Diplomacy without the right to emotions: why Ukraine cannot afford to lose America

The recent decisions of the head of the White House to weaken the application of the Graham sanctions law cause understandable and justified disappointment. Instead of the expected increase in economic pressure on Russia, the Kremlin receives additional room for maneuver. This looks especially dangerous against the background of the continuation of Russian terror against Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure.

I think Trump is making a desperate bet on a strategy of engagement, trying to persuade Putin to end the war primarily through agreements, not coercion. The idea itself is a workable one, but we have been down this road before and we know where it led.

If Trump’s bet works, we could get a ceasefire on hybrid terms — without reliable guarantees that Russia will not resume hostilities.

If it fails, such a strategy will be long out of the picture in international politics, and its supporters will receive a show of inoculation. This will become a serious argument against attempts by other European capitals to follow a similar approach. In particular, political forces such as Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France or the Alternative for Germany will lose one of the key arguments in favor of a policy of rapprochement with Moscow: the thesis that it is possible to reach an agreement with Putin without forcing him to change his behavior.

The fiasco of the engagement strategy will provide arguments in favor of returning to the pressure strategy — seriously and for the long term.

Given the complexity of the overall geopolitical context, Ukraine should not be guided by the emotions and outrage of today, but should think strategically.

Difficult negotiations require cold calculation, the ability to listen, understand the motivation of the interlocutor and the ability to see the consequences many steps ahead. The more difficult the partner, the higher the requirements for the professionalism of Ukrainian diplomacy should be. Not all opinions, even fair ones, need to be expressed publicly. Especially when this can close the channels of negotiations or harm specific defense agreements.

Diplomatic restraint should not be confused with political weakness. We can remain principled about our national interests while avoiding unnecessary confrontation.

We must realize that, despite the large-scale support of European partners, Europe is not yet able to fully replace American capabilities in the field of air defense, intelligence, military technologies and critical weapons. Therefore, maintaining strategic relations with the United States is not a matter of political sympathies. It is a matter of national security and the preservation of human lives.

That is why I am concerned about the dangerous trend towards personalizing relations with Washington. It seems that instead of painstaking diplomatic work, we are increasingly at risk of falling into the logic of personal political confrontation. The demonization of Trump, as well as the creation of a negative image of the United States in general, works against Ukrainian national interests.

This approach has already damaged our relations with some European partners. But applying it to the United States would be a strategic mistake of a completely different magnitude.

Trump is not Orban. And the United States is not a state whose support Ukraine can afford to neglect.

It is no less dangerous to link the prospects of Ukrainian-American relations with the results of the upcoming midterm elections to Congress. Regardless of their outcome, Donald Trump will remain the US president. Even if the Democrats win a majority in one or both houses of Congress, key foreign policy decisions will continue to depend to a large extent on the White House. Therefore, counting on its political weakening instead of seeking understanding with the current administration is extremely risky.

At the same time, bipartisan support for Ukraine in Congress remains an extremely important resource. Despite the White House’s decision, the reaction of American lawmakers has shown that Ukraine retains support among both parties. Our task is to preserve Ukraine as a common strategic interest of American parties. Support for Ukraine cannot be turned into an issue of partisan confrontation within the United States.

What to do?

First, to restore a full-fledged strategic dialogue with the White House, work systematically with both parties in Congress, and ensure continuous practical interaction between defense and security agencies.

In relations with the United States, we need to return to systemic, institutional diplomacy that is not limited to telephone conversations and personal meetings between presidents. Once upon a time, a whole network of working mechanisms operated between Ukraine and the United States, including the Strategic Partnership Commission, its specialized working groups, and other bilateral formats.

In 2018, for example, working groups were created within the Commission on security and countering Russian aggression, the rule of law and humanitarian issues, and economics and energy. And in 2021, the parties agreed to resume the work of the Commission and strengthen its role.

Where are these mechanisms today? Why aren’t we using them to their full potential?

It is time to finally appoint Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States. As a professional, I do not accept the arguments that it is worth waiting for the elections and then deciding on the ambassador’s candidacy. Ukraine needs constant channels of interaction with the State Department, Congress, the Pentagon, the Treasury Department, and other American institutions.

It is necessary to regularly discuss sanctions policy, military assistance, joint defense production, energy security, and long-term guarantees for Ukraine. The strategic partnership of the two states cannot depend solely on sentiments, political statements, or agreements at the highest level. Personal dialogue between presidents is important, but it must be based on the systematic work of ministries, parliaments, intelligence agencies, experts, specialized institutions, think tanks, civil society, the media, and the diaspora.

Second, Trump’s decision creates additional responsibility for the European Union. If concessions to the aggressor begin to be perceived as a tool for solving economic problems, this will create a dangerous precedent for European populists and political forces oriented towards Moscow.

The EU needs to maintain sanctions, step up the fight against their circumvention, use “frozen” Russian assets for the benefit of Ukraine, and increase its own defense production. A just and lasting peace is possible only when the price of continuing the war for Putin becomes higher than the price of ending it.

Europe must demonstrate strategic maturity and not let economic hardship or Trump’s antics become an excuse to appease an aggressor. We need a stronger Europe with the United States, not Europe instead of the United States.

It is finally time to persuade Washington to abandon the traditional logic of dosed support for Ukraine — helping enough to keep it from losing, but not enough to ensure strategic success. In my opinion, this is one of the fundamental problems in our relations with the United States.

American aid has been and remains critically important. But its scale and limitations have not always corresponded to Ukraine’s real needs. The task of our diplomacy is to change these calculations by proving that Ukraine’s victory and the defeat of Putin’s aggressive plans correspond to the long-term interests of the United States itself.

In this context, I would like to inquire about the status of the implementation of the breakthrough and historic “minerals agreement” and its potential for improving Ukrainian-American relations in these difficult conditions.

Today, Ukraine needs to grit its teeth, calm its emotions, and demonstrate maximum diplomatic professionalism.

We must fight not against the American president, but for American support for Ukraine. Presidents change, but the vital partnership between our peoples remains.

At this crucial moment, the European Union must maintain sanctions, Congress must maintain bipartisan support, and Ukrainian diplomacy must maintain dialogue with the White House and effective transatlantic coordination.

After all, the main criterion for the effectiveness of our diplomacy is not the number of loud statements and applause, but the ability to protect Ukrainian cities with sufficient air defense means, obtain reliable intelligence information for our soldiers, save human lives, and move towards a just and sustainable peace.

Also follow “Pryamim” on Facebook , X , Telegram , and Instagram.

• • The materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the veracity of the information.

• • The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.

• • The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.