“There are two large problems for Ukraine”

Former ambassador of the United States to Ukraine, member of the Atlantic Council John HERBST visits Ukraine quite often. Despite his packed agenda and numerous meetings with Ukrainian politicians and government officials, Herbst found time to talk to The Day and told what he – and the organization he works for – are engaged in.

“The Atlantic Council has a program called ‘Ukraine in Europe Initiative,’ and this program was designed to help Ukraine choose its own future, to move decisively towards political and economic reforms, to deal with issues like corruption, that’s one. And two, to help Ukraine withstand the aggression that Mr. Putin has unleashed in the country.

“So, we have come to Ukraine to meet with the leadership, to meet with civil society, businessmen, journalists, to find out what’s happening here, and to offer our ideas as to how Ukraine could do reform, how Ukraine could best fight the Kremlin’s aggression. Then we take the ideas we hear in Kyiv and we talk about them in Washington. And we suggest policies Washington can pursue to help Ukraine become a democratic society with a market economy that can defend its own borders. And we also travel to Europe, to Berlin, and to Brussels to meet with German officials, officials of the EU and NATO, as well as to London, to meet with British officials, to suggest what Europe might do to support Ukraine. And that’s why Adrian Karatnytsky and I come to Kyiv at least every three months, but actually, more often than that.”

Did you meet Poroshenko?

“Well, unfortunately, we have not met with the president here in Kyiv, we met with him when he came to Washington in September. We’ve met twice with Prime Minister Yatseniuk, we’ve met with people around the president, Mr. Chaly, we met with many ministers, Mr. Klimkin in particular, we’ve met with the heads of the National Defense and Security Council, with the deputy minister of defense. We have also had many meetings with businessmen and people in the Verkhovna Rada.”

It would be interesting to hear from you what their requests or proposals were.

“We took our first trip here at the end of June, and I remember we heard in the president’s office, in the Ministry of Defense their request for weapons from the United States. And we at the Atlantic Council think this is very important. In fact, I’ve written publicly about it, that the United States should provide weapons, going back to the spring. We’ve also heard about the needs for Western economic support to help deal with the budget crisis Ukraine is facing. So, these are the types of large requests we hear in Ukraine and we take back not just to Washington, but to capitals in Western Europe. At the same time, we offer some advice here as to how Ukraine could deal with these problems.”

“THERE HAS BEEN A GREAT DEAL OF TALK ABOUT REFORM AND VERY LITTLE ACTION”

What do you think are the most important problems for Ukraine today?

“It’s still these two very large problems: the problem of the aggression of the Kremlin, and the problem of reform. In my opinion, Ukraine has done some impressive things in dealing with Mr. Putin’s aggression. There is no question that if Russian regular troops had not been sent in to Ukraine in August, Ukrainian army, militias, police, and the SBU would have crushed the covert war that the Kremlin was sponsoring in the east. Only the introduction of regular Russian troops prevented that. And the fact that regular Russian troops still are in Ukraine, is a source of the turmoil. But the fact is that Mr. Poroshenko has demonstrated his ability to rally the country, to deal with Russian aggression. I think that President Poroshenko has also sought to achieve a peaceful solution, which the Russian side has not really been interested in until, perhaps, the latest ceasefire.

“But then, there is a whole question of reform, and I think that the record of Mr. Poroshenko and Mr. Yatseniuk in the reform area is much weaker. I think there has been a great deal of talk about reform and very little action. And that’s unfortunate, because true reform, a serious effort to deal with corruption, for example, is essential for Ukraine to succeed.”

“THE WEST IS READY TO PROVIDE SERIOUS FINANCIAL HELP”

What is your attitude to the talk about Ukraine’s likely default and what is the US prepared to do to forestall this?

“There is no question Ukraine has a fiscal crisis. The extent of this fiscal crisis is at least 12 billion dollars, and it could be the 15, which the IMF is talking about, or perhaps even more. We talked to senior officials in Western Europe and Washington, and our impression is that the West is ready to provide major financing, but only if Ukraine undertakes serious reform. So, it’s very important for the positive words that Prime Minister Yatseniuk uttered in the Verkhovna Rada lead to serious efforts to address corruption, to address the murky dealings in the judiciary, in the Prosecutor General’s Office, the problem of corrupt ministries, the dysfunctional gas pricing and tax systems. All of these things need to be addressed in a systematic and transparent way. And I believe if Mr.       Poroshenko, Mr. Yatseniuk, and their ministers do this, the West will be happy to provide serious financial help.”

As far as Donbas settlement is concerned, the West is traditionally saying that a diplomatic solution is the only option, and Jens Stoltenberg emphasized this again today [the interview was recorded on December 15. – Author] at a press conference with Yatseniuk in the NATO headquarters. But Russia is not observing the Minsk Accords. So, should a diplomatic solution remain the only option?

“I think it’s true that for this year, and maybe for next year, there is no military solution to this crisis. There is no question that Russia’s army, air force, and navy are much stronger than Ukraine’s army, air force, and navy. So, if Mr. Putin wants to extend his aggression further into Ukraine, he will be able to  do that. But I don’t think that if Putin extends his aggression in Ukraine, he’ll be able to hold these areas. I think there will be a serious partisan war conducted by Ukrainians, and that Russia cannot win this war. The Russian people do not want their soldiers fighting in Ukraine. And Mr. Putin is lying to his people, he says regular Russian soldiers are not in Ukraine. There are weaknesses in the Kremlin’s position. He cannot afford a year or two of major fighting in Ukraine. That’s why it’s important that the West provide arms to Ukraine to prevent further Russian aggression in the country. Eventually, there will be a diplomatic solution, but it may be that Mr. Putin, his government, and his people need to suffer longer, and I am sorry to say it that way, suffer longer from casualties in Ukraine, from the effect of Western sanctions on the Russian economy.”

Do you personally believe that sanctions have an impact on Putin?

“I don’t think it’s had effect yet, but I think over time it will. We are talking about several phenomena: the one is the effect of sanctions on the Russian economy, but the other is the impact of Russian casualties in Ukraine on support for Russian policy within Russia for aggression in Ukraine.”

Should the US and the EU apply any new leverage to force Russia to comply with the Minsk Accords?

“I think that the Kremlin is very concerned about this legislation in support of freedom in Ukraine. This might give them reason to be more compromising in this. Maybe, this has had an effect on the current ceasefire, after all, we have seen several ceasefires in the past, which have not been implemented. But we met with the National Defense and Security Council today, and it was very positive, actually, we’ve heard that the ceasefire is working, that the amount of artillery and gunfire from Russian troops, from the rebels, separatists, is much less, and Ukrainian casualties are much less. Maybe, the price of oil is also affecting Mr. Putin’s calculations.”

“EVEN IF UKRAINE DECIDED TO BECOME A NUCLEAR STATE, IT’S NOT FAIR TO COMPARE IT WITH NORTH KOREA AND IRAN”

Rose Gottemoeller, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, who recently visited this country, said that Ukraine might become a rogue state, like Iran or North Korea, if it tried to regain the status of a nuclear state. Do you share this opinion, taking into account that, having exchanged the world’s third largest nuclear potential for the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine has lost a part of its territory, while the states that signed this document failed to guarantee its territorial integrity?

“There are several points here. First, I think Rose Gottemoeller correctly points out that the United States and other countries are committed to the non-proliferation treaty and will take strong measures to prevent new countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. I think that it’s unlikely Ukraine will try to acquire nuclear weapons. First of all, it’s very expensive. Secondly, I think you do not want to have international isolation that would come from such policies. And finally, even if Ukraine decided to do that, it’s not fair to compare it with North Korea and Iran, which have pursued aggressive policies in many areas, not just an area of nuclear acquisition.

“I think that you have a point that Ukraine did give its nuclear weapons, and it was given certain statements; I’m not sure I would accept the phrase ‘guarantees,’ although some people say it was guarantees, others say it was assurances, and assurances are not quite the same level as guarantees. But I think Ukraine has a legitimate point that the powers which offered Ukraine support for giving up its nuclear weapons have not been as energetic and as firm in defending Ukraine as they should have been. And I would include the United States to that category. The United States has pursued intelligent and even strong policies in the area of sanctions. I give President Obama great credit for that. But I think President Obama has misunderstood the importance of this crisis. If he understood it, he would have on his own initiative agreed to provide weapons to Ukraine back in May, even April, once the hybrid war began in Donbas. And the fact that he still does not understand this today, I think, is a sign of strategic failure. And I think if the president understood the nature of this crisis, there would be a much stronger policy within NATO to bolster the NATO presence in the Baltic states, perhaps also in Poland and Romania. So, there have been serious failures on the part of American leadership in this crisis. And you can connect that with the Budapest Memorandum and the trilateral agreement.”

Now that this document has failed, is it perhaps necessary to conclude a new security agreement between the US, the UK, and Ukraine?

“I don’t know if there is a need for a new international agreement. I think that there is a need right now for a strong and energetic American strategic leadership, which we don’t have. And that leadership would be evident if tomorrow President Obama signed this legislation, and if the day after tomorrow he gave orders to the Pentagon to quickly find the Javelin missiles, the anti-aircraft, the anti-armor, the communications equipment that Ukraine needs, and if he asked Congress not just for 300 million dollars that they put into that legislation, but for 2 billion dollars, or at least 1.5 billion dollars to provide arms to Ukraine, to prevent further Russian aggression in Ukraine; and if President Obama said: I’m going to work within NATO to deploy a battalion or even a division of American forces in the Baltic states, in Poland, the appropriate amount of military hardware in those countries to prevent Russian aggression against NATO members. These are the sort of steps that the United States needs to take.”