The Daily - Why Military Assistance for Ukraine Matters

Episode Date: November 11, 2019

The question of whether President Trump leveraged military assistance to Ukraine for personal gain is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. Today, we speak with our Ukraine correspondent on why that assistance was so important to Ukraine — and the United States — in the first place.Guest: Andrew E. Kramer, who covers Ukraine for The New York Times and is based in Moscow. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Petro O. Poroshenko, who was Ukraine’s president until May, knew his country’s independence hinged on American support. So he waged a campaign to win over President Trump.As vice president, Joe Biden tried to press Ukraine’s leaders to clean up corruption and reform the energy industry. The story of that effort has been overtaken by his son’s work for a Ukrainian gas company.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, at the heart of the impeachment inquiry was a threat to withhold U.S. military assistance from Ukraine. Why that assistance had been so important to Ukraine and to the United States in the first place. It's Monday, November 11th. The word Ukraine means frontier or borderland.

This was a frontier between two competing empires. It's been a country torn between East and West, between Western Europe and Russia. For most of the 20th century, Russia had won out, and Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. The Declaration of Independence is on as of today. That's what it says. It's effective as of today. Until August 24, 1991, when Ukraine took a step toward the West. An already emotional week ended today as the people of Ukraine embarked on a new beginning,

becoming the fifth republic to break away from the Kremlin. It was the culmination of a long struggle for independence. And after years of hardship under Soviet rule, Ukraine was now an independent state. This is one of the turning points in history. The vote for independence of Ukraine is in fact one of those momentous events that is going to change the rest of history.

It's the end of the Russian Empire. So once Ukraine becomes an independent country and it can have its own international relations with the rest of the world, what do those relationships start to look like? The key issue for Ukraine that defined both its foreign and its domestic policy in the post-Soviet period was the geopolitical struggle for Ukraine's allegiance. I reached Andrew Kramer, a foreign correspondent for The Times, in Kiev. On the one hand, you had Ukraine very closely tied to Russia by industrial supply chains, by energy pipelines, and indeed by culture and by history. But the European Union was pulling Ukraine in the Western direction, the European Union and the United States, trying to conceive

of Ukraine as integrated into the Western European world. And as Europe pulled in one direction, Russia started to pull back. And what was it about Ukraine that interested the U.S. and the European Union? The idea was to encourage the development of a democratic system and to prevent the re-emergence of a Russian empire. There was the axiom that Russia without Ukraine is just a country and Russia with Ukraine becomes an empire. So maintaining the independence of Ukraine was a policy objective to prevent the reemergence of an expansionist imperial power in Moscow. It feels like at this point, the Cold War is officially over, but it's not quite over.

That's right. There was a feeling that the Russians, although they had acquiesced to the independence of these countries, they had a phantom limb syndrome. They always felt that Ukraine, in fact, should belong to Russia. phantom limb syndrome. They always felt that Ukraine, in fact, should belong to Russia. Phantom limb as if they could never really believe that Ukraine or Czechoslovakia or any of these countries were not really theirs anymore. Yes, that's right. And there's something more. There's a cultural issue at play here. Both Russia and Ukraine trace their origin to Kiev. Kiev was the capital of the original

Russian state. They feel this was the roots of their country, and they don't want to see it in another state. So they feel that the Ukrainians are something like wayward cousins in the sense that it should be obvious to Ukrainians that this is all one culture and one civilization. So Russians believe that Russia as a concept, as a place, as a country, as an identity, began in Kiev. That's right. But of course, the fact that Ukraine is independent means that no matter how Russia feels about it, Ukraine has the right to develop whatever relationship it wants with the U.S. and with the European Union.

Theoretically, certainly. But they also have to be very cautious about not poking the Russian bear that they have a powerful neighbor and they have to acknowledge the real politics of their circumstances. What's developing here is the tug of war that becomes the story of post-independence Ukraine, with the West reaching out to foreign alliances and Russia seeking to maintain its sphere of influence in Ukraine. Ukraine is trying to decide whether it wants to align itself with Russia's regional trade bloc or to push for EU integration. This really came to a head with two competing trade agreements which were offered to Ukraine. The Ukrainian president arrived in Strasbourg,

poised to work on concluding the association agreement. One from the European Union and one from Russia. With a view to later establishing a free trade area between Ukraine and the EU. The European Union offered a more serious and formal trade arrangement with Ukraine that would be possibly a path to membership in the EU, although that was seen as a distant prospect. After 15 years of eager anticipation, the customs union between Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan

is up and running. And Russia responded by offering a trade agreement of its own, which was called the Customs Union. The union, created to ease mutual trade, could be joined by another candidate, Ukraine. Which was very similar on paper to the European Union, but it was also, in a sense, a reforming of the Soviet Union as well. The country is at a crossroads,

deciding whether to turn east or west. This feels like a very consequential moment because to join the EU would feel like Ukraine saying, officially, we see ourselves as part of Europe. To choose a trade deal instead with Russia would be to say to the West, we ultimately see ourselves as part of the world of Russia.

That's right. So while on paper this was about trade, grain quotas and so forth, this was really about the destiny of the country. And where does the Ukrainian leader at the time fall on this decision? The West or Russia? The Ukrainian leader, Viktor Yanukovych, had generally been seen as a pro-Russian politician,

but he had promised that Ukraine would integrate economically with the European Union while maintaining good relations with Russia. But in the end, in a very dramatic moment, the Yanukovych government announces that they will turn to Russia instead of the European Union for a trade agreement. He goes with Russia. He went with Russia. That feels genuinely surprising to me. I mean, here is this country just a couple of decades out of independence, and it is taking the most formal step possible to reintegrate itself with the country it had sought independence from.

That's right. And this is what a lot of people in Ukraine and in Kiev felt about this decision. There were immediate protests in Kiev that never let up from the day they began in November of 2013. And tell me about these protests. Well, when I came down to cover these protests in the late fall of 2013, there was already a tent encampment in the center of Kiev in Independence Square with thousands and thousands of people on the square around the clock. thousands of people on the square around the clock. People were genuinely outraged by this decision to lean back towards Russia.

And it was also something of a party, really. Even though there were always riot policemen somewhere hovering on the edges of these protests, sometimes making incursions, making arrests, there were also groups called tetushki, which were hired thugs who would come in with a lead pipe or knives, straight razors, and would be attacking the protesters. It started to turn more violent as the winter came on. By February, I was living in a hotel right on the square, and it became very tense.

When I drove into the city in the early morning, I could see black smoke rising from the center of Kiev from burning cars. And there were a number of very violent confrontations over about two days in late February, in which the police eventually encroached on the square, overran much of the territory that the protesters had controlled, and pushed it back to a few hundred square yards. And at the last moment, the protesters, out of desperation, they started to burn tires and actually anything that was flammable to make a ring around this small, charred bit of pavement that was the only remaining area that they controlled,

that they sort of felt this was what was left of their dream of the independent Ukraine. And then in the final day, there was really a cacophony of gunfire. And there were snipers firing into the crowd. Over this hour and a half, 70 people were killed and several hundred people were wounded. It was such a brutal moment that the Ukrainian elite and the international community realized that something had happened that could not be unaddressed. And there was a revolt in the Yanukovych government against the president, and the police defected and betrayed their president and actually left the city center. And within hours, the president fled the capital.

So what happens next? Well, what happened next was a move by Russia, because Russia and President Vladimir Putin had just lost its ally in Viktor Yanukovych. And the very next day, Putin met with his security chiefs overnight. And by dawn, President Putin orders what he calls an operation to take back Crimea, which is in the south of Ukraine. And what this was really was an order of a military intervention into Ukraine. We'll be right back. What is it about Crimea that makes it the most logical place for Putin to try to invade?

Well, Crimea is host to a major Russian naval base in Sevastopol. So the military infrastructure is partly already in place. Also, the population in Crimea is predominantly Russian-speaking. So you would have a receptive population in this area. Look at Ukraine and Crimea down in the south there, jutting out into the waters of the Black Sea, home to a critical port the Russian Navy has used for centuries. This morning, more unidentified pro-Russia armed militias

patrolling the streets of Crimea's capital. So this was an unacknowledged intervention. These were men who had no insignia on their uniforms. They were called disparagingly by the Ukrainians, the little green men, as if they'd come from space. Mystery men in green uniforms by the hundreds were showing up in their country. Vladimir Putin proudly watching Russian military exercises today. They surrounded Ukrainian military bases. His air force controls the skies. They seized parts of the Ukrainian navy.

His army controls the roads, borders, and military bases. They overran the local legislature and other centers of power, and really within days had seized control. Putin rules in Crimea now. days had seized control. Putin rules in Crimea now. So by this point, the political process starts, the de facto authorities declare a referendum. There are no observers, so it's hard to say exactly what happened. But the people are asked, do you want to join Russia or would you like to remain in Ukraine? And by this point, of course, they are, in fact, already part of Russia. And the results come in and a majority want to be annexed by Russia. So Russia, having invaded Crimea, then asks the people of Crimea, do you basically mind that we just invaded Crimea? And it turns out that the answer is no.

Exactly. Exactly. Is it fair to say that Russia was using this kind of vote as a rationale to say, it's okay that we just annex Crimea because, in a sense, Crimea was always ours? Yes, absolutely. The message was, these are our people and they're coming home. So we left off back in Kiev with Ukraine losing its leader. So what is the response in Ukraine to this military incursion by Russia? What happened next was Russia tried a similar approach in other provinces.

Just yesterday, at this hour, thousands of Russian troops have been deployed to Ukraine's border. They fomented uprisings in Russian-speaking areas. of Russian troops have been deployed to Ukraine's border. They fomented uprisings in Russian-speaking areas. And this led to the war that we have going on in Ukraine today between pro-Russian forces and pro-Ukrainian forces. And what does this war look like? It's been a forgotten war. While there was interest in the first months, Everyone, put your hands up! In the name of God, fire! And they settled on what they were calling non-lethal assistance. Provide American assistance for the Ukrainian government so that they can weather this storm and stabilize their economy. And this was training for the Ukrainian army, ambulances, armored vehicles, body armor, radios, and other types of assistance, which were not doomed to be lethal or, most importantly, would not provoke a retaliatory escalation from Russia.

It's time to ask the hard question. Are we willing to stand up to Vladimir Putin's aggression before he kills more people, does more economic damage, further destabilizes Europe? So this began in 2014. Our options grow fewer and less effective. Support for Ukraine and Congress had been bipartisan. Both parties had agreed that backing Ukrainian independence was really in the United States' interest, that this was about

holding Russia at bay. There hadn't been much controversy over that. That's why I'm announcing today my plan to introduce new legislation. It will offer Ukraine greater assistance on a variety of fronts. And this assistance was rolled over in Congress year after year. Right. And so this is the military assistance that we have now heard so much about over the past few weeks. Exactly. Give them the weapons they need. Give them the wherewithal they need. Give them the ability to fight. They will fight. The world is watching, and the world's superpower cannot be seen as incapable of rising to Russia's challenge. Okay, so this is a situation after 2014. So what happens to this relationship once President Trump takes office? From the Ukrainian side, there was an effort to strike up a transactional relationship

with President Trump. Sort of, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. President Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine at the time, negotiated, for example, to buy coal from Pennsylvania. This was politically beneficial for Trump because Pennsylvania coal miners were really Trump's base, and Trump had promised to deliver jobs to coal miners in his campaign. That's a great honor and a great pleasure to be together with you, Mr. President. But I'm the most reliable supporter

and strategic partner for Ukraine. We're really fighting for freedom and democracy. So the Ukrainian government is just desperate to do whatever it needs to do to get into Trump's good graces, because in their minds, if they can do that, they can restore a better relationship with the U.S. and one in which the U.S. sees Ukraine as a strategic partner and leans away from Russia. Exactly.

Thank you very much. It's wonderful to have President Poroshenko with us. We spent some time recently in the White House, and I know you've made good progress since then. A lot of progress, actually. And I wouldn't say it's the easiest place right now to live, but you're making it better and better on a daily basis, and I do hear very, very good things.

How is President Trump weighing in on this war waging within Ukraine between these pro-Russian forces and the Ukrainian military? And I really hope that Russia, because I really believe that President Putin would like to do something, I really hope that you and President Putin get together and can solve your problem. That would be a tremendous achievement. And I know you're trying to do that. He's been very quiet on Russia's actions in Ukraine. Silence in the White House, which is pretty distressing given that we clearly have a powder keg. So will President Trump really put pressure on Vladimir Putin over this latest

clash between Russia and Ukraine? We press the Trump administration repeatedly on that question. Neither the White House nor the State Department would comment. And amid all this uncertainty about whether the Trump administration is really supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, the Ukrainians learned by early August of this year that about $400 million in military aid has been held up by the White House. Hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid has poured into Ukraine since 2014, but that could be at risk. Critics say the potential aid cut is an example of Trump capitulating to Russia. Some members of Congress are already sounding the alarm. And this was the time when they needed U.S. backing.

And the aid was a symbol of U.S. backing. It was also quite valuable for their military. But it wasn't quite clear initially what the issue was or how serious it would become. There was a creeping awareness in the Ukrainian government that the aid might in fact be lost by September. Finally, Andrew, the reason we're talking to you about this military aid at all is, of course, the phone call that President Trump makes to Ukraine's president and everything that we have learned since about the withholding of that aid to Ukraine unless the Ukrainians agreed to do these investigations that President Trump wanted into his rivals. wanted into his rivals. And based on what you've told us, how critically important this aid is, I guess I'm curious what the people fighting the war in Ukraine on the ground, who rely on this military aid, what they make of this series of events. Ultimately, when I talked to dozens of soldiers, the feeling was one of disappointment.

They felt they had maybe lost an ally in this war. I was at the front in October and met with some soldiers, and they naturally said that they were disappointed. The Ukrainian army is a poor army. They're fighting with basic weapons, Kalashnikov rifles, binoculars. They're living in dugout bunkers. Some of the soldiers, for example, are wearing tennis shoes and not boots. It's a very grim existence. So for them to learn they were losing the military assistance was quite a blow.

Soldiers said they were disappointed. So this was really a shock to soldiers to realize that they might be in this on their own. Andrew, thank you very much. Thank you. This week, the first witness to be called in the public phase of the impeachment inquiry will be Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, who is expected to testify that he had a, quote, clear understanding that American military aid to Ukraine would not be released until the Ukrainians pursued investigations that would benefit President Trump. In his closed-door testimony, Taylor has described a, quote,

snake pit of people around the president who were willing to use the military aid as leverage over Ukraine, despite the danger it posed to Ukraine. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. So is this a sign that Republicans are prepared to go back on the offense here? I think it is. Over the weekend, House Republicans released their list of witnesses for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry, including Joe Biden's son, Hunter, Hunter Biden's business partner, and the anonymous whistleblower whose complaint launched the inquiry.

I'm excited to see some of these witnesses that we've placed on the list. It's finally, finally we have an opportunity to kind of get to the bottom of what's going on and to round out some of the evidence. To here to four, as you know, it's been a very one-sided sham of a process. Here to four, as you know, it's been a very one-sided sham of a process. The witness list appeared to be an attempt by Republicans to shift the focus of the investigation away from President Trump. Let's hope that Chairman Schiff will allow these witnesses to testify. After reading the list, the chairman of the committee overseeing the inquiry, Democrat Adam Schiff, suggested that he would reject the Republican witnesses

and prevent them from testifying. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Bavaro. See you tomorrow.