Kyiv-Vashington: Biden Time

Valery Chaly and Yegor Chernev about what will change in Ukrainian-American relations

Vitaly Portnikov: Very soon, the United States will change the highest political leadership. After about a month, the elected President Joe Biden will take office. No previous American leader was so well acquainted with Ukrainian realities. How will the relationship between Kyiv and Washington change under the 46th President of the United States? Will Joe Biden restore the position of a special representative in Ukraine in the State Department? Will the fight against corruption in Ukraine in the next four years key to the new administration? And should Kyiv count on a significant increase in military assistance from the United States?

We will discuss these and other issues with our guests. In our studio, Valery Chaly , the Ambassador of Ukraine to the United States in 2015-2019, and Yegor Chernev , a deputy from the Party of the People, Chairman of the Ukrainian Delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly of NATO.

Correspondent: After the US presidential election, where the majority of the vote received Joe Biden, the Ukrainian authorities are optimistic at the future of relations between Kiev and Washington. Among the priorities of cooperation are issues of security, trade, investment, the fight against corruption. No previous American president was so familiar with the situation in Ukraine. Conducting the post of vice president in the administration of Barack Obama, Biden was responsible for the Ukrainian direction of politics. Obviously, the fight against corruption in Ukraine in the next four years will be key to the new White House administration. Five years ago, Biden became the first high -ranking American official to act in independent Ukraine from the High Rada Rod of the Verkhovna Rada. In his speech, the US Vice-President then emphasized that along with the dignity of the struggle for independence after the revolution, Ukraine must more decisively resist and spreading, like a cancer tumor, corruption.

“But, in addition, you have another struggle, historical-against corruption. Ukraine cannot allow people to lose hope again,” said US Vice President Joe Biden on December 8, 2015.

These words are relevant today. Over the past six months, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, under the pressure of oligarchs and pro -Russian politicians, has made several decisions that turn off the anti -corruption reform in the country. For this reason, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union threaten to suspend the provision of financial assistance so necessary for Ukraine now. During visits to Kyiv as Vice President, Biden called for strengthening the anti-corruption bodies, emphasizing that Russia uses corruption against Ukraine so that the state remains vulnerable and dependent.

On November 23, the elected president of the United States called candidates for key positions in his administration. The new head of the State Department will be Anthony Blinken, a former deputy head of the foreign policy department, ex-adviser on national security and a longtime associate Joe Biden. A few months after the conflict unleashed by Russia in the Donbass and the annexation of Crimea, Blinken said that he considers such actions by the Russian authorities their strategic defeat:

"I am absolutely convinced that Russia's actions in Ukraine are a strategic loss of Russia in the future. Yes, we can say that Russia" won "Crimea, but at the same time it loses and probably lost Ukraine. Ukraine is more united in its Western orientation than ever, and its sense of national identity is deeper than ever."

Blinken is confident that the protection of democracy and the world in Ukraine from the influence and aggression of Russia may contribute to the adoption of Ukraine in NATO. He is also an opponent of the completion of the construction of the North Stream - 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany, which is designed to stop the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine.

Kyiv expects that the United States will continue to supply weapons to Ukraine to strengthen its defense capacity

The most important for the 46th American president, experts believe, will be the restoration of the political union between Washington and Kiev. Military assistance to Ukraine may be one of the first decisions of the new American administration. According to the head of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry Dmitry Kuleb, Kiev expects the United States to continue to supply weapons to Ukraine to strengthen its defense capabilities after the President Joe Biden. In recent years, Ukraine has received two parties of the Javelin American anti -tank complexes, which can be used in the event of a large -scale escalation of the conflict in the Donbass. Now the national Navy expects the receipt of 16 Mark VI patrol boats from the United States. It is assumed that in 2021 the American authorities will allocate two hundred and fifty million dollars to Ukraine, some of them for the purchase of military equipment and weapons.

Meanwhile, Kyiv continues to insist on the connection of the United States to negotiations on peace in the east of Ukraine in the Norman format. In turn, the Kremlin states that it does not see the point of expanding the current format of negotiations, in which the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France take part. The last time the leaders of the four met on December 9, 2019 in Paris.

Vitaliy Portnikov: Always when the President of the United States changes, Kiev says: the most important thing for us is to maintain binoparty support for American politicians in the US Congress. In fact, not the figure of the president or even the administration is important, but this bicopartican support. Maybe this is such a curtsy of politeness in relation to the party that loses the White House?

Valery Chaly: First of all, this refers to the decision in the Congress: if the Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives support the allocation of military assistance to Ukraine, then these issues are easier. If one of the parties doubted or thought to be not so active in these matters, then it is more complicated. This is primarily political support, opposition to Russian aggression, issues of reform in Ukraine. The United States is not only a White House, it is a Capitol hill, and individual states, and a Pentagon, and a reconnaissance community. Obviously, even those who are non -party, in the case of a party consensus, it is much easier to act in one direction. For Ukraine, this is really a key question. It is also important because after 2014 the issue of Ukraine unites deputies of the American parliament, congressmen, senators. There are many conflicts, but when you show unity, you act in one direction, American taxpayers also see that this is a state decision. Both Obama and Donald Trump and Joe Biden also support Ukraine in several key issues that relate to the national security of the United States and the national security of Ukraine.

Vitaliy Portnikov: After the election of Donald Trump, the US President said: the Ukrainian authorities were so obviously supported by the democratic administration and Hillary Clinton, who then fought for the president’s post, that it would be very difficult for her to establish normal relations with the new US administration, but there will be bipartisan support. Now they say about the same thing: the President of Zelensky had their own relations with the republican administration, with Donald Trump. They could not help but work out: as we know, Mr. Trump was no less interested in these relations than the President of Zelensky. And as now, when they say: perhaps personal relations will not be formed, relations with the administration will not develop, but there will be bipartisan support?

Egor Chernev

Egor Chernev: In fact, today, as in recent years, and in the Senate, and in Congress there is two -party support. I see through the NATO line how the initiatives of the Ukrainian side in the parliamentary assembly are unanimously supported, both representatives of both the Republican and Democratic Party act in support of the Ukrainian side. Recently, the president’s office has been distanced from both parties before the elections in order not to make an imbalance. There was already bitter experience with the unexpected election of Trump, when all the bets were on Hillary Clinton, and in order not to make such a mistake, distance was used, it remains today. Of course, there is a certain aftertaste of history with impeachment, in which, unfortunately, the office of the President of Ukraine was involved. But, in my opinion, we see this support in quantitative terms: in 2020, Ukraine received a record assistance from the United States over all the years of independence - 512 million (this is technical assistance in weapons, equipment, and so on). In 2019, there were 270 million, before that - even less. This is a practical expression of the same two -party support.

Valery Chaly: And now I will say how it happened. Each year there is a certain amount - 125 million, which is allocated for Ukraine without conditions. 125 additional millions are allocated for military support if the Congress has given the good and if the administration showed the congress that, firstly, this technique will be used correctly, and secondly, reforms will be carried out. Every time this issue is raised, there is a struggle for these amounts. What is happening this year is already the inertia of previous years.

After 2014, the issue of Ukraine unites deputies of the American parliament, congressmen, senators

Support is not only the opinion of one or another deputy (there is normal attitude to Ukraine). When they decide where taxpayers' money goes, it is also necessary to prove that the United States is needed, and not just Ukraine. Therefore, we are talking about joint actions, strategic partnership, common interests. If there are no these interests, no love or beautiful words will lead to an increase in military assistance. The United States has a lot of interests in the world, like other large countries (China, Russia), and the European Union reserves regional influence. Ukraine is a regional country, security in the European region is important to us. We need to attract the attention of the United States so that the focus of attention remains in this region. After all, there is still the Middle East, there is the Far East, there is Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean pool. So this is an illusion that this support was given to us a priori, it was made with great efforts and those who were on the front line and those who showed that Ukraine is ready to fight for itself. Both diplomats and the military proved that it was important for both countries. You need to understand: the surname of the president is important, but it is much more important that we offer a partner.

Vitaly Portnikov: On the other hand, when we return to the topic of NATO, there is also an important point. The Trump administration has always said that there is NATO underfinance, there are problems with European partners. The Biden administration, on the contrary, demonstrates the readiness of the United States to return to international structures. How can this affect the support of Ukraine, on NATO?

Egor Chernev: The same Biden in his program in Ukraine before the election clearly wrote what he would do in relation to Ukraine. It said: Joe Biden, unlike Donald Trump, understands that Ukraine is fighting for its independence and sovereignty, and is an oriental flank, a factor in stabilization in Europe. That is why the provision of lethal weapons for Ukraine, and the strengthening of institutions in Ukraine, including anti -corruption, will continue. The positions of Biden and Trump are precisely this. If before that Congress acted as a counterweight to Trump, then here, I think, there will be a joint game. After all, we remember that it was the US Congress that actually forced Trump to drive new sanctions.

I remind you that Joe Biden took a fairly active part in the expansion of NATO to the east and the adoption of new members, such as the Czech Republic, Poland, the Baltic countries. I am not saying that tomorrow we will be given a PDF because of this, but certain trends are already visible. Just a month ago, a representative of Hungary was the president of the NATO parliamentary Assembly, now he has become a representative of the US legislative power from the Biden team, and he has absolute support for all delegations in the parliamentary assembly. Obviously, this will also affect the production of politics in NATO. In the same way, Biden says that we must solve the problems inside NATO, make NATO stronger. I think that these words will not disperse from actions.

Vitaly Portnikov: Ukraine received military assistance, the question is how it will receive it further. What are the prospects, in your opinion, do further military strategic cooperation exist? How much will the new administration be located? We remember the difference between the approaches of the democratic and republican administrations.

Valery Chaly: While in Washington, I fulfilled the tasks of Ukraine in order to strengthen this support. There was a cautious attitude that was based on one assumption - that any strengthening of Ukraine would provoke an increase in the conflict. Although in practice the situation showed a completely different story: as soon as Ukraine became stronger in military terms, the conflict just faded. For example, under Maryinka there were constant tank attacks, but as soon as a message passed that Ukraine could receive anti -tank complexes, those who sat in these tanks refused to do this. The attack was repulsed, and after that there were no tank attacks. Now, not only the Republicans, but also the Democrats understand that the strengthening of Ukraine leads to the world, the strengthening of its defense, and not some offensive actions, while the weakening of Ukraine leads to war. This is proven by all the actions that have been committed in recent years.

Valery Chaly

In this regard, the issue of strengthening Ukraine, including military terms, is considered further. First of all, we are talking about training programs, the creation of units, which, incidentally, are compatible with NATO and more effective-this is not the Soviet Army of Ukraine, which was once, but a completely different army. After the training, even the generals of the Ukrainian army are the generals of the European, American model, that is, the fitted 45-50-year-old men who work at the front, and not just serving time in the offices. These are professional people, they know how to defend themselves, avoid a large number of victims and wounded. And now we (Ukraine along with the Americans) will work in this direction in order for this support to continue.

What has changed? We proved that in the field of security and defense, we still seriously moved corruption. The fears that some new weapons will fall to the enemy have seriously decreased. Such cases often occurred in Latin America, in Afghanistan, but we proved that we can act differently. We adopted the legislation that allows Ukraine to purchase weapons. The United States was allowed to us, that is, the degree of trust is already such that we can buy weapons, and this completely changes the situation. What we received earlier is help: we are decide to direct, for example, the drones of the old generation, and we are very grateful for this, but they easily got down by Russian systems. Now, perhaps, not the most perfect weapons in the world, but this is definitely better than what has remained since Soviet times, and what we still have yet produced. Now the same "jevelins" that we buy, we can already use at our discretion anywhere in Ukraine for the defense of the country. This decision introduces Ukraine into the category of a certain number of countries that the United States trust, and opens up opportunities for our further interaction. This is not the United States: take weapons - we say that we will buy it. Here it is necessary to convince, the permission of the State Department, the Pentagon, the Congress, that is, is not even about the amount of money that this weapons, but about permission, need. If we were NATO members, these issues would be shot automatically, we, as a normal European country, could protect ourselves, and this would lead to the world. So far, the situation is this. We are most counting on the United States as on our strategic partner, receiving about 90% of military-technical support from this country.

Vitaly Portnikov: Is the atmosphere of pressure destroyed? Mr. Chernev, you know this story with anti -corruption structures, the decision of the Constitutional Court; The parliament, whose member you are now trying to overcome these problems, adopts legislation. But this always raises questions among Western partners: if a system of counteracting corruption is destroyed, then various loopholes arise, by the way, including in issues of the sale of weapons. If there is some kind of corruption hole, anything can be lealed through through it, including modern weapons, including Russia.

Egor Chernev: That's right. Our path to NATO lies through reforms. This is not a matter of Russian aggression, but a matter of reforms, and complex. When we say that we must comply with NATO standards, it is not only military standards, but also, including standards for combating corruption. There are four iconic laws that are important for the alliance, and in the alliance the first violin is played by the United States that control their acceptance in Ukraine: this is about defense purchases. Thank God, last year we accepted them, and this just opened the way for us to the possibility of procurement in the Alliance Department. In fact, there is still the opportunity to sell through it. By and large, the NATO agency, through which we made the first purchases, is such a NATO system through which you can supply your products. Ukraine can sell its weapons, which it produces, and purchase through them.

The second law is a law on intelligence: it, thank God, is also adopted and signed by the president. The other two laws (one developed, the second in the process of development) is about state secret and about the SBU. All four are important for the issue of trust: if you want us to exchange intelligence information, please order our intelligence activities, determine what a state secret is, how it is protected, who can have access to it, and so on. This is normal interaction. In this direction we are now in force, we are developing bills.

I want to add about the differences between the Biden administration and the Trump administration in relation to NATO and the support of the countries of its eastern flank. Trump increased the contingent of NATO troops in Poland, Biden says the opposite: he will not reduce it, but will not increase him so as not to tease the Russian Federation. This distinguishes Republicans from the Democrats. Democrats act through institutions, through non -governmental organizations. Although in the statement before the election, Biden clearly said that the lethal weapons to Ukraine will be supplied further, but at the same time he is not going to more militarize the Eastern Flank of NATO.

Valery Chaly: I have not heard such statements from the chosen president. I know for sure that he wants to restore the transatlantic agency, and this is not only individual countries of the European Union and NATO: probably not in the sense of Russian actions, but rather as a search for some supporting points for his game in Europe. Now, I think, relations with France, Germany, Western European countries, which actually play a key role in NATO, are leveled. There are not EU members. The Brexit process is still going on. Britain, by the way, now helps Ukraine. Learning programs are not only the United States, but also the UK, and other NATO countries, as well as countries that are not part of NATO, but military-technical collaboration with us. Now there will be a more balanced policy in relation to the integrity of the transatlantic alliance. I assume that he will really be more security than in defense.

Obviously, any aggressive actions that strive to destroy European security will cause opposition to the United States

I do not think that there will be a serious decrease in the presence of the United States in Europe, because this is not the question that only President Trump or Biden resolves: it is laid down in the national security strategy. What will be another strategy, we will not see soon. After the inauguration under the laws of the United States, six months are given to prepare a new national security strategy. So far, this strategy shows that there will be no reduction in the role of the United States in Europe. Obviously, any aggressive actions that strive to destroy European security will cause opposition to the United States. If Russia tries to go further anywhere, there will be opposition. And how it will be in the long run, we cannot say now.

I personally know people who are nominated to be a Secretary of State, an adviser to state security, I know their approaches, and not only those that they express publicly. Interestingly, the approaches of those people who formed a position under Trump, and those that form it now, under Bayden, do not differ much. Another thing is that the approaches of the same people differ from those approaches that were five years ago: they became tougher, because these same people were present at the time when there was an attempt to restart relations with Russia, and Russia took it as weakness and went on, went to attack. The Americans (I know, talked with the military) had different opinions, but, of course, after the attack, when they kill people in an independent country, what can be the attitude of the United States? Indeed, in the national interests of the United States, including European security, the preservation of borders that developed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Therefore, they play their game, protect their national interests. Now this completely coincides with our national interests in safety and defense matters.

We must look comprehensively, see the configuration of the congress. In any case, I do not expect to be worse. In my opinion, it will be better, more opportunities. But the Senate is likely to remain with the Republicans. Then each appointment will be the statement of the Senate, and then bidding will begin, questions will begin.

I will give a simple example of how a compromise is now. Recently we heard about the adoption of the US military budget. There is everything: this is the support of Ukraine, and the support of reforms, and the issues of geographical names in the United States, and even the monuments of the Confederates. Monuments to generals in the south of the United States remained, and in the same law it is laid down that this issue will somehow be resolved. Trump said that he would put a veto. These compromises will still remain, we will not have a green road, that is, a quick decision will have to be achieved anyway, in any case, including in development, in the deepening of our military-strategic partnership with the United States.

Vitaly Portnikov: As far as, in your opinion, today the opportunities for a dialogue between the new American administration and the Ukrainian leadership are opening, what new accents are possible in contacts between the parliamentarians of the two countries? What will change for people who are now making decisions in Kyiv?

Egor Chernev: Just at the level of parliaments, I think, there will be the same support and interaction. A big plus is that Mr. Biden is very immersed in Ukraine issues. During his Vice President, he was six times in Ukraine, oversaw all issues related to relations between the USA and Ukraine. Another question is whether it is now distant from this question, whether Harris or the State Department will convey it. It will depend on this how wide or narrow this path will be, how much the issues of Ukraine will be the priority there. Of course, now for the United States, Russia is a splinter in one place, but still China is a greater threat.

Vitaly Portnikov: President Biden does not say that.

Egor Chernev: In the last interview at New York Times, he just says that there are two priorities-this is China, confrontation, and this is an Iranian program. Russia is only mentioned in this interview: through a comma in the context of the Iranian program. I hope that our path will still be green and wide, but for this we must do everything possible on our part.