Ukraine: The Key for U.S.-Russia Relations
In a previous article, I made the case for why we should never abandon diplomacy. Whether President Trump truly agrees with my view or not, his selection of John Huntsman Jr. as the newest Ambassador of the United States to Russia shows some implicit agreement. After a unanimous confirmation by the Senate, Huntsman officially began his new position on September 28th, 2017. Though his relationship with President Trump appears to be better now, the two still have some key disagreements. First, Trump attacked Huntsman’s service as the Ambassador of the United States to China under Barack Obama. Second, Huntsman firmly believes that Russia did meddle in the recent presidential elections. As he settles into his new job, his choices in navigating the rocky U.S.-Russia relationship will be instrumental in the global balance of power for years.
According to Huntsman, Ukraine is still a central issue for relations between the United States and Russia, despite the fact that is has receded from the headlines. He emphasized the importance of restoring Ukrainian sovereignty and stated that it was important “not only [for] the United States, but [for] Europe, Canada and virtually every other developed country.” Lately, Ukraine has fallen off the radar; unless you are actively looking, it is difficult to find headline news reports on what is happening there. Though many would say Ukraine is currently more stable under Petro Poroshenko than it was during the time of the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, Euromaidan protests, and the annexation of Crimea, that’s not saying much. The dawn of 2017 saw an escalation of violence and mixed signals from the United States as Nikki Haley, Ambassador of the United States to the United Nations, criticized Russian interference in Ukraine, while President Trump vaguely suggested a willingness to recognize the annexation of Crimea.
In the midst of this chaos, however, an unlikely source seems to be making an attempt to expose the truth. Those who followed the news closely in the 2000s might recall Mikheil Saakashvili, the former president of the Republic of Georgia during the time of the Russo-Georgian War. However, you might not have known that Saakashvili was a vocal supporter of the Ukranian Revolution and renounced his Georgian citizenship in favor of Ukrainian citizenship and became the governor of Odessa, an important port city on the Black Sea. He resigned in November of 2016, citing Poroshenko’s corrupt dealings and neglect. In July of 2017, while he was staying in the United States, Poroshenko then revoked his Ukrainian citizenship, making him stateless. Despite this, Saakashvili stated that he wished to return to Ukraine in order to “get rid of the old corrupt elite” by forming a new political party, Movement of New Forces, to accomplish his goal.
Recently, Saakashvili has made vicious attacks against Poroshenko, describing him as a “kleptocrat who has stolen billions from Ukraine” in a rally in Kharkiv, the largest city in Eastern Ukraine. Saakashvili blamed Poroshenko for prolonging the conflict between Russia and Ukraine with his corrupt dealings. In particular, Saakashvili points the blame at Oleh Hladkovsky, who is both a deputy secretary of the National Defense and Security Council, and a shareholder in Prime Asset Capital, Poroshenko’s investment fund which controls Roshen (a famous confectionary group), the International Investment Bank, 5 Kanal (a major television station), and Kuznia na Rybalskomu (a ship-building, armament, and military equipment production company). Saakashvili asserts that Russia’s war against Ukraine “will be over when Hladkovsky stops profiteering from it, when the Leninska Kuznya [Kuznia na Ryabalskomu’s former name] shipyard stops producing… and when Ukraine’s economy grows at a fast rate.”
While it might be unwise to confirm that all of Saakashvili’s claims of corruption are accurate, many of them do have a high degree of credibility, as information from independent journalist investigations and Panama Paper leaks support the allegations. For instance, Rybalsky na Kuznia shipyard won government and military contracts worth $2.5 million in 2016 and $560,000 so far in 2017.
Whether or not you personally believe the words of Saakashvili or various investigations, it is clear that Ukraine and Russia have not reached a satisfying and peaceful conclusion to their conflict. While it is fair to state that Russia ought to be punished for whatever meddling it may have caused, pragmatism is key here. Huntsman has the right idea: resolving the war between Ukraine and Russia is critical to improving the productivity of the U.S.-Russia relationship. That being said, we ought to be extremely careful about overstepping into the Russian sphere of influence. Vladimir Putin has exhibited a sense of protectiveness when it comes to Russia’s neighboring countries.
Saakashvili presents an interesting opportunity for the United States. Though his political party is lacking widespread support, if Saakashvili’s claims turn out to be completely true, some carefully-placed American (and European Union) support could finally trap Putin in an awkward situation. Putin’s relationship with Poroshenko began on rocky grounds, as Poroshenko replaced the loyal and pro-Russia Viktor Yanukovych and Putin annexed Crimea and began to acknowledge (and even support) pro-Russia separatists in Eastern Ukraine. For that reason, Putin has an interest in seeing Poroshenko removed from power. However, Putin would probably not want to see Saakashvili replace him. The two men were just short of mortal enemies: Putin once threatened to “hang him by the balls.”
Luckily, Saakashvili has stated that he has no ambition of becoming the President of Ukraine. His party, Movement of New Forces, still has quite a way to go before coming remotely close to securing the presidency, but they have a chance if they manage to grow and find allies. Though he would probably still be dissatisfied with the political rise of Movement of New Forces, he would probably be more tolerant of the political party than of Saakashvili personally. Even though the Movement of New Forces has euro-optimist leanings, it is generally a center-right party that has been focused on rooting out corruption and fostering economic development.
It may be too early to dictate a grand strategy for resolving the conflict in Ukraine, but one thing is clear: the war in Eastern Ukraine has gone on for too long, and unless Poroshenko drastically changes course, he will not be able to end it. The United States should do its absolute best to improve personal relationships with Vladimir Putin and the U.S.-Russia relationship on an international level. Otherwise, Putin will not budge, especially on an issue so close to home. We should be abstaining from aggressive moves, such as expanding the influence of NATO, but also asserting the inviolable rules of sovereignty (a classic Russian claim in international relations and international law). However, the battle for the future of Ukraine and the future of the U.S.-Russia relationship will probably not be determined by chief executives, diplomats, and international lawyers. The balance of power between America and Russia lies in the hands of the Ukrainian people, who must go to the polls, no later than 2019.
