Republican Senator Kevin Kramer, in an exclusive interview, discussed the possibility of equipping Ukraine with more powerful weapons systems, post-war security architecture, and future reconstruction from Ukraine.
Natalka Pisnya: Ukraine’s defense minister said he was confident that Ukraine would soon receive fighter jets, but did not specify which country would supply them. Earlier, the UK announced that it would launch a training program for Ukrainian pilots. Is it possible that the United States will also take a similar step?
Kevin Kramer: From the start, when Boris Johnson was still prime minister, I was delighted to see him take on the leadership role. It was very appropriate in many ways, especially considering the situation from the point of view of the Budapest memorandum, which the UK signed (as the guarantor of Ukraine’s security).
The United Kingdom plays a crucial role, in particular financially. The United States must not play second fiddle, but it must be a partner. I believe this will reduce political tensions within America. Many Americans want to know: are European countries and NATO doing their part? Naturally, our share of aid is larger, because our economy is the size of the economy of all of Europe. But British leadership makes it easier for us to support (Ukraine).
Speaking of training pilots, and providing weapons, we all benefit from the efforts of our allies. This allows us to collectively give back more. But what is needed is an industrial base that can meet today’s needs and tomorrow’s challenges, because many of America’s rivals are watching and will only be happy if we get it wrong. We have no right to allow this.
NP: An unnamed Pentagon official in an interview with Politico said that Ukraine will not receive long-range weapons because America does not have enough of the appropriate types of weapons to ensure its own security. Is this signal for Kiev that the final answer is “no”?
KK: I don’t know. I have an observation about Volodymyr Zelenskyy : when he hears “no”, he thinks it means “not now”, that we haven’t made a decision yet. Zelenskyyy is very persistent and deserves praise – his leadership position deserves admiration.
I would not take that statement as a flat denial. But I also want to emphasize that such statements are not intended only for Kiev. When someone says something representing the position of the US military or the US government, then we have our constituents, our taxpayers – and we are speaking to them first. There are calls to Ukraine, there are calls to our allies and rivals – they all hear our statements, which mean different things to different recipients.
Now we must both help our Ukrainian friends – for their well-being and ours – and prepare for a future that does not seem the safest.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine demonstrated that we have some supply chain issues. If we end up at war – whether it’s a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or North Korea doing something crazy on the peninsula – that will mean a much more serious commitment for us. We need an industrial base, a continuous supply. However, we must see this situation as both a challenge and an opportunity, not as an obstacle to helping.
NP: How might the global security architecture change after the end of the war?
KK: First of all, Ukraine will have to demonstrate that the capabilities of its armed forces are at the appropriate level to have sophisticated weapon systems. Ukrainians deserve great respect and praise for the way they fight for their freedom.
Naturally, the question of Ukraine’s membership in NATO remains topical. Moreover, it is very interesting to see how much Russia will change: it will remain in the same place in terms of geography, but where will Russia be after Vladimir Putin culturally and politically? Who will be the next person to lead it – will it be made from the same dough or will it be different?
I hope we can normalize Russia and our relations with her. And we must stick together with allies and do what we can.
However, there will be some political resistance regarding the allocation of large sums of money for the restoration of Ukraine. It will be quite a difficult political task, but Ukraine will have to rise again because its economy is extremely important for world economic processes. We already know that Ukrainians are enterprising and smart, they have production capacity, they are excellent farmers, and they produce a huge amount of food for the whole world – I am sure Ukraine’s recovery will be very quick.
NP Is a new Marshall Plan possible for Ukraine?
KK: We have to do everything together – the European Union, NATO, the United States, and Canada. Perhaps our friends from Asia and the Middle East will join us. Ukraine has a huge amount of natural resources, and even its soil is worth its weight in gold. Rich countries have every reason to participate in the reconstruction of Ukraine, to give it favorable grants or loans within an acceptable limit, putting the interests of Ukrainians above the interests of borrowers. And there are many ways to distribute these responsibilities so that the United States is not the only donor.
