Russia hopes for Trump victory, but many in his administration support Ukraine — American expert Fried

The US election drama continues. The Democratic candidate has been replaced. We have sympathy for the Democratic camp - President Joseph Biden allowed us to withstand the Russian invasion, and we appreciate that. But we don't know what to expect from Donald Trump. There is a race in the US, and the enemy is getting more active on the front line. What do the ratings show? What will Kamala Harris' Ukrainian policy be like?

I don't know Vice President Harris well, but I do know her National Security Adviser, Phil Gordon, quite well. I have known Phil Gordon for a number of years. Judging by her speeches and my knowledge of Phil Gordon, Kamala Harris as President will continue US support for Ukraine. There's no question of that.

As Vice President, Kamala Harris met with President Zelensky in the days before the full invasion. She went to the Munich Security Conference in 2022 and met with him there. She's met with him subsequently.

Her speech at the Munich Security Conference this year is well worth reading. It places her, I will say, within the US tradition of support for tвіhe Free World that, as President Biden said, goes from Harry Truman through Ronald Reagan. All Presidents, possibly with the exception of President Trump, have adhered to this strategy, and I am confident that she would as well.

Do you have a feeling that everything in the world is so serious that we can really expect World War III? There is an axis of violence and dictatorship – Iran, China, Russia – and we hear warnings in various formats. As the situation in the Middle East deteriorates, everything can take on a terrible dynamic.

There are a number of dangerous conflicts and potential conflicts in the world right now.

There is the situation in the Middle East, where Israel is fighting Hamas and Hezbollah, and the United States is attempting to push through a ceasefire agreement which will ease this humanitarian and political situation in Gaza. I don't know whether this will be successful.

In the meantime, there is the potential for major security problems in Asia because of China's ambitions.

All of these problems are separate, but it is true, as the American scholar Anne Applebaum writes, that there are linkages and associations between the authoritarian powers. This should surprise no one.

The Chinese, the Iranians, the Russians, and others stand united in their opposition to what I would call the Free World International System that Ukraine wants to join. They oppose it.

The Chinese and Russians have different views on many things, but they will work together in opposition to the Free World system. The United States, Europeans, and other great democracies need to be prepared for this.

To what extent is Iran interested in another World War III scenario? Some dictatorships, such as Russia's, do not have the ability to change the rules of the game economically. They tried to do so with weapons and aggression against Ukraine, but got bogged down. The emergence of additional fundamentally new killing grounds in the Middle East may be in the interests of those players who want to change the post-Yalta global decision-making system in general. Whether this world is good or bad, we live in it, and when perturbations begin, there may be consequences similar to those experienced by humanity in 1914-1918, during the World War I.

I don't think Iran has the capacity to become a global player because, as long as Iran is under its current political system—the theocracy—I think its economy will be hampered. Its industrial and business connections with the outside world will be limited. So it will be limited to being a spoiler, providing weapons and drones to Russia, helping Russia evade sanctions, and evading sanctions on its own. It will not be a serious player in the world because of its economic limitations.

You mentioned a new Yalta or the International System. The Russians and the Chinese, and I believe the Iranians, would love to see a world in which there were spheres of domination. Russia would have its sphere, China would have its sphere, Iran would have its sphere, and countries like Ukraine would fall into one or another great power's sphere of influence.

America, in the years of its wisdom, opposed these sorts of arrangements. Roosevelt agreed at Yalta with Stalin but almost immediately regretted what he had done. Harry Truman would not accept a Soviet sphere of domination in Europe—not over Poland, not anywhere. The United States stands for a free and independent Ukraine, able to choose its friends and its place in the world.

Russia wants Ukraine — of course, Ukrainians know this — Ukraine to belong to Russia, to be under Russia's domination. So we have a clash of two worldviews. The problem with the Russian view of spheres of domination is that it is not stable and will never be stable because Russian domination of Poland and of Ukraine meant that these countries would be poor, not free, and subjugated. Poles would not accept that; Ukrainians will not accept that either, and they are right not to accept this.

A world of empires and spheres of influence is not a stable world. It is not a just world. It is not a prosperous world. The United States, since Woodrow Wilson—although unevenly and with many mistakes, I will admit—has attempted to advance the idea of a free world system, a system of rules, a system in which smaller countries are protected from the aggression of greater countries.

We know how the whole world ended up when the United States, as a result of its isolationist policy, did not ratify the League of Nations Charter or the relevant changes on the European continent – 15 years later, Hitler came to Europe. Now Hitler has been reincarnated into Putin, and we in Ukraine are trying to stop him. Now there is talk of a possible second peace summit, plans are being made, including by Mike Pompeo. In Russia, they are waiting for the US election, which Trump would win, so Putin and Trump would be playing " head-to-head". How do you assess the current negotiations? We are extremely concerned about that.

It's good that you mentioned the article by Mike Pompeo because you've probably concluded that there are different views within what I would call "Trump World." Trump himself often seems to favor a Yalta-like division of the world, a sphere of influence arrangement where he and Putin would simply make a deal, likely at the expense of a country like Ukraine.

However, there are others within Trump World who are advocating for a more, how shall I say, Reaganite policy and greater support for Ukraine. Mike Pompeo's article in The Wall Street Journal was, I believe, an attempt to influence Trump World to move to support Ukraine and in a more Reaganite direction.

There are many things in Mike Pompeo's article that I disagreed with, but the question is, is it a helpful and viable approach toward Ukraine? And the answer is, it could be. I don't agree with all of it, but that's not the point. The point is, Mike Pompeo's point of departure is support for Ukraine, which brings him closer to the Biden administration than he would like to admit. But I'm fine with that.

There is a discussion within Trump World about these issues. I think it is a very good idea for the Ukrainian government, and the Polish government for that matter, and all governments in Europe to reach out to people in Trump World to try to convince them that Ukraine's cause is our cause as well. Ukraine's success would also mean success for the United States. So I think you're right to raise Pompeo's article. It's not the only one.

It is far better than a plan suggested by General Keith Kellogg, which as a point of departure began with a ceasefire on the current lines plus a US promise never to bring Ukraine into NATO. I think that is a far weaker position. I think Pompeo's starting point is far better.

These are just discussions. Trump may win the election or he may not, but it is useful to see that within Trump World, some are still arguing for, let us say, a Reaganite position.

Mike Pompeo's plan is flawed in the most important way when it comes to Putin's plans. For him, the seizure of our lands is not even part of his political survival scenario – it's just the way he thinks. We need to make the price of this seizure as high as possible. We used to be somewhat distrustful of the various sanctions that were imposed on the Russian economy, and later on the Chinese economy – secondary sanctions for cooperation with Moscow. But we see that this is starting to work. We don't know what the situation is in the Russian economy, we are waiting for the results.

Of course, sanctions are not enough. We need to force Russia to sit down at the negotiating table and change the parameters, which they are constantly sharpening, because all negotiations come down to their ultimatums, which means they are not ready. They hope that during this winter they will cause our people untold pain, and after that Ukraine will become more compliant. There are various signals from politicians who say that everything depends on the Ukrainian people. And when I hear this, I realize that it is pharisaism. It is the business of all mankind to repel Russian aggression with all possible resources. But we are failing. And I cannot explain it. It is now August, and we are already in Ukraine trying to comprehend what awaits us this winter.

I agree with you that the Democratic World, the Free World, needs to increase economic pressure on Russia and increase military assistance to Ukraine by intensifying the provision of weapons and, may I say, lifting restrictions on their use.

In my opinion, Ukraine should be limited in its use of weapons only by the laws of war, which bind all civilized countries. But there should be no additional restraints beyond this.

We need to help Ukraine and put more pressure on Russia. As you said, that may change Putin's negotiating calculations. Now, he is also waiting for the US elections. He may believe he can get a better deal from Trump. I don't know that, but it is possible he has that conclusion.

If we increase the pressure on Russia, if Ukraine continues to defend its territory successfully and inflict high casualties on the Russians, if Ukraine can maintain its strategic attacks on Russian targets, and with the help of air defense equipment limit the impact of Russian strategic attacks on Ukrainian electrical supplies and the electric grid, then the situation for Ukraine might improve.

Ukraine has never rejected negotiations. Ukraine led a reasonably successful Peace Summit in Switzerland earlier in the summer. Russia, as you say, is not interested in serious negotiations; they make demands that are deliberately too extreme to be taken seriously.

This may change. We in the Free World have to do our part, and then we will see. I don't rule out any negotiations, but it is not for the Americans to start telling the Ukrainians what to do.

Donald Tusk, the current Prime Minister of Poland, once said: "Finally, the West has begun to take Putin's threats seriously. This refers to a deeper understanding of Russian plans. When we understand that Putin will be ready to take tough unconventional steps, we start to believe it. The key story is not to let Russia do what it wants. We understand that there is a diplomatic plan, but the aggressor side must be ready to implement it. They are not ready.

Mike Pompeo's plan includes a proposal for a 500-billion-dollar loan or Lend-Lease for Ukraine. It sounds very convincing - $500 billion for weapons. But there are also US realities. How do you see the situation with Biden's arms deal and what could be the situation with Trump's or any other arms deal? Six months ago, we went through a terrible situation because we had neither resources nor money for resources. Now the situation has improved, but this is war - and war always burns money.

The Poles have long warned other countries in Europe and the United States that Russia's imperial ambitions remain. Thirty years ago, Lech Walesa told Bill Clinton that the United States needed to help Poland join NATO, or Russia could close that window of opportunity.

The war that Lech Walesa warned Clinton about is the war the Ukrainians now face—a war of Russia's attempt to regain its empire. We need to take this seriously; the Poles were right about Russia. Now we need to help Ukraine in the longer term.

Pompeo has proposed Lend-Lease partly because Trump and some people in Trump World have said that we should loan Ukraine money but not give them the money for defense. Now, I think supporting Ukraine by giving them the money to defend themselves and giving them the weapons to defend themselves is in the American interest.

I support this, but I would rather have a Lend-Lease system than no assistance at all. And I think this is what Mike Pompeo is getting at.

There is an additional source of support for Ukraine, and that is the near $300 billion of Russian immobilized sovereign assets. Many Europeans don't want to take that principal. They have agreed to use the interest on that principal—20 years' worth, I think roughly $50 billion—to help Ukraine, and this is a good step.

This is a good step, and I think the details are being worked out. Nevertheless, the rest of that money remains, and I think the pressure will slowly grow to use those funds and make Russia pay for Russia's aggression.

In the end, I believe that there will be a continuation of US support and European support for Ukraine, as there should be. It's in the interest of freedom, it's in American interests, and I believe it's in European interests.

In any situation, there should be a 'plan B' and a 'plan C'. I do not believe that Donald Trump will become president, but I cannot rule it out. Our friends on the European continent are also seriously preparing. But the willingness of Germany or France alone to support Ukraine will not be enough, because it's not just about money – it's about human resources.

I would very much like to implement the project that brought the Bolsheviks to the brink of survival in 1920 – the Polish-Ukrainian security alliance – the pact between Petliura and Pilsudski. Unfortunately, it was not implemented, and the fault lies not only with the political elites, but also with the great fatigue after the First World War. Everyone wanted to end the war as soon as possible. And the Polish national democracy also actively implemented its own, different plan.

Now the survival of Poland and Ukraine should be based on this Central European security consortium. How do you see real progress – not declarative, not historical – so that Poland and Ukraine are ready to repeat what Petliura and Pilsudski did extremely successfully, when the Bolsheviks simply fled? But there was also a Bolshevik counteroffensive – this is also true.

I think that Polish-Ukrainian friendship and alliance are crucial for the security of both countries and for Europe as a whole.

We could go back to the 17th century when the failure of Poland and the Zaporizhian Sich to work together ultimately worked to the advantage of Moscow. I think that Poland has been a staunch, consistent friend of Ukraine. The Poles have pushed the American government and the Biden administration hard to help Ukraine. They do this publicly and privately.

The Polish special envoy for Ukraine, Paweł Kowal, has been a long supporter of Polish-Ukrainian friendship. He has been a friend of Ukraine for many, many years, and there are many Poles like this across the political spectrum.

There are historical issues between Poland and Ukraine, but you are exactly right that Pilsudski and Petliura understood the need for Poland and Ukraine to work together. This need remains, not simply on behalf of their own national interests but in the interest of European security and the Free World. I think this tradition is well worth remembering and following.

Do you generally see the light at the end of the tunnel?

How the war ends is uncertain, but there is a reasonable prospect for relative Ukrainian success.

If Ukraine can hold on to its land, limit Russian gains to a minimum of territory, and achieve very high Russian casualties, it could be beneficial. If Ukraine can continue and intensify its strategic attacks on Russian military targets, and if it can limit the effectiveness of Russian strategic attacks on Ukrainian targets, there is potential for success.

Ukraine has had success in its attacks, especially on Russian targets in Crimea. If Ukraine can maintain this momentum and if the West provides the necessary support, there is a reasonable prospect that Russia will be unable to continue the war.

The Polish foreign minister has stated that after two years, Russia's capacity may diminish. While this is a long time and not an easy prospect, it is a potential outcome. You asked for light at the end of the tunnel. It is not easy, but it is there. Are there other options? Yes, there are.

We in the West—the United States and Europe—have the opportunity to impact the outcome if we do our job and support Ukraine as much as we can. If we put pressure on Russia and provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs, it may make Putin either unwilling or unable to continue the war.

It is not for me, as an American, to dictate what Ukraine should do; Ukrainians will have to make those decisions. By the way, I believe that Ukraine's future should be in NATO so that Russia cannot agree to a ceasefire, regroup its military, and then attack Ukraine again.

It is possible that Ukraine will emerge from this war as a free, independent country, part of greater Europe, and a member of NATO. Russia may fail in its attempt to conquer Ukraine, which could have a profound and beneficial impact on Russia itself.

So, you asked whether there is light at the end of the tunnel. The answer is yes, but it is not easy. The tunnel is long and hard, and you need no American to tell you that. However, I do see a reasonable prospect of relative success.