Part One

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (left) and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Kyiv, May 6 (Source: Reuters)

Antony Blinken is visiting Kyiv today (May 6) on his first bilateral visit as US Secretary of State to a European country (Ukraiynska Pravda, May 6). This choice should have been foreordained in view of Ukraine’s pivotal significance to the power balance in Europe and the containment of Russia.

Should the Joseph Biden administration confirm the containment goal as part of its overall strategy in Europe, it will be able to take the lead in developing a strategic partnership with Ukraine on foundations laid during the Donald Trump administration. The latter supplied lethal military equipment that had previously been withheld to Ukraine and launched major training programs for the Ukrainian army, drawing on bipartisan Congressional backing. The Trump administration also moved decisively with bipartisan support to block Gazprom’s Nord Stream Two pipeline project, adverse to European energy security generally and Ukraine’s national interests in particular.

Developing a full-fledged US-Ukraine strategic partnership under the Biden administration would presuppose continuity with those policies on military assistance and energy security. It also presupposes Washington’s return to mentoring and supporting Ukraine in the diplomatic negotiations aimed at ending Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territories. The appointment of a US ambassador in Kyiv is also long overdue.

Those are the expectations that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the government, and civil society in Ukraine have voiced since the Biden administration took office and that were presented to Blinken in Kyiv today (Ukrinform, Unian, May 6).

Some of Kyiv’s expectations confront the United States with the problem of expectation management. Conversely, Zeleneskyy’s delusional hopes to end Russia’s aggression through bilateral negotiations with President Vladimir Putin (see EDM, April 28, 29, May 3) necessitate hands-on US mentoring in Kyiv before any damage is incurred.

In the run-up to Blinken’s visit, Ukrainian officials from Zelenskyy on down redoubled calls to add the United States to the existing “Normandy” format of negotiations (Russia, Ukraine, Germany, France). It is a sign of President Zelenskyy’s nervousness and impatience to “end the war” that he is reaching out directly to the Kremlin while asking the US to join the Normandy format at the same time (The Financial Times, President.gov.ua, April 26).

Adding the United States to the Normandy format is not only impossible but would harm Ukraine’s interests if that move were achieved. Moscow would undoubtedly veto Washington’s entry into this group. Berlin and Paris would also oppose it for reasons of their own. They would not want to end up in Washington’s shadow if the latter joins the Normandy group. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron are deeply invested politically in the Normandy process: the exiting Merkel for a career-crowning success, the re-electable Macron for seizing the center-stage from Merkel and playing mediator between Europe and Russia.

On the other hand, should Washington hypothetically be accepted into the group, it would have to take into account Berlin’s and Paris’s cautious, concession-prone attitude toward Moscow. This would require Washington to adjust its position to a lower common denominator with Berlin and Paris. Furthermore, if admitted into the Normandy process, the United States would have to adopt the “acquis” of documents that form the basis of this seven-year process, beginning with the Minsk “agreements” aimed at reinserting the Russian-controlled Donetsk and Luhansk back into Ukraine on Russian-imposed terms. Ukraine would be far better off if the United States resumes an active diplomatic role unencumbered by the Minsk “agreements” and the Normandy acquis (Tetiana Sylina, “Non-Format,” Dzerkalo Tyzhinia, April 27).

US diplomat Kurt Volker performed outstandingly as Special Representative in negotiations outside the Normandy format—albeit in consultation with Berlin and Paris—from July 2017 through September 2019. The Special Representative’s post became, however, a collateral casualty to Washington’s political turmoil. Ukrainian officials hope for a US Special Representative to be appointed who might emulate Volker’s performance. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has expressed hope that the State Department would itself select and appoint that special representative (RFE/RL, May 2).

The post of US ambassador in Kyiv has been vacant for the last two years. To speed up the ambassadorial appointment, some Ukrainian officials suggest elevating the current chargé d’affaires, Christina Kwien, to a full-fledged ambassador, so as to obviate the lengthy nomination and confirmation process in Washington. Ukrainian parliamentary leaders proposed this solution during their meeting with Blinken and his delegation today (Ukrinform, May 6).

Part Two

(Source: Odessa Journal)

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his closest entourage sometimes raise public expectations of what the United States can deliver to Ukraine to unrealistically high levels. Furthermore, they tend to discount the close relationship between what the US is actually delivering to Ukraine and the latter’s own performance on economic and governance reforms. These twin tendencies of Zelenskyy’s team can generate public disappointment after undue expectations, confronting the US with a problem of expectation management in Ukraine (see Part One in EDM, June 6).

President Zelenskyy has decided that Ukraine would ask the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to initiate the process of adopting a Membership Action Plan (MAP) for Ukraine at the Alliance’s upcoming summit (June 14). Zelenskyy publicly asked the visiting US Secretary of State Antony Blinken for Washington to support Ukraine’s move at this summit. Zelenskyy’s closest adviser, Andriy Yermak, announced after the talks, “We have received again today [May 6] the confirmation of full US support for Ukraine to receive a MAP” (Ukrinform, May 6). This goal, however, remains unrealistic due to entrenched opposition in much of Western Europe, which US support, no matter how persistent, is unlikely to overcome any time soon. Taking this fact into account, Blinken as well as the State Department’s briefings on his visit used the general term “Euro-Atlantic aspirations” (State.gov, May 5–7) rather than referring specifically to a Membership Action Plan. Unduly raising public hopes in a MAP year after year can only result in another disappointment and, ultimately, NATO-skepticism in Ukraine, playing into Russia’s hands.

Fortuitously, on May 6 (the day of Blinken’s Kyiv visit), the North Atlantic Council at the ambassadorial level decided that NATO’s June 14 summit in Brussels will be held without the attendance of partner countries such as Ukraine (Ukrinform, May 8). The US and a few member countries are set to promote Ukraine’s aspirations at the summit in Ukraine’s absence. Meanwhile, Kyiv has left the post of Ukraine’s ambassador to NATO vacant since August 2019. For their part, NATO officials suggest that Ukraine should make best use of its recently (since June 2020) gained status as an Enhanced Opportunities Partner (EOP). This is no substitute for a MAP, however; neither has EOP’s relevance to Ukraine been fully tested in practice. Ukraine’s main source of military equipment, assistance and training is not NATO as such, but the United States on a bilateral basis as well as a coalition-of-the-willing comprised mainly of the US, the United Kingdom and Canada. These arrangements outside NATO’s official framework (thus, not requiring its collective political approval) look set to continue and potentially expand.

According to Blinken in Kyiv, the United States is prepared to expand security cooperation and defense assistance to ensure that Ukraine has the means to defend itself against Russian aggression (RFE/RL, May 6). Ukrainian officials submitted specific requests, including for air defense systems, during this visit. Yermak had earlier ventured to raise the level of expectations, publicly calling on the US to deploy or deliver Patriot missiles to Ukraine, apparently without prior coordination with Washington (Censor.net, April 13).

The Ukrainian parliamentary leader of the pro-presidential Servant of the People party, David Arakhamia, brought up the possibility of a US-Ukraine bilateral agreement on strategic-military cooperation during Blinken’s visit (Ukrinform, May 6). This may have lifted a curtain’s corner on Zelenskyy’s cryptic remark at the concluding joint briefing: “We discussed the possibility of a very serious bilateral agreement. But this is a matter for the future; it is too early to discuss details” (State.gov, May 6). The option for Ukraine to seek the status of Major Non-NATO Ally of the United States has also come up for discussion in Kyiv. Such proposals may gain added relevance for Ukraine in the aftermath of NATO’s upcoming summit and will deserve serious exploration at the professional level outside the political arena.

It is a worrisome sign for Ukraine (and not only for it) that the US side has stopped short of reaffirming its strong opposition to Gazprom’s Nord Stream Two natural gas pipeline project during Blinken’s visit (see Part One in EDM, May 6). Such restraint is another instance of expectations management. The Joseph Biden administration seems to be procrastinating on applying the available sanctions capable of blocking Nord Stream Two. Instead, the administration seems to be deferring to German interests in Gazprom’s project; and possibly also to Russia’s own interests in the run-up to the Biden-requested meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Inflicting a coup de grace on Nord Stream Two by US sanctions might also kill the summit planned for June. According to Russia’s ambassador in Berlin, Sergei Nechayev, construction work on Nord Stream Two could be completed by September, if the weather is favorable (TASS citing Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland, May 8). Completion of Nord Stream Two would heavily hit Ukraine financially and more broadly strategically. The state company Naftohaz stands to lose several billion dollars in annual revenue in that case.

Yet the Zelenskyy administration has hit its own interests and reputation in the run-up to Blinken’s visit (and without regard for it) by purging Naftohaz CEO Andriy Kobolev and the Supervisory Board for obscure reasons, in violation of corporate governance norms. The president (or his entourage), furthermore, has appointed Herman Halushchenko as energy minister, notwithstanding his ties with Andriy Derkach, who is viewed in Ukraine and the US as an agent of Russian influence and has therefore been sanctioned by the United States (Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, May 7). This move has undermined the Zelenskyy administration’s own arguments (otherwise undoubtedly valid) for the US to block the Nord Stream Two project.

NOTE: The article was first published in Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 18 Issue: 73 (Part One) and Issue:74 (Part Two).