After election, Biden administration will boost assistance to Ukraine - expert Fried

The situation is extremely challenging and has grown even more complex with North Korea’s effective entry into the Russia-Ukraine war on the aggressor's side. It is clear that North Korea will now serve as a supplier of manpower for Russia’s forces. We anticipated a stronger response from our allies in Europe and the United States. What actions can we expect? In the present circumstances, are there effective tools available that could hold Russia accountable for the escalating scale of this war?

To answer the question, the State Department, the Defense Department, and the White House are all considering various options following the confirmation that North Korea has sent troops to Russia for training. These troops could potentially be deployed either inside Ukraine or, in any event, on the front lines alongside Russia during the war.

It is possible that South Korea will decide to take countermeasures, which could include an increase in military supplies for Ukraine. North Korea's actions demonstrate their support for Russia, while South Korea, which has supported Ukraine for some time, may decide to do even more.

I hope that my government will lift the remaining restrictions on Ukraine's use of weapons, which should have been done earlier. I hope it will be addressed now. North Korea's entry into the war on Russia's side shows that those in the West who believed that Asian security and European security were separate and separable are mistaken.

We are facing an axis of authoritarian regimes that are working together. We, meaning the Americans, Europeans, Ukrainians, and all free nations, need to unite to counter this growing threat.

I do not have a specific set of answers regarding what the U.S. administration will do. Our elections are in less than two weeks, but I believe we will take action, and South Korea may also take additional steps to support Ukraine.

Russia is consolidating not only its military resources but also its diplomatic influence. We need stronger, more decisive support – not only in armaments but also in advancing Ukraine’s NATO membership. Our security hinges on joining the Alliance, yet some Western politicians hesitate to provoke Putin. How do you see the situation?

There is no solution to the problem of Russian aggression against Ukraine and Europe as long as Ukraine remains in a gray zone of insecurity.

NATO membership is intended to provide security for its members and prevent Russia from targeting individual countries through intimidation or outright invasion. NATO has decided that Ukraine's future lies within the alliance, but I believe we need to make that future a near-term reality, not a long-term prospect.

Without meaningful and serious security for Ukraine, Russia will continue its war.

We need to think of Ukraine, and we also need to consider Moldova, if the Moldovan people desire it. The Ukrainian people certainly do want it. We must view these countries not as belonging to a gray zone, but as integral members of the Western community of nations.

The Biden administration has been wrestling with this issue. They have made significant progress in the right direction, although not quite far enough in my view. Much will depend on the next administration. Here, there is a significant difference between the two candidates.

Many Republicans support stronger security for Ukraine, but if Trump wins, this will lead to internal conflict within the Republican Party.

In any event, the strategic challenge is clear: a gray zone for Putin is a green light for aggression. We must not leave Ukraine in a gray zone, and that means either NATO membership or equivalent security guarantees. If you're going to provide security guarantees, it might as well be NATO membership.

So, that is my stance on this issue. I, along with many of my friends, share this perspective.

It reminds me of Poland’s situation 100 years ago, in 1920, during the war with the Russian Bolsheviks. Diplomacy was far from transparent, especially from British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and from France, which offered limited aid but withheld manpower. Now, we in Ukraine are experiencing a similar pain, as our level of support has not increased. How do you assess the West’s current commitment to supporting the Ukrainian Victory Plan? Without sufficient assistance, we may find ourselves in an even more difficult position than we are today.

Of course, I don’t know the secret parts of the Ukrainian Victory Plan. After all, they are confidential, and I appreciate that. The plan is intended to provide long-term security for Ukraine, and this is a serious and worthy goal.

Ukraine exists in a gray zone, as I have said, which provides a green light for further aggression from Putin. We cannot allow this to happen. I’m glad that Secretary Austin visited Kyiv. I believe the Biden Administration will do more for Ukraine in the coming months, and it is important that we, the Americans, the Ukrainians, and the Europeans, agree that Ukraine's path lies ahead toward Europe. We need to mean it, and we don’t have time to waste waiting for Putin to bring in more North Korean soldiers or to cause further damage to Ukraine.

We must be able to help Ukraine now, and we need to demonstrate to Putin that Ukraine will not end up in a gray zone. Regardless of the difficulties the Ukrainians are facing, the Russians are also experiencing challenges. It is not true that the Russians have an inexhaustible supply of soldiers and resources; they are under pressure as well.

They may attempt to push Ukraine or persuade the West to pressure Ukraine into unfavorable negotiations. That is not a good idea. I’m not against negotiations; I’m against foolish negotiations. There are many misguided ideas circulating, particularly anything that involves Ukrainian neutrality or limits on Ukraine's ability to defend itself. These are very poor ideas.

We need to help Ukraine remain strong enough so that Russia is no longer tempted to attack. These are the types of discussions that Americans and Ukrainians need to engage in, alongside discussions with the Europeans.

In one piece of good news, yesterday, the Americans and Ukrainians signed agreements regarding a loan of $20 billion to Ukraine, which will be paid back with Russian funds—the interest on the Russian reserves that were frozen at the beginning of the full-scale invasion. This is positive news. The Europeans are doing what they can, and the Americans are doing what we can, which amounts to a significant contribution. This should total $50 billion for Ukraine, all financed by Russia.

This is beneficial for Ukraine and serves as a valuable lesson for Russia. So, this was a major step, one that was not easy, but it was concluded yesterday.

I would like to clarify the military aspects of President Biden's decisions. Although a new U.S. president will be elected in a few weeks, he or she will not yet have been inaugurated. Until then, Biden will have a freer hand – once the election campaign ends, he can make key military decisions for Ukraine. The main challenge will be for President Biden to find the political strength and courage to take these steps post-election, when he will still be the de facto head of state and able to act beyond the constraints of the campaign. Will Biden make any significant new decisions in support of Ukraine?

That is a reasonable question. I think the answer is quite possibly contingent on the results of the election. The outgoing Biden administration will want to make as many decisions as they can while they still have the opportunity.

If Trump wins the election, the Biden administration will likely want to do a lot for Ukraine and secure the support we are currently providing. However, the Biden administration has been slow to reach decisions regarding the use of American weapons and technology in European arms for operations inside Russia. I hope that these restrictions are lifted and that further assistance is forthcoming.

I also believe the Biden administration may consider implementing additional sets of sanctions against Russia, especially after our elections. There are possibilities to increase these measures. I think the Biden administration is contemplating this, and I hope they take action.

You are perfectly right; there will be a period of several weeks in which the Biden administration can act, and I hope they do.

Putin hosted the BRICS summit in Kazan, attended by Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi, and also Turkish President Erdogan, despite Turkey’s NATO membership. These leaders traveled to Kazan to meet with Putin, who is subject to an international arrest warrant. This gathering hints at the possibility of a ‘new world’ order, one that may not adhere to the democratic institutions and norms upheld by the West. Could you explain the significance of these events in Kazan for Ukraine and the global order as a whole? And why was UN Secretary-General Guterres there?

All of this is unfortunate, to say the least. The UN Secretary-General attended the BRICS Summit in Kazan but did not attend the Swiss-sponsored peace summit, which was a missed opportunity. The peace summit, sponsored by Switzerland, was a constructive step where Ukrainian diplomacy aimed for maximum agreement rather than maximum confrontation. This was wise diplomacy, and it resulted in some progress on shared issues.

The UN Secretary-General should have attended that meeting instead of the BRICS meeting. Or, if he attended BRICS, he certainly should have prioritized the peace summit first. This, to say the least, is unfortunate, and I am being restrained in my criticism.

I do not believe BRICS is a counterweight to the G7. While China and India are great economic powers, Russia is not. BRICS lacks cohesion, except on a superficial and ideological level, and I wouldn’t rely on it for much.

For many decades, countries in the so-called Global South have been seeking ways to rebalance the international system in their favor, but they have often fallen short. The West remains strong. Economically, the G7—which includes Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan, Great Britain, Australia, and South Korea—accounts for over 50% of the world’s economy. That’s a substantial amount.

Ever since I was young—and I am far from young—I’ve been hearing stories about the decline of the West. These are either exaggerated or entirely fabricated. We, the democracies, need to gather our strength and work together.

BRICS is not united by anything other than posturing. Ukraine is fighting for its survival, and we need to support them. I’m glad India attended the Swiss peace summit, and Brazil did as well. Ukrainian diplomacy has shown skill.

Much depends on the battlefield, but the BRICS summit is nothing more than a secondary or even tertiary issue, especially for Ukraine. It will not determine Ukraine’s fate, and Putin will certainly not succeed in creating another Yalta-like situation where Ukraine is carved up. That will not happen.

Is there even a so-called Chinese plan? Xi Jinping has voiced some specific points – like preventing escalation and avoiding increased tensions – but he has said nothing about withdrawing Russian forces from Ukrainian territory or halting the bombing of civilian areas. This suggests that Xi Jinping’s proposal aligns with Putin's interests, as Putin seeks to advance through Ukraine and hold onto previously seized territories. What can we expect from China? And what is its trade proposal in this context?

The United States and the Biden Administration have been considering ways to increase pressure on China, which is providing significant support to Russia, particularly in terms of military industry. You may have noticed that we, the Americans, have been sanctioning more Chinese companies and banks. I believe we will need to do even more of this. China must pay a price for its decision to support Russia's aggression.

U.S.-China relations are complicated.

We don't want to sever all economic ties with China, but we also don't want them to use those ties as a shield to support international aggression against Ukraine. The next U.S. administration, whoever it may be, will have to increase pressure on China, even as we attempt to reach some level of understanding with them. We don't want a full-scale confrontation, as we share many economic interests, but that doesn’t mean we should respond passively or half-heartedly.

China should not be allowed to get away with what it’s doing. A form of competitive coexistence may be what we aim for, but that will require us to stand up to examples of Chinese aggression.