OPINION: ‘President’ Kamala Harris – Implications for Ukraine

Kamala Harris, almost certain to be the Democratic candidate for the US Presidency in November, has appropriate relevant political experience as Joe Biden’s current Vice President, former four-year Senator and six-year Attorney General for California.

She also has personal qualities that may prove attractive to the electorate and would represent what many, including me, would say is a long overdue historic precedent. Not only is she of mixed black and Asian descent, but she is also a woman and if she is elected it would be the first time the US has chosen a woman president, of any ethnicity.

Philip H. Gordon currently acts as Harris’ National Security Adviser and would be certain to play a significant role in her Administration. In a recent interview with the President of the Council on Foreign Relations he characterized the 2022 full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine as the biggest land war in Europe that we’ve faced since World War II with tremendous geopolitical consequences - threatening European allies and NATO; driving up energy and food prices; disrupting supply chains.

Gordon went on to say:

“I mean, first I would... take a step back... going back to... February 2022, or even before that when we had intelligence that Russia was going to invade that many doubted, and we shared with our allies, we shared with the Ukrainians, and we put the world on notice that this was going to happen, it did happen

Other Topics of Interest

Russian Exiled Opposition to Stage Major Anti-War Protest

Yulia Navalnaya, who took the helm of the Russian opposition movement after the death of her late husband Alexei Navalny, would be one of the main organizers of the march.

“And then we immediately kicked into gear and helped the Ukrainians prevent, essentially, a Russian takeover of all of Ukraine. That was their plan. That was their assumption, that they would be able to do it. Many people thought they were right. But we were determined to prove them wrong, surged in military assistance, political assistance, put a huge coalition together, hit the Russian economy hard with sanctions.

“… I give most credit to the Ukrainian people for their valiant fight against Russia, who far from taking Kyiv they got stopped. They not only got stopped… they got pushed back.

“They [Russia] ended up taking some territory in the east, but even then the following year - in large part thanks to our assistance, and no one has provided more assistance than the United States - we helped the Ukrainians prevent a Russian takeover of Kyiv, put together a coalition of some fifty countries who are all involved in supporting Ukraine.

“And, you know, almost two and a half years after this Russian invasion with the intent to occupy Kyiv, Ukraine is a democratic country with support and solidarity from around the world that is standing tall and proud in the face of Russian aggression.

So, I think, again, first credit goes to the Ukrainians for their fight. But I think the United States and our allies around the world have also done a remarkable job in providing support to Ukraine... and with aid flowing in to come to the rescue and make clear to Putin that he may have thought he was able to wait us out, but he is not going to be able to.

Last point. ... what about the criticism that we haven’t done enough. We have very few restrictions on what Ukraine can do or on what we provide to Ukraine. It’s true that some of this has evolved over time as battlefield needs have changed, as our available resources have changed, as things have become available that couldn’t have been provided earlier, that we’re able to provide now. To the point that, you know, whatever category of weapon you might be interested in, we’re essentially providing it to Ukraine now.

“So, I don’t think - I don’t think it’s right to suggest that somehow our policy or what we are doing is preventing Ukraine from doing what it needs to do, which is to continue to stand up in the face of this Russian aggression.”

The question that Mr. Gordon both answered and avoided was: “There’s been some critique from some quarters of the administration that, you know, restrictions on Ukrainian use of US-supplied arms maybe should be lifted. There’s been some questions... that too little, too late. Does the administration need to rethink its strategy on Ukraine?”

In his not unexpected answer Gordon was being diplomatic - if he had suggested there should be a waiver of restrictions or announcing a timetable for Ukraine's membership in NATO, he would have been critical of Biden’s, and by implication Harris’, policies. He suggested delays in the timely delivery of weapons was a logistical not a policy issue which, nevertheless, had costly implications for Ukraine and Ukrainians.

The paradigm very often repeated by President Biden was that he was not running against the Almighty but against Trump. The latter is considered by many as a buffoon and a charlatan. Prosecuting the case against Trump should result in a tremendous windfall for candidate Harris as a former prosecutor.

What Ukraine needs from a future Harris administration is the removal of any geographic and other restrictions on the use of American weaponry, timely delivery, a reasonable response to Ukraine's requests for additional weapons, recognizing that Ukraine understands its strategic military needs better than all of America's top generals put together and finally a timeline for Ukraine's NATO membership.

NATO membership must be granted even if that includes a proviso that membership will not be granted for the duration of the current war or alternatively that Ukraine's NATO membership would not Article 5 to be invoked during the current war.

“Irreversible” cannot be defined.

Finally, Biden deserves much praise not just for withdrawing his candidacy but also for his more than half a century of public service. Every human has flaws - but Biden was and is an essentially a good and honest man, ambitious but with an unselfish personality and a giving nature.

As far as I am concerned his only flaw was a level of politeness or even fecklessness. As a VP he was not able to steer American foreign policy via the junior senator who became America's first black president. History will never denounce much less criticize Barrack Obama, but his foreign policy was a disaster because of a lack of knowledge or expertise.

Biden was too polite to tell him so and President Obama was overconfident but lacked the necessary acumen and experience. As a result, the world suffered, and Ukraine lost 17 percent of its territory.  That aside, Joe Biden will go down in American and World history as one of its greatest leaders.

Looking towards the future, if and when Kamala Harris is elected as President she will become a historic figure. Her mission will be to work hard, take advice, be tough on principles, but be compassionate. If she does that, then she will earn her place in history, not only because of her gender or the color of her skin, but because of her legacy for the US and the world.

Askold S. Lozynskyj is a New York attorney and president of the Ukrainian Free University Foundation. He was president of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America between 1992-2000 and president of the Ukrainian World Congress between 1998-2008.

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.