Richard DURBIN: “As long as Putin stays on his current course, we need to increase our support for Ukraine”

The deputy leader of the Democratic caucus in the US Senate Senator Richard Durbin visited Ukraine a few days ago. The Day was able to talk to the senator, who is co-chair of the Subcommittee on Defense in the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, before his meeting with the president of Ukraine. Prior to that, Durbin held talks at the Ministry of Defense. As reported by Ukrainian media, he said at that meeting that the US would share with Ukraine its experience in psychological rehabilitation of war veterans. It was also the starting point of our conversation with Durbin, who is a strong supporter of sending lethal weapons to Ukraine.

“There are many things that we have talked about, and I was told by several people that many of the troops that have served are coming home with PTSD (we call it in the United States Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), and there is growing concern in Ukraine about making certain that they get good treatment. We are living through this ourselves, and what I said was ‘perhaps, we can help you.’ And I will try to see if that’s possible, to provide medical assistance to the returning veterans, and particularly as it relates to the PTSD.

“This is not in place of anything else, this is in addition to what I do. I believe that the question of the type of the military aid coming from the United States depends on several things. President Obama is working with European leaders, like Angela Merkel, to maintain a strong sanctions coalition against Russia. Chancellor Merkel is promoting the Minsk ceasefire as the best way to resolve problems. I am skeptical, personally, and I believe that Putin and his Russian fighters have violated this Minsk ceasefire many times, with the Ukrainians losing their lives. So, I think that we can make the case to Chancellor Merkel and other European leaders that the Minsk ceasefire is not currently working. Therefore, we should renew the sanctions and, maybe, from my point of view, make them stronger. I introduced the legislation that created 47 million dollars in foreign military assistance to Ukraine. It is currently in the White House for the final decision on disbursement. And I will urge the president and the White House to send this money to Ukraine.

“There are many things that Ukraine needs help with. I have submitted the request for the next year, which starts October 1, for the same amount (47 million). So, my commitment to Ukraine with military assistance has not changed.

“This PTSD, I think, is a new issue that came up today, that maybe we can help with.”

Senator, you said about 47 million dollars in assistance for Ukraine, but when will Barack Obama sign into law the bill which provides for the allocation of several hundred million dollars to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons? As you know, he threatened to veto the bill.

“You see, this is the president’s threatened veto which has nothing to do with Ukraine. It is a debate with Congress about the size of our overall budget.”

And what is your opinion, then, on the results of John Kerry’s Sochi meeting with Putin, which some media have called a diplomatic failure?

“My feelings about Putin’s invasion of Ukraine are well-known, and I believe that my president and Secretary of State Kerry share the belief that this was aggression, and that we have to stop it, and that we have to tell Putin there is a price to pay for aggression. And I think the meeting at Sochi, much like the summit conferences during the cold war, is an effort to make certain that the line of communication is open. I don’t believe that Secretary Kerry was compromising on any of the basic principles that I have spoken to. But merely face to face with Putin, reminding him what our position is. Our position on what is done in Ukraine is not changed, before or after Sochi.”

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, who was recently in Kyiv, said about the second Minsk agreement that the sides should “walk the walk, and not talk the talk.” We see, however, that nothing has changed; how can more active involvement of the US contribute to implementation of the agreements?

“You see, I think what we’re trying to do has not convinced the United States that the Minsk ceasefire has failed. We need to convince the European leaders, in particular, Chancellor Merkel. I am told that she recently met with Putin, and was very disappointed with his response. When Chancellor Merkel and the European leaders reach the conclusion that Minsk ceasefire has failed, then that’s the stage for stronger sanctions and for more military assistance from the United States.”

But even now, they keep shelling Ukrainian positions. So, where should the red line run, determining when it is time to impose new sanctions?

“That is a question that really needs to be directed to Chancellor Merkel. She is the one who has told us, and others, that this Minsk ceasefire has a greater potential to resolve this peacefully. And unless Putin changes, then I think we should strengthen our support for Ukraine. When I say ‘our,’ I mean not just the United States, but also Europe.”

To make it happen, the US would probably have to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons that would protect us against a future enemy offensive. Why has the president not given such an order?

“I have requested what has been characterized as ‘lethal’ or ‘defensive’ weapons, and the president has not reached that point. But we have supplied, more than any other country in the world, the United States has supplied Ukraine with military resources to resist this Russian aggression. I have not given up on anti-tank weapons, I believe that we should be giving the Ukrainians the resources they need to stop any advance of Russian tanks against Mariupol or any area beyond the line of ceasefire.”

Energy resources make up a major part of the Russian leverage with other countries. There is a strong support in the US for the construction of the Keystone pipeline, which experts say could reduce the price of oil and thus deprive Russia of this tool which it uses to influence its neighbors’ policies. Why does President Obama oppose the pipeline?

“Well, the president has not made a final decision on this. But the oil market is making the decision. If the price of oil stays low, they cannot justify building this pipeline. It is so expensive to take these Canadian tar sands and to refine them. You must have a high price for the barrel of oil. The price today is so much lower that interestingly, it is doubtful that this pipeline would be built even if the president gave permission.

“But the other thing is the whole question of natural gas, it’s another issue. And I’ve asked whether or not Ukraine envisions a day when it would build a port to receive LNG, or some form of natural gas. That decision, apparently, has not been made by Ukraine, and perhaps it is difficult to even envision that, considering the financial situation today in Ukraine.

“I’ve probably mentioned this before, my mother was born in Lithuania, and the Lithuanians now are working to create such a port facility to supply liquefied natural gas to the Baltics. It means that Vladimir Putin is not the only game in town. When there is competition, then his threats are less menacing, less worrisome.

“I would also add that Ukraine should look, as the United States is looking, at two other things: alternative sources of energy, whatever they may be, whether it’s renewable, sustainable types of energy, and even more important for Ukraine I’m told, is energy efficiency. I’m told that these old, Soviet-style buildings and the old system where people received energy at very low prices, has led to a lot of wasted energy. So, there are ways for Ukraine to help itself through energy efficiency, and to reduce its dependence on Russian sources.”

Do you see any avenues for the US business to help Ukraine to diversify its energy sources?

“I have not really researched this, but I’m told that one of the issues facing American exporters, and American energy sources, is whether or not they can do business in Ukraine. In Ukraine, questions have been raised about the rule of law, the enforcement of contracts, the reliability of the court system – all of these things any major company would want to know the answers to, before they made investments in Ukraine.”

A few days ago, Tunisia received the status of the US’s major non-NATO ally. What do you think about assigning a similar status to Ukraine?

“I want to help Ukraine, and I know that NATO membership made the difference in the Baltics and in Poland. But NATO membership carries with it, first, that the country wants it. The Ukrainian people have to make that decision. And secondly, ‘major non-NATO ally’ carries with it some responsibilities in that nation. And so again: this is the decision first to be made by the people of Ukraine.”