US Support for Ukraine: Three Very Different Views

The United States provides us with unprecedented support, without which neither the war nor our existence is possible. They are convinced that, instead, Ukraine should strengthen the anti-corruption fight and eventually get on the path of change.

The Ukrainian authorities are sure that any “buts” are inappropriate and perceive even minimal pressure with not always well-hidden indignation.

Ukrainians would not be Ukrainians if, on the one hand, they did not demand anti-corruption changes and reforms, and on the other, maximum loyalty and concessions for current and future achievements.

How to focus on change if these three pairs of eyes are looking in different directions?

The US point of view

Inspector General of the US Department of Defense Robert Storch will soon be preparing for the trip as his arrival in Ukraine is scheduled for October 18. His mission is to control the 113 billion dollars allocated by Washington to Kyiv since the beginning of the great war for different purposes: from weapons to humanitarian aid.

He and the US special representative for the recovery of Ukraine's economy, Penny Pritzker, are the State Department's response to accusations about “unprecedented financial support of a corrupt country.”

No one refuses to support Ukraine “as much as necessary”. But the realization that the process can drag on for years, multiplied by the responsibility to taxpayers, requires action.

The catalyst for these actions is the heartburn that the senior leadership of Ukraine causes in the top management of the USA.

Fascination with Zelenskyy has long passed. The self-assured behavior that allowed him to hold the world's attention at the beginning of the great war no longer causes anything but indignation. Rudeness is annoying. The non-acceptance of authorities is surprising. Disorganization is frustrating. The concentration of power is confusing. Corruption, which the US knows even more than we do, is frankly maddening. As well as personnel policy, in which the main and only criterion is loyalty, and professional qualities are not considered at all.

There are many things the US doesn’t like, but it will not abandon us because of global responsibility, because of their upcoming elections, and out of respect for Ukrainians. So, the Americans will cooperate with Bankova (the Office of the President of Ukraine), albeit with rubber gloves and holding the breath. Still – on their own terms.

The US is a country of mature institutions, in fact, they will work with institutions, systematically implementing the famous best practices here.

Ukraine is a country of people who “are predictable for the authorities”, who enter any institution and, in the mode of manual management, turn the best practices into schemes.

Americans are aware that this process will not be easy. But the experience of our cooperation with the IMF helped them realize that Ukrainians fulfill the conditions only at the beginning of cooperation when money is most needed. So, they start with no delay. All currently announced lists of reforms in exchange for money are only an undetailed announcement. Ms. Pritzker has a list of specific changes in exchange for specific amounts without which our country simply cannot survive.

It looks like it should work, but we may not like the result. Let’s recall, where Penny Pritzker saw Ukraine’s huge opportunities – in agriculture, energy, metallurgy, and the mining industry. Something not very similar to the development of a high-tech country, rather, to a raw material base.

One should also think about the expediency of copying the best practices, which will not work here anyway, and finding an alternative path of development, with fine adjustments specifically for our realities. Moreover, the modern world is changing very rapidly, and the eternal classics stopped working a long time ago, as evidenced by the economic growth of China, the security system of Israel, and the democracy of the United States.

Both the global development strategy of Ukraine and its individual elements, down to the toolkit, need at least an unsparing eye and should be born during discussions, and not descend from above. But this is impossible without cooperation with our government, and our government is not ready for cooperation.

Bankova’s view

Zelenskyy resists any outside intervention, protecting his own subjectivity, not ours. The reason for this resistance is simple: a year ago he had everything he loves most – applause and money. Applause subsides, and Washington wants to control the money.

Sometimes this resistance reaches the point of absurdity. In an interview with CNN, President Zelenskyy noted that cases of corruption in Ukraine are not related to the help of partners, “it is not about the weapons of our partners, not about money for arms, not about money for the budget to pay pensions, social support, etc.; these are other matters, it’s not about partners.”

Sure, all military expenditures are financed with money from the state budget of Ukraine, and everything else that the state budget does not have enough for after military expenditures is financed by partners. Right? That statement by Zelenskyy is shameful, no matter what. If the state finances were really two pockets with ‘our’ and ‘their’ money, then it turns out that money is not being stolen from us for social welfare, but money is being stolen for war. Of course, state finances are more complicated, and if they steal from ‘our’ pocket, then the shortfall must be compensated from ‘theirs’, which means that the partners have to replenish it more and more so that there is enough for social welfare, because someone somewhere is stealing.

It's bad that the president talks about things he doesn’t understand. Still, it’s even worse that he says it, making excuses, not acknowledging the problem, showing his unreadiness for a constructive approach.

He is still unaware of the inevitability of what is about to happen, going through the classic stages of accepting grief. Obviously, now he is at the stage of “bargaining”, since the main topic of discussion at the meeting in the presidential office, dedicated to future reforms from the USA, became ways and opportunities to simulate the fulfillment of the requirements of the State Department for as long as possible.

It's difficult even to comment on this because it’s one thing to be outraged that an exhausted warring Ukraine is being asked to perform some tasks other than military ones, and another is to try to attack the main ally in the existential war.

In addition, problems in our communications with partners became obvious. On the one hand, Zelenskyy cannot get rid of his environment, which is as toxic as possible for the Americans, which significantly complicates the dialogue with them. On the other hand, black marks are regularly given to everyone who was able to establish more or less constructive personal relations with the States, because Zelenskyy is sure that, in his sultanate, only he and vizier Yermak can speak with the United States.

As a result, no one talks to anyone for a long time, with the exception of the military from both sides.

Defocus of the people

Enlisting the help of the sociological service of the Razumkov Center, ZN.UA asked Ukrainians, how do they see the current situation?

Well, fortunately, the population also has a deeper understanding of the situation than the authorities, and the desire for change is unwavering. Despite the fact that people suffer huge losses, live in fear for almost two years, without prospects and planning horizons, they are not indifferent to the issue of corruption at the state level.

We asked the respondents whether they think it is fair that Ukraine should implement reforms in order to continue providing it with aid from the United States. 44% answered positively, 28.2% answered “no” (the rest chose the option “It’s difficult to answer” - see Figure 1).

However, since the concept of justice is quite abstract, we asked our fellow citizens to agree or disagree with three points regarding the conditions that the USA is putting forward to Ukraine in exchange for money. The points represent different views on the situation and, tellingly, all three were supported by the majority of respondents (see Figure 2).

The majority of Ukrainians (71.3%) agree that money should be provided without any conditions, because we lose our lives fighting for common democratic values and security of the Western world (16.1% disagree with this, and for 12.5 % of respondents it is difficult to answer). Meanwhile, 58.8% are convinced that the reforms proposed by the USA will speed up Ukraine’s path to the EU and are a guarantee of stable development of our country (17.5% disagree, 23.6% find it difficult to answer). 53.9% agree that the reforms proposed by the US establish a framework for our government, without which there is a risk that Ukraine will lose its democratic values, even after winning the war (17.7% disagree with this, 28.4% find it difficult to answer). That is, in contrast to Bankova, Ukrainians do not accept proposals for change hostilely, although they believe that tying the allocation of funds to the progress of reforms is a dubious decision.

Accordingly, we were not surprised by people’s attitude towards the strengthening of US control over aid provided to Ukraine and the launch of checks on its use (see Figure 3).

Respondents could support only one of the proposed points. More than 40% chose the option — “This is a fair decision, because the US needs to report to taxpayers on the effectiveness of the use of funds allocated to Ukraine.” The point that “Ukraine will only benefit from additional control over the effective use of state money and resources” was supported by 36.5% of respondents. Only 14.6% chose the option “Constant emphasis on the corruption of Ukraine reduces its support in the world.” Even fewer (2.5% of respondents) people did not agree with any of the points. There are more people who simply understand the US position than those who also support it, but definitely the majority will not resist the changes.

***

However, we must remember that qualitative changes are painstaking work that requires the readiness and arrangement of all participants.

This is not our option, as we can see, because not all participants are ready for this cooperation. As long as the State Department, without even consulting, imposes reforms, changes and improvements on us, the current government will sabotage their implementation as much as possible. The worst thing is that despite the fact that Ukrainians generally supported the reforms and are aware of their necessity, this does not mean that they are ready to change the current government of saboteurs to people who are able to cooperate with partners and look for ways of development that the country really needs. At least, because they are not even on the horizon at the moment.

So, it is unlikely that we will see systemic and rapid transformations, unfortunately, again considering that even point improvements are a good result.