On Joseph Biden’s recent messages and Donald Trump’s statements

In just a few days, Republican Donald Trump will take office as the head of state of the world’s most powerful country, the US. Thus, everyone is very closely monitoring the statements of the president-elect... Meanwhile, US Vice President Joseph Biden came to Ukraine on an official visit. During his two terms in office as the second-in-command of the US administration, he has visited Ukraine on six occasions, five of them after the Euromaidan.

It is good that Biden came to Ukraine. But given that this is one of the last foreign visit for the US vice president, let us analyze the outcomes of the US’ policy towards Ukraine.

While in Ukraine, Biden met first with Prime Minister Volodymyr Hroisman, and then President Petro Poroshenko. In the course of his 13-minute statement to the press, Biden largely repeated the theses of the speech he delivered to the Verkhovna Rada on December 8, 2015, when he called on MPs and government officials not to waste the opportunity opened by the Revolution of Dignity.

“It is no secret that Russia does not want you to succeed. This concerns not only Ukraine, but also the future which we have long sought, one with Europe whole, free and peaceful, which furthers the national interests of the US and all Europeans. Your determination and will to resist coercion, your success as a liberal democracy are very essential for achieving this goal. I strongly urge Ukrainians to continue to demonstrate your commitment to the rule of law, continue to fight against corruption, insist on transparency, investigate and punish officials who use public funds for personal enrichment,” Biden stressed.

In addition, the vice president noted that in recent decades, Russia was using corruption as a foreign policy tool to influence Ukraine and keep it vulnerable. “So continue reforms aimed at eliminating corruption. It is not just about good governance, but about self-preservation as well, and this applies directly to your national security,” Biden warned. He repeated the Obama administration’s position that sanctions against Russia should remain in force until it fulfills its obligations under the Minsk Agreements, while the Crimea-linked sanctions against Russia should remain in force until Russia returns Crimea to Ukraine, and the political part of the agreement cannot be implemented until the violence stops.

One cannot say that the US had not paid attention to Ukraine, and Biden’s visits are proof enough, although Obama did not personally come to Ukraine even once in eight years. However, the bottom line is that we lost the territorial integrity of Ukraine with the occupation of Crimea and parts of the Donbas; moreover, despite the imposition of sanctions, Russia continues its aggression in the east of this country, which saw over 10,000 Ukrainians killed. The Obama administration has not provided Ukraine with lethal weapons that could have stopped the Russian aggression, or at least led to much greater losses for Russian troops.

COMMENTARY

Mykola KAPITONENKO, expert, Institute of Socioeconomic Studies, Kyiv:

“Last visit of Joseph Biden was less meaningful than the previous ones. It was not only because his was the outgoing administration, but also because the conflict in Ukraine is becoming a stabilized, structured, protracted phenomenon. There is little hope left for breakthrough solutions, bold promises or symbolic support. Calls to respect the Minsk format were coming from every direction and quite often, as were statements about the importance of achieving success. The whole policy of the previous US administration was built on the hopes that Ukraine would become a stable and effective democracy. But the reality is, unfortunately, different. Given that reality, the US is not ready to endlessly invest in the security of Ukraine.

“From my perspective, the idea of lifting sanctions imposed on Russia in exchange for a reduction in nuclear arsenals is a very strong and promising move. But, of course, it is not one for us, but rather for Americans. This proposal is aimed at the very heart of the Kremlin and deals with Russia’s only remaining claim to the title of a global power. If Vladimir Putin agrees to it, the erosion of his only trump card, that is, hard power, will be inevitable. Lifting the sanctions will not make the Russian economy more efficient, and Russia will no longer pose a threat to the world order. The US will then be able to concentrate on the really important things. It should be noted that it is much more difficult to disarm than to arm oneself. The actual process of reducing nuclear arsenals faces many difficulties, both of strategic and technical nature. With this in mind, Trump’s idea can be perceived as a slight mockery of the Kremlin. However, should it refuse to play along, it would not be a promising course of action for Russia either, as it would freeze the situation and make it continue its slow descent in the global hierarchy. The ‘sanctions for disarmament’ deal would be a very pragmatic step. Comments on NATO, of course, are more provocative. Trump wants, and he does not hide it, to get the Europeans to pay more for the security provided by America. To dissolve NATO is even more difficult than to begin the process of nuclear disarmament. But such rhetoric can finally force Europe to pay more attention and devote more resources to its own security. And we, it seems, have to get used to the idea that Russia’s future defeats in its unequal struggle with the US will not necessarily be our victories.”