Recently, Senior Fellow in the Vaclav Havel Program on Human Rights and Diplomacy at Florida International University’s Green School of International and Public Affairs David Kramer visited Ukraine. This American expert, who served for eight years in the US Department of State, including as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, has a very long track record. Until recently, he served as Senior Director for Human Rights and Human Freedoms at the McCain Institute. Before this, Kramer was President of Freedom House for four years. Previously, he was Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the US. The reason for Kramer’s visit to Ukraine was the launch of his book Back to Containment: Dealing with Putin’s Regime, held with the assistance of the Open Ukraine: Arsenii Yatseniuk Foundation. Therefore, The Day began our conversation with asking why it was important for Kramer to launch the book in Ukraine.
“PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY DO NOT NEED TO BE CONVINCED OF THE RUSSIAN THREAT”
“I describe the Putin regime as an existential threat to the United States, to Russia’s neighbors and, frankly, to the Russian people. And it seems to me that people in this country do not need to be convinced of the Russian threat. I planned to do a book event in Georgia, I was supposed to have been there in September, but because of the hurricane where I live I had it canceled.
“And I will be in Vilnius in a couple of weeks to do a presentation there. But I think countries in this region understand better than anyone the threat that this regime poses. And it seemed to me that it would be a good time to come here; the book was published in August so it is still quite new.”
Do you really need to launch this book in Ukraine, in Georgia or in Lithuania, given that these nations know very well that Russia is a threat? Maybe you would do more good by donating it to Donald Trump and his team, would you?
“You mentioned you had interviewed Kurt Volker, some time ago. Well, Kurt wrote an introduction to the book. I think he and a number of members of the Trump administration understand the threat that the Putin regime poses, if you look at the comments that they made when they were before the US Senate for their confirmation hearings. Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN; Secretary Tillerson of the State Department; Secretary Mattis of the Pentagon; Mike Pompeo, director of CIA: all had very strong and critical things to say of Putin’s Russia. Vice President Pence, who was in Estonia and in Georgia in July and August, was also very clear.
“The question that you indicated is about the President, who tends to be quite soft about Putin and about Russia. But I think that if you look at the policy and the actions, the administration has been quite good. But right now there is a question about implementation of sanctions…”
“WE WILL SEE MORE CALLS FROM THE CONGRESS TO IMPLEMENT THE LAW ON SANCTIONS”
So, senators John McCain and Ben Cardin have lately raised the question of the US government failing to implement the law on sanctions against the Russian Federation...
“As you know, the Congress passed this legislation by huge majorities, and the administration is supposed to start implementing it. I think we will see more calls from the Congress to implement this legislation. So that, so far, is the one exception to the policies. But the US has helped NATO to increase its military positions in the region, Pence reaffirmed the US support for Georgia’s NATO membership which I think by implication is also the support for Ukraine’s interests in joining NATO. So, those actions and those statements, including Nikki Haley, who talked at a conference in New York about the Russian actions and interference in the US election as a kind of warfare – I think that for the most part the assessment has been accurate, and it has been good.”
Given the recent events in the US, the deep internal divide between the main parties, the growth of the white racist movement, many people are asking: what is happening with democracy in the US?
“We are going through a challenging time right now, it is no question. President Trump won the election based on the electoral college votes, the way our system works. Hillary Clinton actually got more votes overall, but that’s the way our presidents are chosen.
“He has had difficulty getting above 40 percent in the surveys that are conducted in terms of support; there have been some members of his own party who have spoken very critically. But at the same time the Democrats seem to have a lot of difficulty organizing themselves. There’s no clear candidate for the next presidential election. So, I think both parties are going through significant changes. I expect our system will remain a two-party system, I don’t expect a third party to emerge, but you never know.”
“I HOPE THAT U.S. POLICY WILL RETURN TO A BASIS THAT PROMOTES DEMOCRACY”
American political scientist Lincoln Mitchell noted in his book The Democracy Promotion Paradox that “the belief of American policymakers that they can make other countries more democratic, liberal, just – in short, more American – is founded not on experience, but on national character. The United States promotes democracy because we cannot help ourselves.” What would you say about this?
“I would disagree with his characterization of what US policy has been. We don’t try to make over countries into a democracy. We try to support local forces that try to bring about more freedom or respect for human rights. Each country will develop in its own unique way. The United States does not try to insist that other countries follow the American system. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 – I think there is no question about the damage that it caused to democracy promotion.
“Barack Obama himself, five days before he became president in January 2009, told The Washington Post ‘you cannot impose democracy through the barrel of a gun.’ And he is right. But for decades the United States has supported people’s right to choose their own leaders, free expression, free association, freedom of religion, and so what we need to support are these principles and values. Not the other countries create a model based on the US system, because our system isn’t perfect.
“As I mentioned before, we have now elected several presidents who did not win the popular vote, but they won the electoral college vote. To a lot of countries that doesn’t make a lot of sense. So our system has been around for many years, it is not perfect, and it’s not the system all countries should necessarily adopt. But there are some fundamental features of it that I think are very important. And those include separation of powers, checks and balances, free media, free press which is so important, vibrant civil society, and the ability of the people to choose their leaders to represent them.
“I think that if you look at George Bush and his freedom agenda, he believed in it passionately in his heart. But the implementation of that policy was not so great. And then Barack Obama didn’t believe in it in his heart, and as a result, the policy was also not so great in implementation. The Trump administration considered it, but has indicated it doesn’t have much interest in these issues, with a few exceptions: Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. But President Trump has sat down with President Erdogan, with President Sisi, President Putin… It seems like he is not going to visit the Philippines next month, when he goes to Asia, to meet with President Duterte, but he had a very friendly conversation with him a few months ago. There does seem to be this affinity, this fondness for strong leaders. I hope that US policy will return to a basis that promotes human rights, promotes democracy, but let countries decide what kind, in their own way.”
In your book, you write that every US president tried to have good relations with Russia, but in the end all of them failed in this. Why does it happen?
“Each president has come in thinking he can develop a good relationship with his Russian counterpart. And at the end of each administration, the situation has been worse, not better. If you look at Bill Clinton, when he came in he had a good relationship with Boris Yeltsin, but by the time Clinton left, Yeltsin’s successor was Vladimir Putin. And the disagreement about Kosovo and the bombing of Serbia in 1999 was a big source of tension. And it continued when George Bush came in. Bush, of course, famously ‘looked into Putin’s soul,’ a comment he would never leave now.
“And even as late as in April 2008, if you remember, after Bucharest and NATO summit, Bush then went to Sochi and met with both Putin and Medvedev. They issued a joint statement that tried to fix the relationship, because from that first meeting in the summer of 2001 till April 2008, the relationship was going downhill. So, in April they signed this joint statement, and in August the relations were ruined because of Russia’s invasion of Georgia.
“But then Obama comes in. And in part because the Bush administration, along with the European allies, did not impose any consequences on Russia for its invasion of Georgia, Obama came in and I think made the situation worse, by so quickly talking about a ‘reset’ with Russia, and so the invasion of Georgia just kind of got swept under the mat.
“And so we, the United States, have come across thinking, ‘We want good relations with the Russian leadership, and we know how to do it better than the previous administration.’ And so far, each time we had been wrong.”
“TRUMP WILL DISCOVER, SOONER OR LATER, THAT GOOD RELATIONS ARE NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE REGIME IN MOSCOW”
What, in your opinion, motivates Trump not to call Putin a murderer and a villain?
“You know, President Trump has said a number of times (including when he was a candidate): ‘Wouldn’t it be great if Russia and the United States got along?’ I think everyone would like that. Ukraine would like the United States and Russia to get along. Not at the expense of Ukraine. But the problem is, the regime in Moscow doesn’t want a good relationship with the United States. In a book I argue, as early as in 2004, after the tragedy in Beslan, Putin talked of other powers trying to take chunks of Russia – he was referring to the United States. Then, of course, his famous speech in Munich, in 2007. So, it started before. And Putin needed to develop this idea that the United States, and NATO, and later the EU, in Ukraine, were a threat to Russia. We are not a threat to Russia. We had wanted good relations with Russia. It would be nice if we had good relations now, but I don’t think it is possible.
“So I don’t quite understand the thinking behind President Trump comments, but I think that he will discover, sooner or later, that the kind of relationship he wants is not possible because of the regime in Moscow.”
“PUTIN REGIME IS AUTHORITARIAN, KLEPTOCRATIC, AND VERY CORRUPT“
By the way, don’t you think that when talking with Russia, it is a mistake for the West, NATO or the US to say that they aspire to have good relations with Russia, instead of clearly declaring that this subject can only be discussed in the event that the Russian regime returns into the fold of international law, gives Crimea back, and withdraws troops from the Donbas. What would you say about this?
“I agree. I’m sure people in this country will agree that, unless and until Russia respects other countries’ aspirations, their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, returns Crimea, leaves the Donbas region, then upholds human rights standards in its own country, and stops interfering in other countries’ internal affairs, we cannot talk about normal relations. I don’t see that happening as long as Mr. Putin is in power. It’s not just Putin, it’s a circle around Putin, it’s the whole regime. Because Putin could leave tomorrow, but the person who might replace him will be the same kind of element, the same kind of thinking.
“And so the Putin regime, as I argue in the book, is authoritarian, it’s kleptocratic, it’s very corrupt, and the more corrupt it becomes, the more authoritarian it becomes. Because the more it steals, the more it wants to make sure it doesn’t lose power. It becomes a vicious circle. You can’t get out unless you blow up the circle. That could lead to unpredictable consequences.”
Mr. Kramer, at the end of your book Back to Containment: Dealing with Putin’s Regime, you give advice on how to contain Russia. However, are you certain that acting on it will bring the desired result?
“I hope so. And I don’t mean to suggest it’s a perfect policy, but it seems to me that we don’t have an alternative. Engaging with the Putin regime has not succeeded for 17 years, and pretending that Russia is not in Ukraine, did not illegally annex Crimea, is not supporting proxy forces in the east would be a terrible mistake. Every day, Ukrainians are paying a price for Russian aggression, injured or killed. And we have to support Ukraine. Ukraine is the front line of defense against Russian aggression. If Ukraine is not able to succeed, we will surely face Russian aggression elsewhere, possibly in NATO states. That’s why, since 2014, I’ve supported providing Ukraine with lethal military assistance, so that Ukraine can defend itself. Ukraine has never asked for American troops to fight its battle. They do need Javelin missiles to deal with Russian tanks. Ukraine has asked for Javelin missiles, for anti-radar – this is the kind of material and equipment that Ukraine cannot use to go on the offensive and to seize back territory or to go into Russia, which is absurd. But they can prevent Russia from further advance into Ukrainian territory. And I think there is, in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, a piece on the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. We have an obligation to provide Ukraine with this kind of assistance. I think President Obama made a terrible mistake in not supporting Ukraine in this respect.
“I do think it’s important that people wake up to the threat that the Putin regime poses. Look at Nord Stream 2. Nord Stream 2 is a terrible idea, commercially it makes no sense, and yet Germany seems to be mindlessly moving ahead with this deal. Nord Stream 2 should be ended, terminated. It would create huge problems for Ukraine, deprive Ukraine of much-needed financial support from the transit fees, so I think we need to put some additional pressure on it.”
“WE SHOULD NOT JUST MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SANCTIONS, BUT IMPOSE EVEN TOUGHER ONES“
We have to hope that we will succeed...
“Indeed. I remember earlier in my career, when I worked at the State Department, ‘hope is not policy’ (laughs).”
What are we to do, then?
“We need tougher sanctions. We should not just maintain the existing sanctions, but impose even tougher ones to let Russia know that each time it does not comply with its commitments, it will pay a price. We need support for Ukraine to succeed, support for democratic forces in Russia, to not give up on Russia itself. Increase energy exports, which the Trump administration is doing, so that is a positive, and making sure that we stay by our principles and our values. And trying to expose Russia’s abuses, including in the information sphere, when they happen.”
