U.S. and Europe can increase pressure on Russia in several ways — expert Fried

The issue of allowing our military to use American, British, and other Euro-Atlantic weapons to strike military targets within Russia is now being seriously considered. Additionally, a key point of focus is securing enough long-range weapons. Could you explain what obstacles have been preventing Ukraine from getting this permission, and how much of an impact could this have on the overall course of the war?

I hope that the United States and the British government will lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of weapons to defend itself.

In my opinion, Ukraine should be bound by the laws of war but by no further restrictions than those laws. Ukraine was attacked for no good reason, and I believe the Biden Administration is considering its next steps. I hope they decide, very soon, to lift these restrictions.

I understand that some are worried about Russian escalation. Russia has nuclear weapons. So do we. We should allow Ukraine to defend itself, in accordance with the laws of war, but no other restrictions seem right to me.

A hundred years ago, Polish Prime Minister Paderewski, when asking his British counterparts for weapons and ammunition, said that the Polish people were shedding their blood to uphold the Versailles order. In the same way, Ukraine is now sacrificing lives to defend the world order. We need closer cooperation, a clearer and more joint strategy so that Ukraine can win as soon as possible. What is your vision of what is called the plan for Ukraine's victory?

You are right that Ukraine is fighting for the principles of what we used to call the Free World. The principles that countries should not invade other countries to conquer their territory, and that there should not be empires, but rather nation-states living in peace with one another and respecting the rules of the international order. Certainly, Ukraine is fighting for these things, and it has the support of the United States, Britain, and what we used to call the Free World.

Russia, on the other hand, is fighting for an empire—Putin's empire of greed and vanity, the Russian Empire of oppression over other peoples. This is not the path to stability; it is the path to perpetual conflict.

Ukraine is right when it argues that its fight is also our fight. Ukraine's success will be the success of the Free World.

​​Regarding sanctions and their impact, US and European sanctions have been slow to take full effect. However, the more we hear the Kremlin calling for their removal, the clearer it becomes just how strained the Russian economy is. For now, it's holding on. But China and India have stepped in to support Russia, with signs that some countries are willing to trade with them, taking advantage of cheaper resources. This is delaying the full shock to their economy. That said, secondary sanctions are beginning to show a very strong impact. What are the chances that Russia will face even greater consequences? And what approach could be applied to Russia, China, and other countries that are financing the aggressor's military?

The sanctions that the United States, Europe, and the G7 countries have imposed on Russia have hurt the Russian economy. They have put stress on Russia's military machine, but they haven't done enough.

The imposition of sanctions is like a game: you impose them, the target of the sanctions tries to evade them, you try to stop their evasions, and then the target finds new ways to evade them. This is happening right now.

In June and August, the Biden Administration issued new sanctions designed to target sanctions evaders. These are good steps, but they're not enough. There are ways in which the United States and Europe could increase the pressure on Russia.

For example, the US and Europe need to make a decision, very soon, about using immobilized Russian sovereign assets to help Ukraine. I would prefer to take all of those assets—$280 billion or $300 billion—and use them outright for Ukraine.

The alternative the G7 has agreed on is to take the interest earned on those immobilized assets, about $50 billion, and use that for Ukraine. Now, $50 billion is not bad, but I would take that money and continue pushing to use all of the immobilized Russian assets for Ukraine. That's one thing the US and Europe can do.

A second thing we can do is increase pressure on Russian oil sales. The price cap, the limitation on the price at which Russia can sell its oil, has cost Russia a lot of money, but they are finding ways to evade this sanction.

We need to find ways to prevent Russia from earning more money from oil sales and push back so their earnings drop. There may be ways to do this.

You also mentioned third countries, like China, being sources for military or dual-use military products and technologies for Russia. We will likely have to increase secondary sanctions on Chinese companies and banks. We've done a little bit of this, but we need to do more.

It needs to become riskier and more costly for China and other countries to try to help Russia evade sanctions. In short, there is more we need to do. Sanctions will not, as you said earlier, cause the Russian economy to collapse immediately, but they can put extra pressure on the Russian economy.

This could weaken Putin's ability to sustain his illegal and immoral war against Ukraine. We hope so.

​​I would like to ask about the strategy for deterring Iran. There is nearly confirmed information regarding Iran’s transfer of ballistic missiles to Russia. This is a serious misstep by Iran, and they should be held accountable for it. At the same time, we are deeply concerned about the growing military ties between the ayatollahs' regime and the Kremlin.

You are right that Russia and Iran are now acting as allies. There is a kind of axis of authoritarians. China, Russia, and Iran are working with other countries that hate the concept of the Free World and believe that Russia should be supported in its attempt to re-establish its empire because these countries believe in empires and spheres of domination.

Iran wants to be the great power in the Middle East, Russia wants to dominate the former Soviet space and the former territories of Central and Eastern Europe, and China wants to reabsorb Taiwan.

Ukraine, Poland, the European Union, Great Britain, the United States, and other free countries do not believe in empires. We believe in a system where all countries can live in peace with themselves and their neighbors. This may sound naïve, but it is, in fact, the foundation of American grand strategy in the second half of the 20th century and into this century.

We share this belief with Ukraine. We understand that our national interests will be advanced if the values of freedom are advanced. This is something that Poland, the United States, Ukraine, and many other countries believe in because we know the alternatives.

This is the vision of a free world order, as opposed to an imperial order. And it is a better order, a better system. But it is one that Putin hates, and it is one that his allies, such as Iran, want to destroy.

Now, it's easier said than done. It’s easier to speak of a free world order than it is to deal with the dictators and aggressors who would destroy it. But we need to take seriously the challenges of our time. Much depends on the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian war.

As an American, I will say this: the problems in the world will become easier if Ukraine prevails. Helping Ukraine is not charity—it is in our American interests, because our values and our interests are ultimately indivisible.

Analyze the various approaches to compelling the Kremlin to come to the negotiating table.

There is a debate in the collective West about support for Ukraine. There are those who argue that the war in Ukraine cannot be won, that Russia will succeed, and therefore we must push for immediate peace on Russia's terms to end the fighting.

Former President Donald Trump said in his debate last night with Kamala Harris that he didn’t say he wanted Ukraine to win; he said he wanted the fighting to stop—presumably on Putin's terms. There are others in the collective West who agree with him. However, the leaders of major European countries and the United States, including the Biden Administration, have continued to stand in support of Ukraine.

Now, Ukrainians sometimes complain that American decisions about weapons systems for Ukraine have taken too long, and the deliveries have been too slow. I understand many of those complaints, and I agree with them. But the Biden Administration has done a lot for Ukraine.

Germany, at times, says things I really don’t understand, but they too have done a lot for Ukraine. Poland has done a tremendous amount for Ukraine. Ukrainians are not alone.

The debates in the West are understandable, but they need to end with a decision to continue support for Ukraine. Last night, during the debate, Kamala Harris spoke out strongly and repeatedly in favor of continued support for Ukraine. She criticized Donald Trump, saying that he would be willing to accept flattery from a dictator, Vladimir Putin, which would damage Ukraine and put Poland and all of Europe at risk.

She used the language of American presidents like Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan, who argued that the United States must stand for freedom and against aggressive dictators. Many Ukrainians would say the words are good, but that Americans need to do more and make faster decisions on behalf of Ukraine. I agree.

As I’ve said, I hope that the United States and Great Britain lift restrictions on Ukraine's use of long-range weapons inside Russia. Ukraine has a right to defend itself. Russia has no right to expect its territory will be safe while it attacks all of Ukraine, killing civilians and trying to terrorize Ukrainian society through bombs, rockets, and attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure to make life worse for the Ukrainian people.

Russia should not enjoy privileged sanctuary. I hope the United States decides very soon to lift these restrictions.

I was pleased to hear Kamala Harris speak out on behalf of Ukraine's freedom. This shows that it is not just Joe Biden who supports Ukraine—the younger generation of American leaders also understands that Ukraine’s fight is our fight.

There have been reports that a second forum on the Peace Formula might occur this year, with some speculation about the possible participation of representatives from the aggressor state. What are your thoughts on the prospects for this second Peace Summit?

I think Ukraine's diplomacy around the last peace summit in Switzerland has been skillful. Ukraine chose a wise approach by trying to reach as broad a consensus as possible on issues that would unite the highest number of countries, especially in the so-called Global South.

I thought the Ukrainians handled that rather well, and they made some progress in getting either support for the conclusions of the Swiss-hosted peace summit or at least a degree of support from countries like India and Brazil, who did not sign the statement but attended the summit.

So I think it’s possible that Ukraine will make even more progress in the next peace summit. Progress can be defined as bringing together a large number of countries in support of as many agreed Ukrainian positions as possible.

I don’t know what an agreement to end the war will look like. As an American, it’s not up to me to say. It is up to the Ukrainians to decide what their terms are. I don’t know how this war will end, but it will not end with the Russian flag flying over Kyiv. That moment is beyond Putin’s power.

We in the collective West need to prepare to increase Ukraine’s security so that after this phase of the war ends, Russia cannot be tempted to restart the war. Ukraine does not belong in a grey zone—a zone of insecurity on the wrong side of the line, outside NATO and the European Union. Grey zones are green lights for further Putin aggression.

Now, for Ukraine to join the European Union, it must meet the EU's requirements. For Ukraine to join NATO, there has to be an agreement on how Ukraine can defend itself with NATO's help. We in the West need to take seriously the fact that stability in Europe requires Ukraine to be part of our family. If not, Russia will choose its moment for its next attack.

This is why, in the 90s, NATO chose to bring in new members from the former satellite countries of the Warsaw Pact, who had broken away and regained their freedom. We made that decision because we knew that a grey zone was not a zone of stability; it was a zone of perpetual temptation for Russian aggression.

This will take work on the part of the Ukrainians. There is no automatic right to EU membership; Ukraine will have to meet the EU’s requirements. But my sense is that, after the war, the Ukrainian people will insist on a country and a national transformation worthy of their tremendous sacrifice. They will want to build a European Ukraine, and I think Ukrainians can do it.

We need to help them get there. The future of Ukraine needs to be with NATO and the European Union. As for the future of Russia, that ought to depend on the Russian people.