessed in the US, since it was really full of meetings, negotiations and addresses, including one to the Joint Session of Congress, which is a great honor for any foreign leader? This question was the starting point of our conversation with US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, who witnessed all of the above events first-hand and promised Den to tell it all back in mid-September.
We took advantage of this opportunity to present him with photo album People of the Maidan. A Chronicle, fresh from the press, and English-language version of the book Ukraine Incognita. TOP 25. These are two latest “fruits” that have “matured” on Den’s projects’ tree, which the ambassador saw last summer at the editor-in-chief’s cabinet while visiting our office as a lecturer for the Summer School of Journalism.
“To begin with, I thought it was a very successful visit. It was very impressive to see a Ukrainian president who could handle himself so well, whether in the Oval Office, at the Atlantic Council, in the Joint Session of Congress, the most visible platform that our country can provide, with Wolf Blitzer. If there is one message that came through louder than any other in President Obama’s private meeting with President Poroshenko, it is that the United States is committed to the success of Ukraine, the success of Ukraine’s democrats, and the success of the Poroshenko administration. He had an exceptionally long amount of time, because he had an hour-long breakfast with Secretary of State Kerry, then he had the Joint Session of Congress followed by a reception with our congressional leaders. Then he had a long lunch at the private residence of Vice President Biden, then he had a long private meeting with President Obama, then their press comments. Then his appearance on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, his visit to the Shevchenko Memorial, and his very-well received speech at the Atlantic Council, which was attended, among others, by two former National Security Advisors: General Scowcroft and Mr. Hadley, by Senator Menendez, and by John Huntsman, former Trade Representative, former Governor, former presidential candidate. So, he saw everybody in what was essentially a 24-hour marathon. But the one message, as I said, was support of the United States for his success.
“On the question of security and security assistance, it is very important to understand how much new we announced. President Obama conveyed to President Poroshenko that we are increasing our security sector assistance to Ukraine by 46 million dollars. Before, it was 70 million. And before the crisis, it was less than 10 million. So, we have increased our total amount of assistance by something like 15 times, which is a huge increase. President Obama conveyed that we would use this additional assistance to add new programs, including providing Ukraine with counter-mortar radar systems, these are radar systems to help the Ukrainian forces defend themselves against indirect fire from Russians and from the separatists; a new program for military advice to the Ukrainian security establishment; a new program for advice and technical assistance on combat medicine, to help the Ukrainian forces deal more effectively with their injured personnel – this is something I have been discussing with Dr. Bohomolets over the past few weeks, I am very pleased that is moving ahead. So, you have several new initiatives aside from continuing what we are already doing in terms of providing armored vehicles, night vision systems, counter-EOD disposal systems, medical assistance. So, we are providing a very large volume of security assistance intended to help Ukraine defend itself.
Photo by Mykola TYMCHENKO, The Day
“I thought President Poroshenko put it very well at the Atlantic Council, I re-tweeted the statement that came out from there, which was ‘Security assistance to Ukraine is not about winning the current war, it is about helping Ukraine to prevent a future war, to defend itself,’ which is something we wish to do. It came through very clearly in President Poroshenko’s remarks in Congress, at the White House, and publicly, that he is totally committed to his peace process, he is committed to the success of his peace process. We underlined our support for that success, it was very important that the visit happened after the Rada had approved these two implementing laws: the special status law for parts of Donbas and the amnesty law. At this point, it is the view of the United States, that if you look at the 12-point peace agreement, President Poroshenko has done everything possible to fulfill that agreement. Russia has not done everything possible; Russia has not restored Ukrainian control over the border, Russia has not completed the removal of all forces, all heavy equipment, and all mercenaries from Ukrainian territory. Russia has not released all political prisoners and detainees whom they are holding as a result of this conflict. So, at this point, in terms of sustaining this peace process, our focus is on Russia and the actions that Russia needs to take and that Russia’s proxies among the separatists need to take.”
But even Senator-Democrat Menendez and another one, McCain, are demanding that the United States give Ukraine lethal weapons. What is the problem?
“I think especially having spent some time in Washington D.C., we have what we call in Washington an ‘inside the Beltway’ debate – these are discussions that are more about politics than they are about practicalities. As a practical matter, as we have said on many occasions, there is no military solution to this conflict. But we believe that Ukraine needs to be able to defend itself, and we will support that. We are providing substantial security sector assistance in order to help Ukraine defend itself. And whether you call that assistance lethal or non-lethal, for me it is largely an issue that I will leave to Washington, because the important thing for me is that we are helping Ukraine and Ukrainian security services to defend your sovereign territory. And we are doing so jointly with our European partners. All of the NATO countries are now providing assistance to Ukraine. We have encouraged all of the NATO countries to provide security assistance to Ukraine. So, we are going to do this directly with our European partners, but we are going to continue to support President Poroshenko’s peace plan and support the desire of the Ukrainian people to define their own future.”
What is the problem with passing this Ukraine Freedom Support Act, because even on the day Poroshenko was in Congress, the Senate Committee has passed it?
“I think what you saw in that decision by the Senate, and it was a unanimous decision by the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And again, I would emphasize, especially at this moment, just before a very hard-fought congressional vote in the United States and election in the United States for our Congress, which will happen in November, it is very significant that you have Republicans and Democrats coming together to support Ukraine. It was extraordinary to be inside the House chamber for the speech to the Joint Session. I know you watched it on television, but to be there in person, to hear the applause, to see the strength of support for Ukraine, for the Ukrainian people, it was quite remarkable. So, we welcome this congressional engagement ultimately, whether a resolution like the one that the Senate has voted gets passed into law or not, is almost immaterial, because clearly the signal is one of support for Ukraine, support for President Poroshenko, support for the peace plan, support for the Ukrainian people.”
It is considered that thanks to this Act, Ukraine can become a major non-NATO ally of the United States, and receive such kind of aid as Israel, Egypt, and other allies receive?
“As President Poroshenko said in his TV interview here in Kyiv on Sunday, Ukraine is already at the highest level of any country which is not a member of NATO in terms of our cooperation. We are going to do more. It was very good that we had Rapid Trident happening in Yavoriv the same time that President Poroshenko was at Congress. We are going to continue to engage in these activities. We have, again, these advisory teams, which will be coming to Ukraine very soon, are intended to help Ukrainian military to modernize, to develop modern procedures, to professionalize, and to more effectively defend your territory.”
One of Ukrainian experts commented on the results of Poroshenko’s visit and negotiations in a following way: “Washington should understand that to stop Russian aggression only by diplomatic means is impossible.” What do you think about this opinion?
“Again, the conflict has to be ended through diplomacy. You have heard me say before, Ukraine can change many things, but it cannot change its geography. Russia is your neighbor. Our view is that the best way for Ukraine to defend itself, the best answer to Putin’s aggression is continue progress on economic reform, progress on anti-corruption, progress on creating an environment that would be attractive for new investment. It is important also that aside from his public program, President Poroshenko was also able to meet with our Secretary of Energy, Dr. Moniz. They had a very good discussion about our support for Ukraine’s energy security. We now have a team here in Kyiv, which is working with Minister Prodan, with the Deputy Prime Minister Hroisman, with Naftohaz to help determine ways to secure Ukraine’s energy situation through the winter, to help strengthen your ability to resist Russian energy pressure jointly with our European partners. So, we are working on the energy piece. I was also delighted that we were able to announce the visit to Ukraine on Friday by Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker. She is the most senior Ukrainian American in the Obama Cabinet. And she will come here with a mission to identify ways and opportunities to expand trade investments between our countries. That is ultimately the key to defending against Russian aggression – a strong, economically vibrant Ukraine, anchored in European institutions. But you have to have the ability to defend yourself, and we will continue to help you develop that.”
You might have seen that there are a lot of publications in Western media, especially recent key publication by Judy Dempsey, in which she wrote that Europe has got another frozen conflict, and it is due to inaction of the West, in general, the EU and the US. What do you think?
“I don’t think this is a frozen conflict yet. But it is going to require concerted action by Europe and the United States to prevent that. And also, two essential conditions of President Poroshenko’s peace plan: the removal of all Russian forces, all Russian equipment: tanks, rockets, missiles, they all need to come out; and then second, the restoration of Ukrainian control over its international border with Russia. If those conditions are satisfied, this will not be a frozen conflict, because you won’t have Russian troops left in Ukraine the way you have today. And Ukraine will control its international borders. You won’t have so-called humanitarian convoys rolling across the border without any control or without any customs checks. So, if we succeed, if the peace plan is successful, if the peace plan is implemented, this will not be a frozen conflict. But it is going to take continued pressure on Russia, that is what we are doing this week in New York, that is what Secretary of State Kerry is committed to leading, that is why the sanctions are so important. It is not time to lift the sanctions. Until those conditions are satisfied, we should not even be talking about lifting the sanctions because the Russian actions that created this crisis remain in place.”
And Kommersant published some information that on September 30 the EU will look at those sanctions and maybe weaken them.
“I don’t think it is time. And I think again, Europe will make its own decisions. Based on the conversations I have had with European counterparts, I think people understand and agree on the conditions that I have described: full implementation of the peace plan, full reversal of Russia’s aggression and intervention in eastern Ukraine.”
Is there a deadline to see whether it happens or not? What should be done further?
“Maybe, the OSCE is in the best position to assess and validate the steps that Russia has taken. But in our view, there is no doubt that Russian intervention continues, Russian fighters remain, by definition the border has not been returned to Ukrainian control. The conditions have not been satisfied. So, we need to be clear in our rhetoric, we need to be firm in the sanctions that we have put into place. And I should add, as far as the United States is concerned, the sanctions, which were imposed in response to the earlier invasion of Crimea, are a separate topic. And those are going to remain as long as the invasion, occupation, and annexation of Crimea is a problem. I saw the same story in Kommersant. I think all of this speculation about weakening of sanctions is nothing more than that. And I think one of the things that has been key to our success over the past months has been our close coordination with Europe. The fact that Europe has moved ahead with the United States on the sanctions approach, and we hope very much that will continue to be the character of our policy.”
But looking at the whole picture, one can see that Europe is wavering, because even Oettinger said one should not touch Gazprom. On the other hand, Putin is going to G20 Summit. What can free world oppose to this “under empire of evil”?
“I will say two things. First of all, Russia today is more isolated than it has been at any point since the end of the Cold War. That isolation is going to continue as long as Putin persists in this pattern of aggressive behavior against Ukraine. I think the fact that Oettinger has said that Gazprom should not be sanctioned at this point reflects the fact that Gazprom is an important supplier of energy to Europe and an exclusive supplier of energy to several EU member states, an exclusive supplier of gas. That being said, Gazprom’s actions, including its pressure against Ukraine, the reduction in flows to Slovakia and Poland in response to the reverse flow, all of these actions encourage Europe to diversify its energy sources, to avoid depending on Russia, because Russia is not a reliable supplier, because it is allowing its energy resource to be used for political ends.”
You mentioned Putin’s isolation, but he is invited to G20, and nobody sees a pretext not to accept him.
“We want to handle these issues one day at a time. Right now, our focus is on implementation of the 12-point peace plan and the September 19 protocol to that peace plan. Russia is a signatory of those agreements. Russia has acknowledged that it is part of the problem in Ukraine. Russia now has an obligation to implement those agreements that its ambassador signed. And our energy is going to be focused on keeping up pressure and making clear to Russia that as long as they persist in their aggression against Ukraine, there will be a price to pay. And if that aggression accelerates even more, there will be a further price.”
Can you hypothetically tell what level of sanctions would that be?
“I don’t want to speculate on that, in part because I am an optimist, and I am going to hope that they actually implement the agreement that their ambassador signed.”
By the way, talking about Europe’s dependence on Russian gas. What about the Keystone XL gas pipeline in the United States? I have seen tweets by Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, saying that most Americans support this gas pipeline. What is the problem?
“Let me say a couple of things. Frankly, I haven’t kept up on the debate over Keystone. But what I can tell you is the United States has massively expanded the volume of gas, which we are exporting to international markets. That has helped to create liquidity in international markets. I don’t know if you got to see the brilliant presentation that Ambassador Pascual made at the YES conference. I don’t know if it is on video, but it is very good.
“You should see Carlos Pascual’s numbers on increased US gas exports, because it is very impressive. I will share a story with you: one of the Europeans who was at YES, came up to me after Carlos’s presentation and said: ‘Thank goodness we have Carlos Pascual here to explain European energy policy to all of us,’ because he is just very good at this and he made a very compelling presentation.”
“And he made the point that for now, most of that US-exported gas is going to Asia, because markets like Japan will pay an even higher price. But the fact is, all of this US export, the fact that the United States has moved towards energy independence and is becoming an energy exporter, helps to create buoyancy in international markets and it is good for Ukraine and other importers. We are committed to continuing to participate in international markets, we are committed to helping Ukraine to achieve energy independence, that is why, again, it is a very good sign that Secretary Moniz was able to spend time with President Poroshenko when he was in Washington. And you see how quickly we have moved to get our experts here, talking with counterparts in Kyiv.”
When will real gas come to Ukraine, or at least to Europe?
“The market is changing. Ukraine is now securing reverse flow gas from Western Europe. I saw that Ukraine has now signed a contract with Norway for gas imports. All of this is very welcome, because it creates alternatives. Ukraine is going to continue to buy gas from Russia, it needs to have a commercial relationship. But it does not want to be dependent on Russia. The key is not to cut energy ties with Russia, the key is not to be energy-dependent on Russia. And that is what we are working on with our European partners to help you achieve.”
