I have a great deal of respect for ex-US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who generally talks sense on Russia. But I have to take dispute with his Aug. 24 opinion piece in the Washington Post as to how the US should reboot the relationship with Ukraine in the context of both Ukraine’s 30-year anniversary and the looming Aug. 31 meeting between U.S. President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the White House.
McFaul essentially argues for a quid pro quo that the US should stop pushing Ukraine on corruption if Ukraine stops asking for a NATO Membership Action Plan.
The argument around corruption is I guess that by constantly raising Ukraine’s failures in the fight against corruption a) it helps cement the narrative that Ukraine is a corrupt country, and by so doing it hurts prospects for inward investment; b) it’s really a case of do as I say, not as I do, as the West facilitates and sustains corruption in Ukraine by not doing enough to reign in the facilitators in the West – the London Laundromat.
And on the quid pro quo around Ukraine pulling its demand for a NATO MAP I think it’s because a) the West is just not ready to offer any such commitment, and b) there is a worry that this will just irritate Moscow, and increase the risks of further Russian military intervention in Eastern Ukraine. So I guess what McFaul is suggesting is that if Ukraine pulls its formal request for a NATO MAP-it can get all the benefits in all but name, as the West would commit to do everything reasonable, if not more, to improve the capability of the Ukrainian military. It would be like a stealth MAP.
All is well and good, and there is some logic here. However…
First, on corruption, opinion polls of both the general population in Ukraine and the business community still show that it is a top issue/concern, consistently ranking with peace in the East as the most important issue for most Ukrainians. And the sad reality is that not enough is being done to make meaningful change – Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index score of 117/180 is still poor by peer standards. And I know the West is part of the problem, by allowing greedy corrupt officials and oligarchs to launder their money in Western banks, but if the Ukrainian population is asking their government to do more on the issue, why should the West not respond to these calls and try and use leverage around official credit disbursements to bring positive change? The experience thus far has been that without pressing by official creditors, elites in Ukraine put fighting corruption on the back burner. And note there that without improvements in reining in corruption, the business environment will not improve, the investment will not improve and growth, jobs and improving living standards will not result. Low living standards and high-income inequality will sustain and this will ultimately be a risk to social and political, stability – and to reform itself. The Biden administration instead should continue to put fighting corruption in Ukraine at the top of its wish list, but also to push the fight against kleptocracy at home, and in the West – in the UK, in particular, as simply put not enough is being done to bring real change albeit there is a lot of window dressing going on.
Second, NATO’s membership action plan is not a green light to membership. Read the NATO website. It helps a country improve its military to improve its case for eventual membership, but existing members still need to make a political decision whether to extend actual membership. Maybe someone could send the link to Putin.
But by getting the Ukrainians to back down on a NATO MAP what kind of message does NATO send to the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian military personnel that put their lives on the line on a daily basis to defend Ukraine and indeed the West from attacks from the East. And indeed what kind of message does this send to Moscow? That aggression pays, and that Moscow now has a veto on NATO actions? Come on. McFaul, are you really suggesting this?
Remember here that in 2013, before the EuroMaidan Revolution ended Viktor Yanukovych’s presidency, support for NATO membership in Ukraine was single digits, most Ukrainians wanted nonaligned status. But after the Crimea annexation and Donbas intervention by Russia, polls now consistently show majority support for NATO. Opinion has changed in Ukraine because of aggression from the East.
What’s wrong with offering Ukraine hope that their sacrifices for Western values might not actually all be in vein, and that there is some modicum of support from the West and NATO? But by telling the Ukrainians don’t even ask for something as noncommittal as a NATO MAP the message is I think pretty clear to Ukraine and indeed Russia, that Ukraine is on its own when push comes to shove. Maybe this is tough talk but reality, as perhaps might have been proven by the West’s failure to do anything to uphold the Budapest memorandum. But maybe it also signals the West does not really understand the threat from the East, and might only come to a realization herein when it is too late. In Ukraine, the West has an ally that is prepared to stand up and defend Western values, because it has to and because it is in the front line – not out of choice. The West would be best advised to give Ukraine all the tools to defend itself because ultimately its own defense might ultimately rest on outcomes on the fields of Ukraine.
Now McFaul does raise an interesting idea of a Ukrainian reform council – including people like ex-International Monetary Fund officials, who have a deep understanding of Ukraine. Now, this is a good idea, something I have been recommending for some time. These same people can both be drivers of reform in Ukraine but also salespeople for the Ukraine story abroad, amongst investors. They can push Ukraine where it needs to do better on reform, but promote reform achievements delivered to the international investment community. And there have been plenty of reform successes in Ukraine – NBU reform, banking sector reform, energy sector reform, hope around the new land market, pro-Zorro. All these reform successes show me that Ukraine is absolutely reformable – and relatively easily, but vested interests, including oligarchs, need to be outgunned, and at the moment local NGOs lack sufficient ammo to drive change, and that ammo can be provided by the likes of the US, bilateral and multilateral creditors who can use the allure of cheap financing to push reform forward at critical times. And fighting corruption is still mission-critical to Ukraine.
So in conclusion can the words “quid pro quo” be erased in the Ukrainian context? No sell-out on the fight against corruption for a sell-out on a NATO MAP.
