Successful, successful, useful for Ukraine, as well as scandalous, unsuccessful, inappropriate for Americans who care about issues of pre-election races – all these evaluations of Zelenskyi’s visit to the USA can be found in the columns of newspapers, broadcasts of television companies, in the posts of bloggers, in the reactions of ordinary citizens. Among the issues discussed are the ambiguous reception, the complex political context of the USA on the eve of the elections, the diplomatic scandal with Markarova, disputes with Polish partners during the UN General Assembly, “to be or not to be” further armed support of Ukraine. We decided to share with you the expert opinions of specialists in international politics, which contain different interpretations and assessments of Zelenskyi’s American tour.
Olena Lennon, adjunct professor of national security, University of New Haven, emphasizes that, unlike the previous visit, this time President Zelenskyy received a mixed reception: a warm welcome from the White House and, at the same time, a somewhat cool reaction from congressmen who have recently been opposing further US aid to Ukraine. American political scientists quickly found an explanation for this: doubts are growing in the United States about the real chances of Ukraine to return its territories and America’s ability to provide assistance at the current level.
However, on expert opinion Wilson Institute, this interpretation of military and political dynamics is wrong. It should be considered purely in the context of internal pre-election disputes in the USA, where military aid to Ukraine is used to define its political positions. Despite the low-key reception, Zelenskyi’s visit to the U.S. was quite successful: he received a new aid package and—albeit with a slight delay—a promise of the ATACMS missiles Ukraine’s political and military leaders had been waiting for for months.
This leads to three main conclusions regarding the status of US-Ukraine relations. First, despite slow progress in Ukraine’s counteroffensive, the U.S. decision to provide Ukraine with long-range missiles and other advanced capabilities demonstrates the willingness of U.S. leaders to help the Ukrainian military achieve decisive results on the battlefield. Western leaders also confirmed that they share the assessment of the Ukrainian leadership: it is impossible to change Putin’s intentions by political means. Therefore, the only way to reduce the threat from Russia, both in the short and long term, is to continue to weaken its military capabilities.
Secondly, giving Ukraine the opportunity to strike the occupied territories of Russia may indicate an overestimation of the risks of escalation by the United States. The Biden administration’s concerns about Russia’s possible use of nuclear weapons appear to have subsided.
And finally, Zelenskyi’s visit showed that, despite the lack of formal security guarantees for Ukraine, the strategic cooperation between the US and Ukraine remains stable. At the same time, the strengthening of the opposition to the further financing of Ukraine on the part of the Republicans in Congress is real. It will intensify as the US presidential elections approach.
According to Mykhailo Minakov, senior adviser of the Kennan Institute, we can talk about two main goals of President Zelensky’s visit to the USA. First, he had to demonstrate that a stable majority of UN member states continue to support Ukraine in the war with Russia. Secondly, he had to support the achieved level of relations between Ukraine and the USA. It is clear that after Zelensky’s return to Ukraine, there are heated discussions about the extent to which these goals were achieved.
Both Zelenskyi’s speeches at the UN General Assembly, as well as his statements after meetings with the leaders of other states during this event, attracted a lot of attention from the world community. His call for solidarity among UN members in stopping Russian aggression and reforming the UN to prevent similar aggressive behavior in the future had a special resonance.
The most important issue that Zelenskyi raised in his address to the UN was a shortened version of his peace plan. He highlighted two key points from his 10-step plan. First, Russian troops must be withdrawn from the entire internationally recognized territory of Ukraine. Secondly, the Ukrainian government must restore control over all regions of Ukraine. Only after that can peace negotiations begin, aimed at ensuring stable security of Ukraine and peace in Europe. This proposal received support from the majority of UN member states.
According to the expert, the meeting with the President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva deserves attention. Zelenskyy discussed the Ukrainian peace plan with the leader, who previously had an alternative vision for resolving the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. This meeting was an important step in Kyiv’s dialogue with the countries of the Global South.
At the same time, Zelenskyi’s visit to the UN was overshadowed by disputes with Central European countries over Ukrainian exports of agricultural products. The exchange of unpleasant statements between Ukrainian and Polish politicians was especially painful. The expert expressed hope for the normalization of relations between Warsaw and Kyiv after the elections in Poland in October. And at the same time, he noted that this conflict showed that, despite certain strategic achievements of Zelensky in New York, this is not enough to prevent the growth of certain cracks in the pro-Ukrainian alliance. This is definitely an issue that Kyiv should take care of in the near future.
Zelenskyi’s visit also showed that the partnership between Ukraine and the USA is developing in a rather dynamic political context. On the eve of Zelenskyi’s visit, a wave of critical publications appeared in the American press: they related to the military campaign and corruption among Ukrainian officials. If in December 2022 the US Congress greeted the speech of the President of Ukraine with a standing ovation, this time he was not given the opportunity to speak publicly in the House of Representatives. It was obvious that the political context of the Ukrainian delegation’s trip to Washington this time was significantly different from the previous one.
However, Zelensky and his team did everything possible to preserve the partnership between the United States and Ukraine despite new political trends. In particular, they supported the expansion of the audit team of the US Department of Defense and the appointment of a special representative for the recovery of Ukraine as an opportunity to prove Ukraine’s reliability as a military and economic partner. The Ukrainian delegation organized several meetings with various groups of members of Congress to advance the idea of the need for continued American support. The meeting at the White House confirmed that the United States remains committed to the partnership now and in the future. The new package of military aid to the Ukrainian army became a concrete confirmation of these assurances.
Director of the Kennan Institute, William Pomerantz, also confirms that during his visit to Washington, President Zelenskyi faced the difficult reality of American politics. While receiving support from President Biden and the Senate, he simultaneously felt distanced from the House. This testifies to the complex circumstances that now affect the US policy towards Ukraine. As the November elections approach, support for Ukraine will become an important issue in pre-election debates. It remains an open question whether the fate of Ukraine worries the rest of the world, with the exception of Europe and a few allies. President Biden reminded the UN General Assembly that the division of Ukraine will have significant consequences for the territorial integrity of other states, even those far from the battlefield.
Now the United States is moving towards a possible government “shutdown”, which is a feature of the American political system, which will further delay the decision on new aid to Ukraine. Such actions can be seen as yet another example of US political dysfunction, which only benefits Russia and China in their joint attempts to create a new bipolar world.
According to Robin Quinville, director of the Global Europe Program, the president of Ukraine came to New York and Washington with a clear task: to convince world leaders that their support for Ukraine is producing results, and the continuation of this support is critically important. Two and a half years of war made the struggle permanent and familiar to Ukraine’s Western partners. However, while the war may seem less dramatic, it remains no less demanding than it was a year ago. Zelensky is aware that the Western understanding of progress differs from the Ukrainian one. For Zelensky, even small achievements have weight, which is not always appreciated by his impatient partners.
That is why Zelensky focused his attention at the UN on the global consequences of the war. He spoke about Russia’s use of food and energy as a weapon, about the threat of further Russian military aggression to other countries, as well as about the abduction of Ukrainian children as a violation of international UN human rights standards. His main message: our struggle for survival affects your countries as well.
In Washington, Zelensky had to convince divided politicians in Congress and the administration that the Ukrainian vision of progress leads to victory. Before the trip, he appointed a new defense minister and replaced all the deputies, showing seriousness in the fight against corruption. He emphasized that Ukraine is strengthening its administration for joining the EU and NATO. After not being invited to NATO in Vilnius, Zelenskyi turned his attention to next year’s NATO summit in Washington. Zelenskyi emphasized the need to provide military aid to Ukraine faster. Delays in decision-making and delivery of military equipment are perceived by Russia as a manifestation of the West’s weakness. If Western countries want rapid progress, they should step up their support.
American journalist who specializes in covering events in the US Congress, notesthat “Zelensky’s star power in Washington is fading.” She notes that the Ukrainian leader came to Washington to call for the acceleration of the supply of weapons and assistance to Ukraine in the fight against Russia. However, his visit was more modest than before and provoked an angry reaction from some Republicans. After two meetings with lawmakers, including Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell, Zelensky tried to emphasize the importance of getting the long-range missiles. However, his visit came at a time when Congress was busy campaigning and House Speaker Mike Johnson ignored him.
Some Republicans have accused the Ukrainian president of political manipulation, especially after his visit to a munitions plant that drew a backlash from Johnson. He also emphasized the importance of cooperation with all parties, because the deterioration of relations between Zelenskyi and the right-wing Republicans could negatively affect future military aid.
Zelensky tried to demonstrate the importance of humanitarian support from the international community, calling for continued aid to Ukraine. However, given the polarization in Congress, his influence in Washington is waning.
Ukrainian international journalist and publicist Vitaly Portnikov believes that it is too early to assess Volodymyr Zelenskyi’s successes and failures in the context of his visit. First, even before his American tour, it was obvious that even if the West approved the use of missiles to strike deep into Russian territory, no public statements on the subject would be made. The White House has repeatedly emphasized that if there is an announcement, it will not come out of their mouths.
According to Portnikov, it is important to pay attention not only to Zelenskyi’s efforts, but also to the actions of another key player — the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Keir Starmer. He insists on the right of Great Britain to give Ukraine the opportunity to attack the territory of the Russian Federation with British Storm Shadow missiles. This issue was discussed with Joseph Biden, and Starmer also held a two-hour meeting with Donald Trump. There were also doubts about this meeting, but for Trump it is clear that Great Britain will become an important ally of the United States if he wins the election, and he will have to reckon with the position of London more than, for example, Berlin.
In addition, even if the decision on the possibility of strikes by these missiles on the territory of Russia is made, it is unlikely that it will be implemented in the near future. There is a certain sequence of actions: Anthony Blinken’s visit to London, his meetings in Kyiv, Starmer’s conversation with Biden in Washington, Zelenskyi’s meeting with Biden, as well as the planned talks in Germany between the leaders – Biden, Scholz, Macron and Starmer – and in Ramstein in October . These five meetings can significantly influence the final decision.
At the same time, even if a principled decision is adopted, it is unlikely to be made public and implemented before November 5, 2024, because it will become the subject of an election campaign. Trump can claim: “Look, Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris are leading you to World War III, because the ability to fire our missiles at Russia is the path to nuclear war.”. If something like this happens before the election, and Russia reacts, Trump will have the opportunity to say: “I warned you, now I can prove myself right. Vote for me if you want peace and if you want American soldiers not to die on the front lines of World War III.”
So, the White House is unlikely to make any moves until November 5. If there was a confidential conversation between Biden, Zelensky and Harris, they may have been explained this situation, although I am sure that Zelensky is aware of this as well. Maybe he’s just hoping for a positive decision after November 5.
