Interview with U.S. Representative Andy Levin, member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Congressional Ukraine Caucus.
Andy Levin was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 2018 and is with the Democratic Party. He is a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee and a leading member of the Ukraine Caucus in the U.S. Congress
Rep. Levin belongs to a prominent American political family that includes his father, Congressman Sander Levin, now retired, and uncle, the late Senator Carl Levin.
KP: In a news conference two weeks ago, Russia’s President Putin chastised NATO and the United States, accusing them of breaking promises made in the 1990s and unrelentingly working against Russia over the years to strengthen NATO’s presence in bordering countries. As a member of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus in the House of Representatives and a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, how would you respond?
Levin: I’ve long used my platform and my position as a member of Congress to advance the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. I’m guided by my belief that Ukraine must maintain its sovereignty and that war must be avoided. The U.S. and Russia, as the world’s two largest nuclear powers, must work to resolve their differences. There are ways forward to address long-standing grievances on both sides but that must be at a negotiating table. And both parties need to be willing to put in long, hard work and make concessions to reach political agreements. I’m firmly in favor of a diplomatic resolution to this crisis to avoid any further suffering by the Ukrainian people.
As a member of the Ukraine Caucus, on December 9, 2021, I joined my colleagues and President Biden in calling for the imposition of sanctions on Nord Stream 2 and greater defense assistance to Ukraine. My hope is that these actions will bring about real negotiations more quickly if we take a clear and strong stance.
KP: President Biden has stated that the U.S. will not budge in how it views Ukraine’s right to determine when/how and if to join NATO, as it is every sovereign state’s right to make strategic decisions such as these. Yet Biden has also noted that the U.S. (and NATO) will not militarily oppose a Russian attack on Ukraine. Your thoughts?
Levin: The most important thing is for President Biden to deter Russia while also maintaining diplomacy so that the sides have off-ramps from war. Deterrence measures should include imposing further sanctions, providing more defensive equipment and deploying NATO forces and equipment on NATO’s eastern flank. So, all those things are important.
KP: What can and should the U.S. do to buttress Ukraine in the face of Putin’s bellicose and aggressive attitude that historical ties put Ukraine firmly within Russia’s sphere of influence?
Levin: Well, President Putin’s actions miss the very thing that he is trying to avoid – a continued, beefed-up, military presence in the region. And so, the best way forward is deterring Russian aggression while conducting quiet diplomacy that prompts larger, long-term discussions about European security and peace and prosperity in the region. If Putin really wants to talk about broader issues about security in the region, that’s fine. Let’s talk about them. But back off from threats of invading Ukraine further. We have to remain very strong in our posture.
KP: How should the U.S. House of Representatives respond to Russia’s threats? Is the Congressional Ukraine Caucus ready to call for more lethal military hardware for Ukraine to defend itself against a possible Russian incursion?
Levin: Well, yes, and I feel like the Ukraine Caucus has already done that in our letter from December 9, where we called for increased military assistance to Ukraine. So, we are on record as being for that.
KP: While this is perhaps something better directed at the U.S. government’s executive branch, I’d like your opinion. Ukraine has asked that the U.S. become part of the Normandy Four, and there has not been a strong U.S. response regarding this. What is your position and the position of the Ukraine Caucus on that? Is this something that should be considered or is U.S. participation not critical to improving Ukraine’s situation?
Levin: Given the long-standing grievances and issues between Russia and the United States it is critical for the U.S. to be part of diplomatic negotiations with Russia and to work in concert with our partners and allies in the region.
KP: And do you think that the U.S. should keep pushing toward its own participation in the Normandy Four, which are the on-going discussions that includes Germany and France [along with Russia and Ukraine]?
Levin: I feel like I answered that question. The Normandy Four is just a name for the discussions. What is important is that the U.S. be there as part of diplomatic negotiations, in concert with our allies, no question.
KP: Russia keeps pushing a narrative about what it considers the inability of Ukraine to accede to the conditions of the Minsk Accords. The Kremlin insists that the first condition for moving toward resolution of the crisis in Donetsk would be for Ukraine to position its military forces away from Ukraine’s eastern border and allow the two puppet regimes – the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic – to assert full control over those areas while a vote on the region’s future takes place. What do you think is the proper way forward?
Levin: Ukraine’s territorial integrity is critical. And it’s also critical to assure the end of Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine. It would be unacceptable for Russia to believe that it can achieve its aims by threat of force in Ukraine or elsewhere in the world. Further implementation of the Minsk Agreements, including resolution of the question over Russian-controlled territory in Ukraine should come as a result of step-by-step action and ultimately a comprehensive political settlement that all sides find agreeable. Russia doesn’t dictate what comes first. They have to come to an agreement and not simply make demands.
KP: Regarding the January 10 Geneva meeting, what would you consider the best outcome for what are undoubtedly going to be highly diplomatic and, perhaps, extensive discussions? What would you consider the best outcome of that initial meeting?
Levin: Next week’s talks could really be a turning point in this conflict. I am hopeful that the sides will take steps towards de-escalation and a full return to comprehensive negotiations over this conflict and even lead to negotiations over larger issues, like European security and arms control. If it is Putin’s honest goal to have larger discussions, then good. Diplomatic discussions are good. Let’s get them. Let’s de-escalate and stop threatening force in order to get your way. We will not accept that. It is not going to work.
And we also have to prioritize minimizing further losses of civilian life. Way too many Ukrainians have died. We know that it’s the Ukrainian people, the ordinary citizens, who will suffer if there is more conflict. And ordinary Russians too.
The parties must keep that in mind and resolve to avoid any additional civilian harm as they work towards a political solution. It is simply unacceptable for Russia to continue to try to use force to get its way here. We won’t allow it.
