The United States has played an outsized role vis-à-vis Ukraine throughout the 25 years of their relations. The lonely superpower has pushed Ukraine towards denuclearization while picking up the check for this endeavor. It has followed with substantial financial assistance that has helped Ukraine to stabilize its currency, proceed with reforms, introduce privatization, deal with the implications of the 1986 Chornobyl nuclear power plant disaster and more.
The slowdown in the early 2000s was seen as a problem by then-Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, who caused it in the first place, and tried to improve the relations by announcing his intention to move towards membership in NATO and by sending troops to Iraq in 2003, among other things.
The U.S. role (coupled with the participation of some other international actors) in resolving the acute political crisis in the end of 2004 was another example of the clout that Washington has carried with Ukrainian political class. American insistence on reforms has not produced much, though, in the following years, as Washington was also distracted by other directions in its international policy. With the Euromaidan Revolution taking place, which ousted President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22, 2014, we have seen evidence of both Washington retaining some of the channels to influence the government of Ukraine and, also, a limit to what it can persuade Ukrainian leadership to do or not to do.
Ever since the EuroMaidan Revolution, and particularly since the Russian annexation of Crimea and its intervention in the Donbas, the role of the United States in helping Ukraine has grown exponentially.
Although U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration has resolutely decided against its direct participation in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, it has found numerous ways to aid Ukraine and punish Russia for its aggression. Ukraine has seemed to depend on American support to the previously unseen extent, prompting the author of these very lines to ponder the question of whether Ukraine has become a client state of the U.S.
Donald Trump became the president, worrying observers, including a very nervous Ukraine, as to the possible change in Washington’s stance on Ukraine and Ukraine-Russia conflict. The change has failed to come, surprisingly, as the Trump administration has mostly followed the path of the previous one. Despite Trump’s initial inclinations to foster some sort of a “deal” with Russia, the one, perhaps, to be at the expense of Ukraine’s interests, he has quickly found out the limitations on what he can do in this respect. The circumstances and various players in the U.S. foreign policy decision-making community have neutered any such move towards a new “reset” with Moscow. Often grudgingly, Trump has nevertheless stuck to the course outlined by his predecessor. For instance, Trump has reluctantly signed a law on new sanctions against Russia in August 2017.
Throughout 2017, the U.S. continued to help Ukraine in its war effort, assisting its military in becoming better trained and equipped force. The security assistance has grown in numbers, including the recent addition of the 500 million dollars being authorized for 2018. The U.S. Congress here has shown yet again that it continues to act as a major proponent of a principled support to Ukraine. This security assistance does not include the provision of lethal weaponry at the moment, despite Ukraine bringing this issue up on number of occasions and also in spite of Congress calling in support of such move. There is a feeling in the air that a certain breakthrough might be in the works on this issue, but this is, in our view, far from certain. The White House remains reluctant, being in line with Obama’s vision of the “red lines” in dealing with the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict.
While regrettably withdrawing from the international multilateral framework to deal with Ukraine-Russia conflict early on after the initial meeting in Geneva, Washington remained supportive of the ongoing efforts including both its Normandy and Minsk formats. Under the previous administration, Washington has straightjacketed Ukraine into the seemingly unilateral fulfillment of the Minsk accords. It has strong-armed Kyiv in doing this, which included the controversial provision of a special status to the areas beyond its control in Donbas. With new administration in place there seems to be a lesser focus on this. The U.S. special representative on Ukraine Kurt Volker, seemingly current administration’s top authority on Ukraine, has indicated that Minsk accords are not that “sacred” anymore and should not be necessarily seen as something to bind Ukraine, given that other side has not done a bit to fulfill its obligations. However, there is still an expectation in Washington for Ukraine having to look for ways to find some sort of compromise with the “authorities” in the currently occupied lands in Donbas. There remains a strong opposition in Washington to any theoretically possible attempt by Ukraine to regain Donbas by force.
Finally, the U.S. has provided essential financial, expert, logistical support to help Ukraine’s economy. It has been involved in assisting the reforms and anti-corruption measures in Ukraine. The list of reforms that continue with American direct support featured in them is rather long. In terms of fighting the corruption Ukraine’s American friends encounter certain resistance of bureaucracy and political class. The previous administration has fought, for instance, for quite some time for the changes at the top of Ukraine’s prosecutor general office. For the current one, there seems to be a focus on the establishment of the independent anti-corruption court. Such a step would be in the position to move forward with eradicating the malaise of corruption.
All in all, the U.S. involvement with Ukraine remains on a high level. Its impact on Ukraine’s well being is quite substantial – from proceeding with needed reforms to addressing the issue of corruption to improving the defense capabilities of Ukraine to securing the territorial integrity of our country. It looks like 2017 is going to be yet another year of American support and influence mattering greatly to Ukraine.
Volodymyr Dubovyk is the director of the Center for International Studies at Odesa I.I. Mechnikov National University.
