Ukraine 'not yet in worst-case scenario,' McCain Institute head says
In October of last year, just days before the U.S. presidential election, Head of the McCain Institute Evelyn Farkas told the Kyiv Independent that a Donald Trump victory would be the "worst-case scenario" for Ukraine.
In the months since, a victorious Trump has taken office, dismantled the global post-World War II security architecture, blamed President Volodymyr Zelensky for starting Russia's full-scale invasion, and left Ukraine in limbo, all without securing a peace deal.
The Kyiv Independent sat down with Farkas at the Kyiv Security Forum on May 8 to ask her if that worst-case scenario had come true, or if there was still some hope left for Ukraine.
The Kyiv Independent: When we last spoke, you said a Trump election victory was the "worst-case scenario" for Ukraine — are we now in it?
Evelyn Farkas: I imagined an administration that turned its back on Ukraine. And we aren't there yet.
It remains to be seen ultimately what position the United States takes. Our government has not clearly delineated — aside from saying that we want to make peace — what our position is on the definition of peace.
It seems to me it's part of a negotiating strategy — where you don't tell anyone what you really want and you confuse everyone.
It's not a negotiation strategy that I would employ (but) it could potentially work. But it does, of course, make people nervous about what the ultimate objective is because it hasn't been clarified.
If the ultimate objective is not to support Ukraine, then that is the worst-case scenario because it means that Russia will not be stopped.
Russia will then turn its aggressive attention to other neighboring states — first the ones that used to be part of the Soviet empire, and then it will threaten Europe, and ultimately the United States.
The Kyiv Independent: Have you noticed a shift in rhetoric from the White House in recent weeks towards Russia?
Evelyn Farkas: As I've said all along, my view is to stay open-minded and give the administration the benefit of the doubt until they make some definitive statement one way or the other. Then we can judge it.
Vladimir Putin doesn't want an end to the war because it will likely mean the end of his political existence, if not his actual existence.
But right now, I am encouraged by the fact that the vice president and even the president have indicated impatience with Putin.
And maybe there's a dawning realization that in this world that Vladimir Putin is not stronger after Prigozhin marched on Moscow, and he's weaker economically, politically, militarily, and heavily dependent on China.
In this world, Vladimir Putin doesn't want an end to the war because it will likely mean the end of his political existence, if not his actual existence, because there will be a lot of angry veterans running around Moscow and St. Petersburg.
The Kyiv Independent: Why do you think it has taken the White House so long to realize this?
Evelyn Farkas: Probably because there are competing interests. There are those who really want to bring the war to an end and do it in a way that's sustainable, that looks like a victory for the president, not a defeat. Because there are some versions of a peace agreement that would look like a defeat for President Trump and for the United States.
And then there are others who are interested in making deals with the Russian elites, Putin and his oligarchs. And the people interested in making deals probably have the upper hand.
And so initially, at least, I think the impatience and the overwhelming desire to make business deals were impacting their diplomacy more in the beginning.
And now it seems that the reality is becoming understood — you can't just go and make business deals. You can't just quickly make peace so you can make business deals. That's not going to work.
The Kyiv Independent: How much has this peace process been driven by people's personal interests rather than America's interests?
Evelyn Farkas: It's hard to say from the outside, but it is disconcerting to see a lack of a clear separation between the governance, the business of the American people, and the special interests of people working in the administration.
The Kyiv Independent: What do you think of U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff's performance?
Evelyn Farkas: I think he was a peculiar choice because he's not a seasoned diplomat, and I don't really know whether he's a seasoned business deal broker either.
And so he seems to have been enlisted to try to maybe charm Putin and entice him with some offers, perhaps business offers. But that hasn't worked.
The Kyiv Independent: Do you think that Witkoff was the one who was charmed?
Evelyn Farkas: I can't say, I don't know him. Of course, he was repeating things the Kremlin told him, and we know that the Kremlin sells a bunch of propaganda and lies.
So he was either charmed by them, or for some other reason, he felt like he needed to repeat their propaganda and really omit some of the truth when he spoke publicly.
The Kyiv Independent: Here in Ukraine, at some moments during Trump's term, it has seemed like the U.S. might not only abandon Ukraine, but outright betray it by giving Russia everything that it wants — was that felt by Ukraine supporters in the U.S.?
Evelyn Farkas: I think for pro-Ukraine people in the United States, there was a lot of concern around statements like 'Ukraine can't ever become part of NATO', that 'Crimea was always Russian.'
Those kinds of statements are a betrayal of Ukraine and its interests.
And frankly, they are a betrayal of our interests, because our interest is in stopping Putin's neo-imperial aggression, and getting a just, lasting peace for Ukraine.
"The American people feel very clearly that Ukraine was and is the victim, and Russia was and is the aggressor. And that is not articulated clearly from the White House."
So, yes, we were alarmed by those statements because they seemed to indicate that that was the private negotiating position of the administration. Again, not a lot has been made public.
And of course, when the issue of the Coalition of the Willing was raised by the Europeans, led by U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the reaction from the White House was non-committal. And that's also disturbing because you can't have a deterrence of Putin, and that is to say, a lasting peace for Ukraine, without the United States military to back it up.
The Kyiv Independent: Do you think Trump and Zelensky's relationship is OK now, or could we see it revert to a time similar to the infamous Oval Office showdown?
Evelyn Farkas: You can't rule it out. I was shocked by the treatment of President Zelensky in the White House. It was appalling.
I think a lot of it is tactics, although, of course, Trump (does) seem to have this preference for Russia over Ukraine that goes all the way back to the 80s when he visited Moscow.
The Kyiv Independent: What can Democrats do, if anything, right now to help Ukraine?
Evelyn Farkas: Continue to work with Republicans who want to support Ukraine.
(Republican Senator) Lindsey Graham has a sanctions bill that has a veto-proof majority. There should be more efforts like that, more bipartisan legislation.
The Democrats... I wish sometimes they would be more honest about things that we did wrong, things that we might have done better, in order to actually give the Republicans an incentive to do more right now in Ukraine.
Politicians rarely do that, though.
And the last thing that they can do is continue to speak to their constituents. And then listen to their constituents, because there are a lot of constituents who care and who want America to do the right thing when it comes to Ukraine and other places in the world.
The Kyiv Independent: Do you get the sense that American public opinion differs very wildly from the opinions that we get out of the White House on Ukraine?
Evelyn Farkas: Yes. The polls show that there's still a majority of Americans in favor of supporting Ukraine.
But in the White House, it's unclear. And I think the American people feel very clearly that Ukraine was and is the victim, and Russia was and is the aggressor.
That is not articulated clearly from the White House.
Read also: Investigation: Uncovering the secret Russian FSB operation to loot Ukraine's museums
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next
President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency. The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon. Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran. Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes. The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle. Here are five big questions. This is the most important question. Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran. Iranian television reported that Iran's parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press-TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era. It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war. Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies. Another widely-discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets. Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran. Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday. 'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox Sunday Futures. 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.' Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again movement looked divided on a strike on Iran. Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. MAGA voices from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception. And administration officials with non-interventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country. Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder. That will be something the administration watches closely going forward. Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk. On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd changed 'no more wars.' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year. Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes. At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions. Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.' 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said. Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, retweeted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it. In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines. Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush. Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars. So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal non-nuclear bombs? It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy. After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously has been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israel attack. But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers. Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term. Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions. Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict. That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East War. At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views. Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night. Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions. It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong. So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. But Trump is his own decider-in-chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability.
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Europe frets about US retreating from region ahead of NATO
With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former president Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after the U.S. struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark about the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Advertisement Up until early June, no official from the United States had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. Advertisement It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the United States turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries, long reliant on American hard power, will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. Advertisement If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the U.S., is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. Advertisement 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. Advertisement 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
UK and NATO allies agree to boost spending on defence and related areas to 5% of GDP by 2035
The UK and its NATO allies have agreed to increase spending on defence and related areas to 5% of GDP by 2035, two diplomatic sources with knowledge of the deal have told Sky News. Ambassadors of all 32 alliance member states signed off on the new spending pledge ahead of a major summit of leaders, including Donald Trump, this week, they said. The boost - up from a current goal of 2% of GDP - is as much about keeping the US president onside as it is about responding to what is regarded by the allies as a growing threat from Vladimir Putin and the challenge posed by China. The target will be formally rubber stamped when the heads of state and government meet in The Hague on Tuesday and Wednesday. The ambitious spending goal - secured following a huge amount of persuasion by Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general - is broken down into 3.5% of GDP spent on pure defence and 1.5% of GDP spence on related areas, which can include infrastructure and cyber security. Spain had been the last to agree. The UK had also been slow to sign up but is understood to have been pushing for the 2035 timeframe, which would mean it is pushed beyond the next parliament. Sir Keir Starmer has said he has an ambition to increase UK defence spending to 3% of GDP from 2.3% by 2034. The new 5% spending goal is the kind of level of defence spending invested by NATO allies during the Cold War.
