What to Expect in Ukraine After the US Elections: Interview with Mykhailo Podolyak

What to expect in Ukraine after the US elections: an interview with Mykhailo Podolyak Arsen Tsymbalyuk Oksana Kharkovska

The elections in the United States are scheduled for November 5, 2024. Ukraine is currently communicating with candidates from both parties – Donald Trump from the Republican Party and the likely Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.

Adviser to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Mykhailo Podolyak in an exclusive interview with Channel 24noted that one should take the victory of any candidate calmly, because the issue of support for our state for the United States is a matter of leadership. Read more about the US elections, the relationship between Zelensky and Kamala Harris, and how Joe Biden's policy towards Ukraine has changed in the article below.

What is the relationship between Zelensky and Kamala Harris

The Times writes that between President Volodymyr Zelensky and US Vice President Kamala Harris “cool relations”. In February 2022, just days before Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it was she, or in particular she, who rejected the idea of ​​preemptive sanctions against Moscow proposed by the Ukrainian side. So, what is the real relationship between Zelensky and Harris??

With the start of the full-scale invasion, all relations that Ukraine had were, so to speak, reset and reformatted at a more constructive level. Therefore, the president met with Ms. Harris about six times during the full-scale invasion.

The current US Vice President takes an absolutely pro-Ukrainian position, the most positive-radical regarding the type of war that Russia is waging, and regarding the assistance that Ukraine needs. She has the most constructive position.

Once again, after the full-scale invasion, many things have fundamentally changed. Firstly, Ukraine's subjectivity has grown. Secondly, representatives of the Western political elites, in particular the United States, have rethought what modern Russia is, what is happening in Eastern Europe in general, and what risks the war will lead to if it is not concluded correctly. Therefore, on the contrary, I expect the most loyal attitude from the (possible – Channel 24) Democratic Party candidate.

However, I still want to return to the full-scale invasion. Let me remind you that there were negotiations between the United States and Russia in the summer of 2021, and there were certain speeches from Russian regions at various European venues. At that time, Germany and other countries of conservative Europe were extremely interested in Russia practically dominating the energy and other markets with a monopoly.

Ukraine's subjectivity was very low at that time. That is, Ukraine was considered a small country somewhere on the periphery, whose interests could be ignored. Of course, many mistakes were made then. An incorrect assessment of Russia, its motivations, an incorrect assessment of the fact that Russia wanted to restore the Soviet Union. But with the beginning of a full-scale invasion, this changed to absolutely clear support for Ukraine.

What to expect from the future US president

In general, the elections in the States will be quite tough. Today we see that the campaign looks more technological than it was a month ago. We see that the candidates are completely different. They have equal chances, and I like it, because it is a manifestation of absolute democracy. The United States is exemplary in this sense.

What to expect from this or that candidate who wins? I would be calm about any candidate who becomes the “master” of the White House. Because either the United States remains the leader, or they will lose global leadership to Russia if they refuse to support Ukraine.

Moreover, this support today is not as valuable as it seemed. Still, 60 billion, and we are talking about specific aid packages from the US, given that the military budget of the US itself is just over 900 billion dollars – is not comparable to the price of global leadership.

Moreover, Russia has completely abandoned any rules, in particular those of warfare. By the way, at the first Summit (peace – Channel 24), among other things, Ukraine also proposed discussing the rules of war. For example, that energy facilities should be outside the scope of strikes.

Strikes against civilians, strikes against critical infrastructure should be outside the scope of war. That is, Ukraine even proposes discussing the rules of war – something that the enemy will definitely adhere to. Therefore, if Russia is left as it is today – in Putin’s iteration – then this will certainly create a huge burden on the security systems of the United States directly.

I’ll return briefly to Harris. I want to latch onto your phrase that her mood is positively radical. But it is positively radical in relation to whom, or in relation to what position?

We must comment on this carefully, because after all, she is a candidate in the electoral cycle. This is a fairly tough campaign, therefore, so that it does not appear that we support this or that candidate… You and I are extremely interested in absolutely equal support for Ukraine from the Republican and Democratic parties, this is very important.

Kamala Harris/Getty Images

Therefore, it seems to me that almost all such passionate representatives of the American political elite, regardless of the camp, including Ms. Harris, clearly understand three things about this war.

First, that Russia is not an adequate country. Yes, this does not mean that they are ready to make the most harsh, radical decisions here and now. I would like to, but over the past 30 years, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has been constructed a little differently.

Everyone believed that there would no longer be the global threats generated by the USSR. That is, wars of this scale were definitely not predicted, especially on the European continent. Therefore, the elites were focused on cooperation, on business, in particular corrupt business, because Russia only works through corrupt business.

Everyone expected that if there were wars somewhere, then only of such a small expeditionary nature. Nobody expected that Moscow would take us back to the middle of the last century. Therefore, today they understand that Russia is completely inadequate and not comparable to the times in which we find ourselves today. It will always spend funds on creating threats to the global political space, and not on implementing some technological challenges and the like.

Secondly, It is impossible to reach an agreement with the Russian political elite because they do not consider it necessary to adhere to legal or factual agreements. That is, you can pretend that some negotiations were held, agreements appeared, but it is guaranteed that Russia will violate them. And then she will also try to prove that others should pay for the fact that she violates something.

And thirdly, support for Ukraine is obvious, taking into account how much its subjectivity has grown. Ukraine itself proved this subjectivity on the battlefield. So, what to expect today? I don’t want to offend other countries, but today Ukraine is perhaps the only country that knows how to defend its territory, its rules of life, and its values ​​in such a large-scale war. This is subconsciously perceived by everyone as a manifestation of the enormous potential of the Ukrainian nation.

Will the administration of the new president be more decisive

Do you think there is any reason to believe that whoever becomes US President will be more decisive than the current Joe Biden administration? ?

Let's start with the current Biden administration. After all, it has been maximally active for more than two years and is providing full assistance to Ukraine. Yes, it is a little slow, there are certain negotiating issues that need to be resolved. I mean the ban on strikes deep into Russian territory.

But look, the United States is still moving forward progressively today in terms of the volume of aid, the types of weapons it transfers, and even the partial lifting of the ban on strikes on Russian territory. That is, they provide all of this, and this is a huge amount of assistance.

Therefore, I still have an absolutely positive assessment of everything that Mr. Biden's administration is doing for us. Without such support, we would definitely not have been able to build a defense system that could withstand one of the largest military countries in the world with the most aggressive internal ideology.

Now regarding the candidates and whether they will be decisive regarding Ukraine. I do not want to make such predictions, because we need to talk about practical things that are happening today. President Zelensky is extremely interested in having negotiating platforms with the headquarters of the Republican candidate. We have already seen the first phone call (conversation between Zelensky and Trump – Channel 24). Communications are quite intensive at different levels.

The president also has personal communications with Ms. Harris and is interested in maximizing these communications. For what? In order to clearly understand and predict what Ukraine will have. It is important for us that the aid is constant, that there is a full understanding of this war, that there is an understanding of what stage of the war we are at and what tools we need for waging a defensive or offensive war.

It is important for us that there are no pauses. This pause of 8 months, when the aid was suspended (they talk about blocking aid for Ukraine in the US Congress – Channel 24), was a manifestation of an internal political discussion. Unfortunately. That is, it did not concern the need or lack of need for support for Ukraine then. It concerned the formation of the so-called launch pads for the beginning of the electoral cycle.

Therefore, it is very important for Ukraine that there are no such pauses, that there is total support at the level of two parties and two different headquarters. The rest, for example, analytical texts that are published with the signature of advisers to this or that candidate – these are all discussions that are designed for an internal audience. In order to debate within the framework of the internal discussion to what extent it is still necessary to win the war for the democratic world. No matter how it sounds.

I am simplifying everything a little now. That is, when someone says that we can make some compromises, it would be desirable for opponents who think a little differently to ask the question differently. And what is a compromise with Russia? This is a compromise at whose expense? At the expense of the global leadership of the United States, at the expense of the rules that will need to be changed, or at the expense of the abolition of international law.

Donald Trump/Getty Images

This compromise will not be at the expense of the territory of Ukraine. Because Russia has not set itself the goal of only a small piece of territory of another countries to seize. No, it has set itself the goal of destroying international law, reformatting the global space, dominating the law of the strong, dominating Europe as a whole. Russia wants to dominate.

Therefore, we must take a calm attitude to everything and approach it pragmatically. What is pragmatism? I will return once again to the concept of the President of Ukraine. Pragmatism is constant communication on various platforms with representatives of key political elites, in particular the United States.

By the way, in the tradition of the United States, the official candidate from, in this case, the Republican Party can conduct negotiations at the level of leaders of other countries. This is already traditional for them, and therefore it is very good that such communications exist between Trump and the President of Ukraine, and between Harris and the President of Ukraine.

What could the wrong ending of the war lead to

What questions does Kyiv have regarding Trump and Harris, regarding their real vision of ending the war in Ukraine? Is everything clear?

Everything is clear to us. The question is different – the further you are from the epicenter of the war, the more you want to play geopolitics, and not real politics, which clearly understands who has what goals and who has what motivations for continuing, for example, escalation, and who wants to get some kind of result.

Russia has completely nullified all conventions. They don't exist. If there is a conflict somewhere, there are no more rules. That is, there will be terrorist and genocidal means of warfare. Everything that Russia demonstrates on a large scale. It’s one thing when this is done by a terrorist organization that is an illegitimate dominant force in a particular state. Another is when it is done by an official state, which just yesterday belonged to the G8 club and was considered a total global country that has the right to change the rules.

Russia has reset all this . Any war today will necessarily have a genocidal component, regardless of region or territory. This needs to be explained to everyone. If you are far from the war, it seems to you that it can be ended quickly. Like? “Let's give something to the aggressor.” No.

This is where the United States understands that if you give something to the aggressor, it will encourage him to continue aggression. Moreover, at the highest level. Let us remember 2014, then the leaders of other countries spoke frankly, saying, “The Russians have captured Crimea, but it is not clear whose territory it is.” This was extremely careless and led to fatal consequences.

Why? There is no historicity. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the borders of new sovereign states were legally fixed. That's it. Period. Since then, the 1991 borders in Ukraine have been inviolable in relation to, for example, Kyiv, Crimea, Donbass. There are no other historical aspects.

If there had been a tough position in 2014, the annexation of Crimea would have definitely led to the isolation of Russia. That is, suspension of membership in the UN and so on. Then there would have been no expansion as such. This is the understanding that should dominate today. And this is what Ukraine wants to explain, explain and explain again.

Regardless of where you are in relation to the epicenter of the conflict, you must understand that any concession to Russia as it exists today will mean escalation. Russia has crossed the “red lines”. Once you have frozen the conflict, this means you need to prepare, invest heavily, reformat your economies, make them militaristic. So that security architectures have a completely different look.

Because other countries, not only North Korea, will join the war with Russia. Why? This will be the so-called division of the world, 3.0, 4.0 and the like. These countries will believe that they can reformat their role in the modern world. Who is next to Russia today? Those countries that can only exist in a state of war. In particular, in order to control the internal space.

If a country is technologically advanced, where does it spend its money? On quality of life, state service functions, so that a person can clearly plan a career, have a safe space. Which countries constantly want escalation, war? Those that have big problems with control over their internal space. They do not give a person any progress, service, and then sell propaganda like “we are great, although in poverty.”

And, unfortunately, any unfair outcome of the war will lead to the scaling of the conflict.

Can the US get closer to Russia

Trump, at least through Johnson, made it clear that he wants rapprochement or warming with Russia, but only from the position of the West's strength. This fits in with the isolation you are talking about now?

No, definitely not. It doesn't fit and there won't be any warming. You can't have a warming with people who don't keep agreements, who are interested in domination and who hate you, who are extremely negative. You can't have a warming in relations with people who like genocidal practices. This is nonsense.

The world should be built on certain rules that must be followed. What is the problem with the modern world? If we talk about any aggressor, these rules are built on the lack of coercion tools for countries to follow them.

Russia has violated everything: both conventions and international law. And, as it turns out, there is no instrument of coercion. Moreover, those platforms that should have been coercive, on the contrary, give an opportunity not only to Russia, but also to the Middle East to promote terrorist organizations.

“Urgent meeting of the UN Security Council in connection with the liquidation of the head of the Politburo of the officially recognized terrorist organization Hamas.” Can you imagine this? This is absurdity, this is a completely changed political climate in civilization. We must see with our own eyes how the liquidation of the head of an officially terrorist organization will be discussed.

Today it turned out that it is allegedly possible to break the rules. Russia is showing this for everyone. She does this demonstratively – she resets rule after rule and does not bear any punishment for it.

Again, the world must be built on certain rules. For example, the life of society. You cannot do whatever you want, for example, kill and insult other people. There is a legal framework, you will be responsible for this in any case. And society understands that state institutions guarantee that you will adhere to certain rules. The same is true in the global world.

At the same time, it turned out that in Russian aggression against Ukraine there are no rules, they are easy to circumvent and not be held accountable for these violations. And most importantly, there are no institutions that can force them to be followed. This gives other countries with aggressive potential an understanding that they can get some dividends through force, impudence or a large number of genocidal murders.

And when you talk about warming. And warming for what? Any warming on the part of democracy towards Russia, which has violated the established rules, will mean to others that democracy is on its knees, democracy is afraid, does not know how to defend itself and is not ready to uphold its values. This is without pathos. This is real.

Today, the main thing for Russia is not to lose. They speak openly about this: freezing the conflict for a certain time, then again the hot phase of the war. What will Russia do if the conflict is frozen? Where will it invest money – in the well-being of its citizens? We understand that this is a joke.

How will it behave in the global market? Extremely brazenly. Moreover, it will demand compensation: lifting of sanctions, compensation for the fact that it was humiliated, that it was fought against. You understand what will happen? And other countries will join in.

Neutral countries do not support Russia, with the exception of some states, such as Iran. The Global South does not support Ukraine, but it does not support Russia either. They are waiting to see what the rules will be. If a war ends with democratic countries coming and saying, “We fought a little with you, but you probably had the right to slaughter and rape people,” then how should the countries of the Global South react to this??

The Biden administration has changed since the invasion/Getty Images

And so the US says, “there are rules, we are still the leader, if Russia breaks them, we will punish.” You want someone to believe this and continue to focus on democratic countries, and not on states that will form a “pole of violence”? This is so infantile and inadequate…

Yes, there is a problem of unwillingness to make tough radical decisions. This leads to a slow supply of the necessary tools for effective warfare. This leads to “semi-sanctions”, as the President of Ukraine says. That is, it allows Russia to receive information from the global market. And additional income, which they spend on war.

This leads to the fact that no one is proposing to deprive Russia of the right to membership in the UN Security Council. There are formal grounds there. And there are grounds related to the beginning of an act of aggression against Ukraine. No one is doing this. And all this looks extremely confusing in terms of understanding what the future will be like if this continues.

Regarding the behavior of Mr. Biden's administration, it has changed dramatically. On the eve of the invasion, it was one thing. Today, it is a completely different administration, which has a different view of the nature of war and what needs to be done. Yes, they are not yet ready to finally make certain decisions for themselves. They have not yet emerged from the state in which the elites have been for the past 30 years, after the collapse of the Soviet Union; have not yet emerged from the Fukuyama syndrome, which spoke of the end of history, because there is no longer a large-scale confrontation, because one system has completely lost.

Unfortunately, it was a fatal mistake. It is absolutely fiction. There was no end to history. The confrontation was reformatted, and in a more tedious form today. However, we are gradually coming to the right decision, which will be in the future.

It will be determined by the mood in American society, the US presidential elections or what?

It will be determined by the subjectivity of Ukraine and the countries that are lobbyists for our state and continue to be so. What is the subjectivity of Ukraine? Unlike 2014, today, for more than 2 years since the full-scale invasion, Ukraine continues to insist on the fundamental things that guarantee a secure future for the democratic part of the world. No matter what.

Ukraine does not break under pressure, as it did in 2014. When they pretended that allegedly “we are negotiating with the Russians, taking on some obligations.” For me, this has always been strange within the framework of the Normandy format, the Minsk negotiations.

Today, Ukraine continues to insist. There are no compromise solutions in this war, there is no way to leave Russia in the form it is today, there is no way to guarantee security for Europe. Russia will not stop. On the contrary, it will be stimulated if the war is ended incorrectly. There is a large camp of Ukrainian lobbyists who also adhere to this. The question is different: the further from the center of the war, the more additional topics you have for discussion.

Read the second part of the interview with Mykhailo Podolyak soon on the 24 Channel website.