WASHINGTON, D.C. — Experts on Ukraine, including diplomats, politicians, scholars, and think-tank researchers, gathered in the capital on June 13 to assess whether Ukrainian society was moving forward in various important fields that together characterize what sort of a country it is to live in.
It was the seventh yearly summit of the U.S.-UA Working Group involving the Center for U.S.-Ukrainian Relations, the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, and the American Foreign Policy Council aimed at providing a “report card” rating if Ukraine was attaining Western standards.
This year it was held in the plush surroundings of the University Club of Washington in the U.S. capital.
Panels of speakers tackled various categories of state building – “Robust Democratic Politics,” “Developed Market Economics,” “General Security,” “Viable Social Cohesion,” and “National Identity” – assigning marks ranging from A plus for the top score to E minus as utter failure.
Ukraine’s record on democratic politics generally gained good marks with Ilan Berman of the American Foreign Policy Council, Steven Nix from the International Republican Institute, Katie Fox from the National Democratic Institute, and Orest Deychakiwsky from the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation all praising the recent Ukrainian presidential elections that were judged fraud-free and well-organized.
Human rights in the Kyiv-governed country were mostly assessed as in good shape. But some gross abuses such as attacks on journalists and civic activists, including an acid attack on a female politician and activist that led to her death, were also noted as was criminal involvement by some local police and authorities.
However, the panel contrasted the situation in “Free Ukraine” with plentiful and continuous violations in Russian-occupied territory where Deychakiwsky described a dire human rights situation with arbitrary imprisonment and torture. He said intolerance, often accompanied by violence, was directed at anyone professing faith other than the Russian Orthodox Church.
He said theft of property and other assets by Russian occupiers and local collaborators will be a problem in any peace negotiations.
The economy – what could be
Several participants of the “Developed Market Economics” panel emphasized economics and politics in Ukraine were darkly intertwined.
Roman Popadiuk from the World Affairs Councils of America, and a former American ambassador to Ukraine, lamented that the same “ruling clans” of oligarchic businesspeople had remained in the fore of the country’s politics.
Economics expert Anders Aslund, a fellow at the Atlantic Council in D.C., said too many enterprises remained in state hands and were run as if they were owned by various Ukrainian ministries, which should properly function as regulatory bodies; most of the more than 3,000 state enterprises should be privatized or liquidated. He added it was undesirable to have more than half of the country’s banking industry under state control.
Land privatization would open up access to loans for developing their businesses to farmers who could use their properties as collateral.
On the bright side, Aslund declared “monetary policy looks reasonably secure” and he believes that tens of thousands of young Ukrainians with Western education represent a vast opportunity for the country’s economic development.
Aleks Mehrte, a partner of Sovereign Ventures investment management fund which coordinates U.S. and other investors and Ukrainian public and private stakeholders, noted that many of the promises regarding economic reform and fighting corruption that have been made over the last 20 years by Ukrainians have not been fulfilled. He hoped that President Volodymyr Zelensky will make inroads for change.
Matthew Murray of the Harriman Institute, like many other speakers, said that although former President Petro Poroshenko had disappointed many Ukrainians in failing to fight corruption vigorously, he had presided over more reforms than any leader since Ukraine’s independence. He said Ukraine could be visualized as a South Korea of Europe if proper use was made of its young talent particularly in the IT and engineering sectors.
Ukrainian Army should promote younger officers
William Courtney, a former senior U.S. diplomat and now executive director of RAND Corporation’s Business Leaders’ Forum, moderated the panel on security issues. Panel member Glen Howard from the Jamestown Foundation, a D.C. think tank, said that “Ukraine often looks like a country not at war” and Kyiv needs to act with more urgency.
He also said that more younger officers with battle experience or with Western training should be promoted to influential positions within the Ukrainian military.
Howard lamented that hundreds of military training courses are being offered by America and other NATO countries but the Ukrainian government is not taking advantage of them. Howard said Ukraine needs to build up its navy if it wants to retake Crimea.
Stephen Blank, from the American Foreign Policy Council, said that proposals in Congress to give Ukraine major non-NATO ally status offer a great opportunity. However, he added: “But its benefit can only be maximized if you use that status intelligently to get the right weapons and the right equipment, to the right people with the right command structure. The weapons alone are not going to make a decisive difference in the war.”
‘Flocks of ostriches’
Robert McConnell, a former assistant attorney general and co-founder, with his wife Nadia, of the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, said the West had not always been a reliable ally for Ukraine and pointed to how the Budapest Memorandum, ostensibly guaranteeing Ukraine’s sovereignty in return for surrendering its nuclear arsenal, had proved worthless. He also chided NATO’s unwillingness to give a work plan to Ukraine to join the alliance, describing it as a symptom of the West’s naivety.
He compared the West to “flocks of ostriches with their heads in the sand, hoping that when they take them out and look east they’re going to see something other than a malevolent Russia.” That’s not going to happen, he said.
McConnell said he was not suggesting that the U.S. or NATO forces should be involved in fighting, but said the West had been slow and incomplete in reacting to Ukraine’s needs which coincided with America’s own national interests.
He said the Pentagon and NATO had apparently been caught out when Russian troops occupied Crimea: “When Russian tanks, armored personnel carriers, and troops came rolling across the border, the Pentagon officially described it as ‘an unchallenged arrival’ – are you kidding me?
“That was in 2014. This year, the head of NATO before Congress said ‘We don’t want another Cold War’ – hello, we’re in a live firing war right now and NATO’s and U.S. interests are involved.”
But he said the U.S. had held its European allies together to maintain sanctions against Russia, and America had provided economic and military aid, including Javelin anti-armor missiles.
McConnell urged Ukrainian military leaders to think more strategically about what weapons they ask for from the U.S. and to implement legal changes allowing the Ukrainian defense industry and military to trade directly to procure U.S. military equipment.
He said Ukraine should be willing to spend more of its own money on its military and “we, friends of Ukraine, need to be pushing our [U.S.] government to make sure we can provide what is needed.”
‘Big powers sidelining Ukraine’
Hanna Hopko, chair of the Ukrainian parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, was a guest speaker and said America’s help for her country had been invaluable.
But she said she was tired of some Western politicians and officials, who she didn’t name, referring to Ukraine, with Moldova and Georgia, as “one of the country’s in between” Russia and the West with the implication that more powerful states should “solve the problems of Donbas at the expense of Ukraine.”
That, she warned, amounted to appeasement encouraging more Russian aggression, and that any solutions for Donbas must be formulated in concert with Kyiv.
Hopko said Russia is also the West’s adversary. Helping Ukraine become successful would “become a nightmare for Putin and Putinism… without Ukraine, Putin’s dreams of a Euro-Asian empire mean nothing.”
Kurt Volker, the U.S. special representative for Ukraine negotiations, said Washington had been consistent in its support for Kyiv, had sent an important delegation for Zelensky’s inauguration and U.S. President Donald Trump had invited the Ukrainian leader to visit the White House.
“I feel that Russia has not changed its approach to Ukraine. But we have made a lot of headway in strengthening support to make Ukraine resilient… That’s changed the equation in a way that time is now more on the side of Ukraine,” he said.
He also praised Poroshenko for “doing a great job at a difficult time for the country” by introducing reforms, getting international support for his country and rebuilding the Ukrainian Army.
Talking about the presidential elections, which ejected Poroshenko and gave Zelenskiy 73 percent of the vote, Volker said with a laugh they showed “the Ukrainian people wanted more… faster, better, newer, fresher, younger, different – change everything.”
That’s what Zelensky – himself a generation younger than his predecessors – was promising and people latched onto that, said Volker. He said Zelensky had brought in some good pro-Western figures into his administration but also some who have ties to the old oligarchic system.
“He now has an obligation to his people to deliver on what he has promised… and the future of Ukraine for the next five years is probably going to be determined in the next three months [which will see parliamentary elections and the formation of a new government]. Everybody is going to be trying to influence that – whether it’s the Russians, the oligarchs, reformers.
“So it is imperative for the United States [and other Western countries] to do everything possible to try to engage with president Zelensky now and help him achieve what he said he would achieve.”
Importantly, he said Zelensky will have to demonstrate that he really is independent and not influenced by oligarchs.
Tamara Olexiy from the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, who was the executive coordinator for the conference, kept tally of the many individual scores. Summarizing the results, she said that Robust Democratic Politics received a B minus; Developed Market Economics – C plus; General Security – C; Energy Security – in the range B minus to C plus; Social Cohesion – B; National Identity – B to B plus.
