On Obama’s limitations and the Concert of Nations

Recently, the US’ attention has been focused on the situation in the Middle East, and everyone has been watching and commenting immediately on the American president’s statements concerning this issue. Ukrainians were surprised by a statement made by the US President Barack Obama, who said that “from geopolitical point of view, evens that unfold in Ukraine, do not pose as a great threat for us.” Some Central and Eastern European observers even wrote in Twitter on this occasion that they started a countdown until Obama’s days are over. This was the first question in an interview with director of Center for Eurasian, Russian, and East European Studies, professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University Angela STENT.

“I think that in the United States, it has always been a question to explain why what is happening in Ukraine is important. So obviously, it is because of Russia violating international law, invading another country. But I think now for the US first of all, we have the big problem with ISIS, with Islamic terrorists. Even then, I think Obama came into office saying that he was going to pull America back from all of these wars. And you know, we got out of Iraq, now we have to go back there again in some forms. So I think it has been hard for him to explain. And then I think he has made it clear that whatever is happening in Ukraine and whatever Russia is doing, we are not going to go to war with Russia. There is no military solution, and that is why the American government has been reluctant even to give lethal assistance to the Ukrainian army. I think he is using that too as a way to also justifying that there is a limit to what the United States is going to do in this particular conflict with Russia. We have just imposed more sanctions. I think there will be more of them if the situation deteriorates.”

The International New York Times has given an analysis of the latest round of sanctions, it is stated they are starting to have an effect. Do you believe this?

“Sberbank is really important, because that was the one bank that so far we did not sanction, because it is probably the most important, but once you sanction that, it really affects Russia’s ability to raise loans, to borrow any kind of money. Those are pretty far-reaching financial sanctions. And then the other thing is, Exxon Mobile had this big deal with Rosneft in the Arctic, it was signed in 2011. And at that point it was supposed to be the new reset. And now, as I understand that the Exxon Mobile deal is probably finished, because there can be no US technology used in exploring the Arctic. And Rosneft is already in financial trouble, it is borrowing money from the Russian government. Now you see, the Russian government was supported by that from the US side, that is a pretty significant sanction.”

But support from the US side could increase greatly if a status of a major non-NATO ally was given to Ukraine. Why has this not been done yet?

“President Poroshenko was going to the US. It is a very big deal that he is addressing the Joint House of Congress, because the Congress was supposed to go in recess, on vacation, in preparation, because we have elections in November. So, they postponed that. I do not know whether there will be a discussion of that, I am not sure they will actually get it this week when he is there. But there is obviously a discussion. My understanding is that this is something that takes time, and maybe you have to get the White House on board with it, obviously it is the Congress, they have to all be agreed on that. So, the question would be: what does it involve for the United States? Although, you know, in the 1990s, Ukraine was the third largest recipient of the US aid, after Israel and Egypt. They could go back to doing that. Probably, it will come, but I am not sure it is going to happen this week.”

What feedback will Ukraine receive from Poroshenko’s speech at the Congress, except for symbolic meaning?

“I think there will be more economic assistance forthcoming. We had at this conference people concerned about what is going to happen in the elections and hopefully, we will continue on this course. I suppose, there are also discussions about what is going to happen, how you can have a settlement that works in this ceasefire, and peace talk. I am sure he will get economic assistance, I     do not know whether he will get the major non-allied status yet, but I would think the main thing would be the economic support.”

By the way, usually an approach when all options are on the table, including military force, is often used in the US foreign policy. Why is Obama afraid to apply a similar approach to the situation in Ukraine, which is a victim of Russia’s aggression?

“I think it is partly not wanting to make commitments, the US is not ready to make. Again, now, with everything that is happening in Ukraine, the American people got more involved. But when this all started, for most Americans this was a far-off problem, and they do not want to send soldiers there, they are fed up with being involved in wars. And then it is also the question of making sure that even though the US-Russia relationship is obviously very bad at the moment, it is making sure that this does not make it any worse. So, that it is always a factor, and we are calculating it, too.”

But this issue must be viewed in strategic dimension, what impact free democratic Ukraine would have on our northern neighbor.

“Hopefully, it would have a very good impact on Russia. I think people understand that this is about exactly Ukraine’s freedom to choose, its freedom to develop a democracy and not be dominated by Russia, and also to get Russia to understand that it cannot go round violating other country’s sovereignty like that.”

What can the US and the EU do to stop Russia’s aggression in eastern Ukraine and make Putin free Crimea?

“I think there could be more sanctions. Unfortunately, the sanctions so far did not stop Putin doing what he is doing. There is a limit to what can be done, that’s a problem. We had discussions here in this conference, maybe the US should have done something in the beginning more militarily, but it is not going to come. The Europeans are more concerned about sitting down and trying to talk to Putin. In the US case, I do not think we are trying to do that very much, because I do not think Putin wants to talk to anyone. Probably, it is the same policy: defending Ukraine, making sure the Russians understand that the guarantees to our NATO allies are there, but also providing what they call off-ramp if Mr. Putin was somehow interested in having discussions.”

Do you share an opinion of some politicians who think that Putin can only be stopped by stopping the flow of money to Russia?

“If you talk about the SWIFT system, my understanding is that it could be the next thing. I actually thought this week that they might already do the SWIFT system, but I think that will be the next thing. I     mean, if the ceasefire does not hold, if things get worse, they could do that, get the Europeans to agree to that – you have to have the agreement – but they could stop it.”

One of the Potsdam conference sponsors Lord Weidenfeld thinks that the Ukrainian crisis should be settled in the spirit of the Concert of Nations and Berlin Congress, and even offers to invite Russian and foreign experts to discuss this topic next year. What is your opinion on this?

“The Concert of Nations? (Laughing.) That is what the Russians would love. I think Mr. Putin’s idea is to go back to the concert of powers even in the 19th century, because then you get to the things when the big powers do deals over the heads of the smaller powers. On the other hand, I do think that if this crisis ends, and that is not in the near term, in the end everyone, all Europeans, obviously, including Ukrainians, and the Central Europeans, the US, the Russians, everybody will have to sit down and maybe go back to whatever Helsinki was and then rethink that again. One of the reasons this crisis broke out is that the Russians felt they had to stake in this Euro-Atlantic security architecture. You probably do have to sit down, all the countries with Russia, and go back to discussing it again, but it is not a concert of powers, that would be a very bad idea. We live in a world where all the smaller countries should have self-determination too. Ultimately, otherwise you will live in this constant gray zone about what is the next thing that Russia is going to do?”

You have been to YES conference once already in 2008. Do you think this forum has right to exist, considering that during the 11th year the organizers became homeless strategists, because they could not foresee such turn of events and prevent it?

“(Laughing.) I think for foreigners it was very interesting to hear the debates. Also, we understood, we heard the differences between what President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatseniuk said. Understanding that going forward into the elections, this is going to be very difficult, they are not supporting each other. We had some representatives from other parties there, that was interesting. And then I think everyone talked about how serious the situation is, but nobody has any recipe, really, about how you deal properly with Russia. We are all struggling with that, but nobody could come up with a really good recipe about how to deal with that. It is understanding how complex it is, obviously being very impressed by the will of so many Ukrainian participants, they want something better, they want something different. The other thing that was clear from the conference is when we discussed the corruption issues here and all those things – that Ukraine itself had six months now, where of course it has been fighting a war, but really nothing has been done to deal with economic reforms, the corruption, the institution building. So, there is understanding that this is very urgent and that the Ukrainian people and the politicians have to be willing to do this. What was also interesting, was that many of the Ukrainian participants made the link between the war with Russia and the failure to start reforming here, and those things are in fact all linked together and it has to be done.”

What do you think about the role of Kuchma’s family, which involves the Gongadze case and creation of a clan oligarchic system?

“(Laughing.) It is an interesting question, because everybody talked about the major problem here – the role of money and oligarchs. But it is also interesting that Mr. Pinchuk, and oddly his father-in-law, through this conference is trying to promote Ukraine’s integration into Europe, so eventually, these issues have to be dealt with.”

But nobody has been punished for the crimes of the 1990s, including the masterminds behind the Gongadze murder.

“We had some Ukrainians talking about that on the panels too. That is the domestic paradox, because it has not been resolved.”

Having been here in 2008, do you see the difference or any trends in Ukraine?

“Obviously, it is very different in the sense that you had another revolution here. Last night I would just walk out and go back there and see things in Maidan. We talked about the reason you have Maidans in Ukraine, it is because you also have a political system where it is harder for the people to express their opposition to things and to redress their grievances through the system, and therefore they have to take to the street, and so you see again the spirit of the people doing that. But I suppose being in Kyiv, you see one part: it is beautiful weather, the square is cleared now, but people are very determined, but obviously you know there is a war going on in the other part of the country, but you don’t see that part of it. But I think hopefully, there is another generation here (10 years after the Orange Revolution), who maybe will make sure that things change now under very difficult circumstances.”