Ambassador Roundtable at Woodrow Wilson Center

During the Ambassador Roundtable “Reflections and Recommendations on US-Ukrainian Relations” at the Woodrow Wilson Center, ex-US envoys to Ukraine William Miller, Steven Pifer, and John Herbst tried to analyze Ukraine’s progress over the two decades of national independence, assess the bilateral relationships, and offer recommendations for the newly appointed Secretary of State, John Kerry.

20 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE: SOBER AND DISHEARTENING ASSESSMENT

William Miller, the first US ambassador to independent Ukraine, set the tone by sadly declaring that over the past two decades Ukraine has failed to build a democratic society and market economy. He noted that the entire economic process is being controlled not by the middle class but by a narrow circle of millionaires and billionaires who are using their criminal oligarchic system of management. He noted that during the two decades of independence Ukraine has had four presidents and 19 prime ministers, but that this has not encouraged the Ukrainian in the street to trust anyone “upstairs” and that public confidence in the government has been on a downward curve over the years; that corruption is eroding the moral and ethical foundations of Ukrainian society. Ukraine, specifically Viktor Yushchenko, failed to ride the crest of the highest democratic wave [i.e., the Orange Revolution. – Ed.].

Steven Pifer, Director, Arms Control Initiative, Brookings Institution, agreed with Miller, stressing the snail’s pace of economic reform, and that Ukraine’s constant maneuvering between Russia and Europe is proof that its government has no clear cut international strategy. Result: Ukraine has found itself faced with three challenges: folding up democracy, mounting corruption in the economic and energy spheres, and increasing international isolation.

U.S.STRUCTURAL MISTAKES AND INTELLECTUAL ARROGANCE RE UKRAINE

The former US ambassadors admitted that they had made mistakes during their postings to Ukraine. Miller said Washington had made a very bad structural mistake and shown its intellectual arrogance when working out an action plan for radical economic reforms; that it simply failed to realize the tremendous economic challenges Ukraine faced in the course of transition from communism to market economy; that the US pushed it toward the land reform without being aware of all local circumstances; that Ukraine was pressured to inherit the US model that could not have been effective given Ukrainian realities. Without knowing an answer to the question of how to best secure a bona fide redistribution of public property in a postcommunist country, the US failed to prevent the emergence of a class of oligarchs who would steal this property.

Thinking back to his posting to Ukraine, Steven Pifer said he shouldn’t have avoided a face to face talk with President Leonid Kuchma and that he should have told him about the aggravating condition of democracy in Ukraine during that 1999 presidential campaign. At the time, he added, President Clinton and Vice President Gore had good working relationships with President Kuchma; that their analysis of the Ukrainian domestic policy showed that Kuchma could have won the race without rigging the election. Washington could have used alternative communication channels, like State Secretary Madeleine Albright flying to Kyiv and telling Leonid Kuchma that the US was really concerned about the current status of Ukrainian democracy.

John Herbst, Director, Center for Complex Operations, Institute for National Strategic Studies, admitted that the breakup of the democratic coalition in 2005 was the worst personal disappointment he experienced as ambassador to Ukraine; that he had spent countless hours communicating with President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko’s teams, doing his utmost to prevent a conflict between them. To no avail. There was a confrontation, and its historical significance is clearer now, [seven] years later. It may have caused a turning point in latter-day Ukrainian history and Ukraine’s current status.

D-DAY IN 2015 FOR UKRAINE?

Predicting US-Ukraine relationship after the 2015 presidential campaign proved the hardest phase in the ambassador roundtable. None doubted that this campaign would be complicated, considering that the current Ukrainian administration has trapped itself after throwing Tymoshenko and Lutsenko behind bars. Releasing these political prisoners would satisfy the West, but would inevitably boost protest moods followed by rallies demanding legal punishment for those responsible for their incarceration. In other words, there would be unavoidable threats to Ukraine’s current political leadership.

Thinking back to the 2004 presidential race, Herbst pointed out the importance of the stand taken by the political forces and law-enforcement agencies when one president steps down and the next one takes over. He reminded those present that the success of the Orange Revolution depended on a crucial number of political elite rallying round a single opposition candidate. The state-building stand taken by the interior and defense minister, as well as by the head of the SBU secret police, played a major role in the Maidan victory.

Herbst wasn’t sure the opposition candidate would win the next presidential race, while it is true that the number of supporters of President Yanukovych – who is no longer popular – is dropping, and that his team may well break up, as signaled by Party of Regions members. He summed up by stating that Ukraine’s current political leadership cares not for the people but for themselves, and that their losing the next presidential campaign wouldn’t damage Ukraine.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JOHN KERRY

The West being tired of what is happening in Ukraine was the roundtable’s pet phrase. Nothing new, considering the complicated relationships with Ukraine during the “Ukraine without Kuchma” campaign. The ex-ambassadors agreed that Ukraine could quickly change the situation for the better and become once again interesting for the West after demonstrating positive changes in matters such as protection of human rights and democracy.

Washington’s policy toward Ukraine is not likely to undergo any considerable changes after the appointment of Secretary of State John Kerry.

Steven Pifer noted that the Ukrainian leadership would make an even bigger mistake by overstating its importance to the West – for some reason those “upstairs” in Ukraine believe that the United States will pay any price to prevent Ukraine from being brought back under Russia’s geopolitical control. President Obama is not thinking in Cold War terms. Ukraine must raise its democratic ratings to improve its relations with the West. Washington will not ignore any violations of human rights and democracy in Ukraine, simply to stop its gravitation to Russia.

Energy is a sphere where a better cooperation between Ukraine and the US is not only desirable but necessary. Ukraine depends on Russia in terms of 60-65 percent of energy supplies, but Ukraine can develop its own alternative energy sources. For the past several years Ukraine has succeeded in holding the balance of power with Russia, considering the latter’s dependence on Ukraine’s gas transportation system. The construction of new pipelines – the South and Nord Streams – will allow Russia to bypass the Ukrainian pipeline several years from now. In other words, in a couple of years Ukraine will have a considerably weaker position during energy supply talks with Russia. Therefore, Ukraine should collaborate with Western companies that have the right kind of equipment to develop the Black Sea natural gas fields.

The ex-ambassadors suggested that John Kerry keep up Washington’s policy of supporting democratic reform in Ukraine, backing up young and promising political leaders, funding cultural and education projects. Herbst said that the Ukrainian people has been influenced by various empires and regimes, and that it has worked out a survival strategy of its own. Since the proclamation of national independence, Ukraine has constantly shown cyclic trends in its democratic progress, with periods of stagnation followed by ones of evolvement. The current administration is interested in adding to their bank accounts and retaining their posts, rather than maintaining good relations with the West. Ukraine must know that in America it can always find potential partners.