{"id":1055552,"date":"2024-12-08T19:57:00","date_gmt":"2024-12-08T17:57:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/uatv.ua\/?p=1055552"},"modified":"2024-12-06T15:41:31","modified_gmt":"2024-12-06T13:41:31","slug":"sanctions-failed-steven-pifer-on-uatv","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/uatv.ua\/en\/sanctions-failed-steven-pifer-on-uatv\/","title":{"rendered":"Sanctions FAILED: Steven Pifer on UATV"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In an interview with UATV, English, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer<\/strong>, shared his view on why sanctions FAILED and how Ukraine should approach future peace talks in his opinion. Hear it\u00a0for\u00a0yourself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 Well, peace initiatives of Western leaders\u2014we\u2019ve heard of many of them. Do you personally believe, sir, that any sort of\u2014let\u2019s put it this way\u2014reliable agreement with Putin is even possible?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 Well, let me start by saying I\u2019m not sure that it\u2019s up to the West to try to force a negotiation or force an end to the war. I mean, to me, that has to be a Ukrainian decision, both about entering into negotiations, but also on the terms of a settlement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And I can understand the reluctance in Kyiv, when thus far, I simply see no effort by Moscow to offer a good faith negotiating approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 Absolutely. I\u2019m in Kyiv now, and absolutely. But with all these talks of escalation\u2014honestly, sliding into my other question\u2014escalation management, whatever that means, sounds like complete rubbish to me. Do you think I\u2019m wrong, and do the United States and the West collectively have real leverage over Russia, other than direct military support for Ukraine?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 I think that the West has leverage both in terms of its ability to support Ukraine, which I think the West should do and should continue to do, and also in terms of tightening sanctions on Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

I think the sanctions, while they have not delivered the impact that I had hoped for two years ago, have constrained Russia. The important thing now is to tighten up those sanctions to make it harder, particularly for the Russian defense industry, to do its part to keep Russia in the war.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

But when you look at this whole question of escalation, here\u2019s my concern. I think, really, in Washington, going back almost two and a half years now, Washington said it has two goals for the war: one is to help Ukraine win, and the other is to avoid a direct conflict between NATO and Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think those are the right two goals. But where I would be critical of the administration is when they\u2019ve combined the goals. They have been too cautious. They\u2019ve been more nervous about Russian escalation than I think the situation requires.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

We could have done more, and we can do more for Ukraine without the kind of fears that I think have slowed decisions by Washington and other Western countries to help Ukraine.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 Thank you very much for your answer. I would partly disagree with you, because if Washington really wanted to win the war together with Ukraine and for Ukraine\u2014and for international law and order\u2014it would do so. Washington would definitely do so.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But maybe the plan was to bleed Russia\u2014maybe I\u2019m just speculating.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 Yeah, I don\u2019t think it was that. I think what we\u2019ve seen is that Washington has been overly cautious, again, I believe, because they have attached too much concern to the fear of Russian escalation, when I think, in fact, the possibility of Russian escalation is really quite limited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The last thing that Russia wants right now is a war with NATO. But I believe there\u2019s been too much caution in Washington and decisions. At the end of the day, Washington usually takes the right decisions\u2014including finally letting Ukraine use ATACMS missiles to hit military targets in Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem has been that those decisions take too long. Decisions that could have been made in three or four weeks take six or seven months, and I think that\u2019s had, unfortunately, a negative impact on Ukraine\u2019s ability to defend itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 What costs the collective West money costs blood in Ukraine. That\u2019s as simple as that.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 Exactly. And that includes what happened with the American Congress, where Speaker Mike Johnson, for five months, delayed the House of Representatives from voting on additional assistance for Ukraine. That had a real cost for Ukrainians. It was unfortunate, it was unwise, and it was a mistake by the American Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 Well, the escalation is here now, whatever that means\u2014escalation, I hate the term\u2014but it is here. The involvement of the DPRK [North Korea] and other policies of the \u201cAxis of Evil\u201d in the war against Ukraine and international law\u2014just as I said. What should the free world\u2019s response be, do you think?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 My first comment would be that the fact Russia is recruiting soldiers from North Korea is a sign of a certain desperation on Russia\u2019s part.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think that suggests that Vladimir Putin is, in fact, becoming more concerned about the costs being imposed on Russian soldiers. The British Ministry of Defense now estimates that since February 2022, the Russian military has suffered 700,000 soldiers killed or injured. So, I think there\u2019s a certain amount of desperation there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 What could have been done three years ago? Shall we thank Trump\u2019s possible military deprivation for that? Or maybe that was exactly his plan after all?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 I\u2019m not sure what Mr. Trump\u2019s plan is. Let me make a couple of comments. First of all, the president-elect is unpredictable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, I\u2019ve never been to Mar-a-Lago, so I have no particular insight into what he\u2019s thinking right now. But, quite frankly, when I think about European security questions\u2014how the United States continues to support Ukraine, how the U.S. deals with Russia, how the U.S. deals with NATO\u2014Mr. Trump\u2019s presidency worries me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you look at what he said in the past, I\u2019ve seen nothing in the last couple of years to suggest that he supports continued American assistance for Ukraine. So, I worry\u2014and I hope he proves me wrong\u2014but I worry that in January 2025, there could be an end to American assistance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think that would be bad for Ukraine, bad for Europe, and ultimately bad for American national security. That worries me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Likewise, his comments about NATO. In February of this year, he basically said, \u201cIf certain allies don\u2019t pay the amount of money they\u2019re supposed to pay, then Russia can do whatever it wants.\u201d That\u2019s not a signal to Vladimir Putin that the United States is committed to NATO\u2019s defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I want Mr. Putin to believe that any threat to NATO would bring an American military response, because that\u2019s how deterrence works. I worry that Mr. Trump does not understand that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I also worry that when he thinks about NATO and alliances, it\u2019s all about money. In Afghanistan, we lost 2,400 American soldiers over 20 years, but 1,000 NATO troops died there as well. They were only there because of alliances. I\u2019m not sure Mr. Trump understands that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, I hope he proves me wrong, but I\u2019m very concerned about what a Trump administration could mean for American policy\u2014not just towards Ukraine, but towards NATO and Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 Totally understand your concern, sir. But in a sense, Mr. Trump already proved you wrong, because he was the first to give Ukraine lethal weapons, like Javelins. I\u2019m also concerned, but Trump talking and Trump walking are like two different personalities. He is unpredictable, probably. But don\u2019t you think Democrats actually needed some decisiveness? Because what Democrats showed the world was like yielding ground to any opposing force\u2014including Trump.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 Well, again, I have been critical of certain aspects of Biden administration policy. But the administration has gone to Congress and secured tens of billions of dollars to support Ukraine at a level that was perhaps not predictable back in February 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I don\u2019t know if that level of support will continue under Mr. Trump. Again, perhaps the prospect of an American aid cutoff causing Ukraine to lose will have some effect on his thinking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I said, I hope he proves me wrong, but I\u2019m worried about what a Trump administration means for American policy towards Europe. That will be bad for Ukraine, bad for Europe, and ultimately lead to a greater Russian threat to both Europe and the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n