Donald Trump, former U.S. president and Republican presidential candidate, gestures during a speech at Van Andel Arena, Grand Rapids, Michigan in the U.S., on Nov. 5, 2020. (Kamil Krzaczynski / AFP via Getty Images)
Evelyn Farkas is the head of the McCain Institute, a U.S. think tank named for the late Republican Senator John McCain. She fears that Donald Trump becoming president of the U.S. will be the worst case scenario for Ukraine.
In a recent interview with the Kyiv Independent, she said that the best-case scenario would be for the Democratic Party to sweep Ukraine, with Vice President Kamala taking the White House, and its legislators gaining majority in both chambers of the U.S. Congress.
Farkas, a prominent American national-security advisor, has served in various roles in previous U.S. administrations.
In 2012, she became the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, under President Barack Obama.
She played this role when Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014. She then orchestrated a war in eastern Donbas that led to Russia’s full scale invasion in early 2022.
The Kyiv Independent met with Farkas, a Ukrainian journalist, in the Ukrainian capital, days before the U.S. presidential elections on November 5. They discussed the potential outcomes of the elections for Ukraine, the legacy left by U.S. president Joe Biden in the war in Afghanistan, North Korea’s role in the conflict, and the newly formed “axis evil.”
This interview has been edited to make it shorter and more concise.
The Kyiv independent: What is the best-case scenario in the U.S. elections for Ukraine?
Evelyn Farkas : I think that the best-case scenario would be if Kamala Harris won, we had a House and Senate controlled by Democrats and we could provide reliable assistance to Ukraine within a timely manner. My hope is that, as a prosecutor, she will be like Harry Truman – a realist hawkish president who surprises everyone. She’s said some tough things. She said ‘I can deal with people like President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir) Putin.’
There’s a possibility that she could be that person. Liz Cheney (the daughter of former U.S. vice president Dick Cheney, a Republican politician opposed to the party’s nominee Donald Trump), and others joining her coalition gives me some hope that she will listen to them and perhaps even put them in positions of responsibility.
The best scenario is that we pay enough attention to Ukraine. Not just with our financial resources or our weapons, but also by figuring out how we can help Ukraine win. But also during peacetime, so that Ukraine can become a stronger democratic state.
We cannot let our desire for democratic progress interfere with our duty to help Ukraine win. We must balance all these things while simultaneously pressing forward on all fronts.
I think that we should take more risks in the war. We used to have uniformed personnel in the country (between 2014-2022, before the full-scale invasion). While I was at the Pentagon, we had trained personnel at Yavoriv (training facility in western Ukraine). There’s no reason we can’t send in people from NATO countries for the rear. We should, because the Ukrainians lack enough women and men power. We should help the Ukrainians in training, logistics and everything else that is behind.
Weaponry is also important. The U.S. has a large debt and deficit, so spending will be under pressure. But there will also be pressure to spend more on defense in general in order to deter China and help other allies such as Israel. I don‘t see a way to avoid spending on defense. Whether it’s directly to support the U.S. or indirectly for allies and partners that help provide a barrier against all the bad actors. Harris, that’s the best case scenario.
The Kyiv independent: Some people believe that the administration of President Joe Biden has supported Ukraine, but it is not enough. They were too cautious and afraid of escalation. Would you say this crisis has been handled adequately?
Evelyn Farkas: No! Budget constraints were a thing back in the Obama Administration. We were told the amount of money we had and that we had to help Ukraine within this budget. Ukraine presented its list (at the time), which included F-16s. (Former Ukrainian president Petro) Poroshenko also wanted them. We couldn’t do these things because of our budget.
This was the beginning. We didn’t really know what was going to happen. Even without a full frontal invasion, it was obvious what was happening by the time Biden administration came into power. In fact, it was a question of what Putin would do next. It wasn’t working. The war, as he designed it, hadn’t achieved the goal that he thought. The full frontal invasion was “a necessity” for him.
I think that the Biden administration should have done more for Ukraine when we saw the massing of troops in April 2021. It’s ridiculous. We could have done more to strengthen their defenses. It’s hard to do that quietly, because we have to get Congressional permission.
I’ve advocated all sorts of things, a no-fly area, F-16s. We could have done them at different points in time. We never took the initiative. We were reactive, not proactive.
The Kyiv independent: Where do you believe that comes from?
Evelyn Farkas : I think that once they are in the White House they start thinking of the worst-case scenarios and that they may be responsible. The nuclear topic is brought up.
President Obama didn’t want nuclear war to be his fault. He couldn’t rule out a nuclear war. We explained (at the time) why providing Javelins would not be escalatory but it was not convincing to (Obama). Then it came up again with Biden. I don’t have any idea what intelligence they had that I did not. I don’t recall having any intelligence during the Obama Administration that indicated that Putin would use nuclear weapons under any circumstance. I had access to highly sensitive intelligence.
We know that Putin’s nuclear doctrine states that if the existence (of the Russian state) is in danger, he can use nuclear weapons. You could draw a connection between that and Putin’s comments that it is “essential” for Russia to keep Crimea.
I can’t say for sure that there was no reason under the Biden administration. There have been hints there was a (reason). They are always watching nuclear facilities to see if there is any movement. Perhaps, they were alarmed at some point.
The Kyiv Independent : Do people in Washington have an appetite for sending trainers, or helping with logistics? This is especially true with a Harris Administration.
Evelyn Farkas : I believe so — I believe we should take the risks and that there would appetite for it if a president led and made the case.
I also believe we shouldn’t fear doing something like setting up a no-fly area for Ukraine, or helping to open an airport in Lviv with our capabilities. We’ve done this with Israel. Iran is not a nuclear country, but it’s close, and North Korea has now joined the fray. You can bet that they are a nuclear nation.
One of our Ukrainian colleagues said: “The Russians are aware of what they want, and they have partners that will help them achieve it.” We know what we are looking for, but we do not have partners who will help us achieve it.
The Kyiv Independent : About North Korea. This seems to be a very escalatory action for the entire world. It does seem that the U.S. or the Biden administration is reacting with remarkable caution.
Evelyn Farkas : It’s ridiculous. It’s terrible. It’s outrageous.
They are probably not reacting strongly because they are focusing on the military aspect. I do not think that the North Koreans will win the war militarily for Russia. It’s likely to blow back at the Russians and North Koreans.
CNN has reported that the North Korean rumor-mill is already out. I’m sure South Korea used all of its means to let North Korea know that their sons were not sent to Russia to participate in an exercise as they had told the troops, but to go to Russia to conduct a real mission.
It won’t make a difference militarily, but it will be a disaster diplomatically, and it will send a terrible message if we don’t react.
It’s as if we are one step closer to World War III. Hezbollah’s new leader said that we are in a war on a global scale. He said it. We are the only people who say, “No, no, there isn’t a war on the planet.” That’s insane. When I say “we”, it’s not only us Americans but also the Europeans. People, get together.
The Kyiv independent: This “axis of evil”, which includes North Korea, Iran, and China, is now being called. Is the West not taking this group seriously as it forms?
Evelyn Farkas : I believe the U.S. takes it seriously. We know we are the world’s strongest economic, military, and political power. With our allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East we can win.
But that doesn’t make us relax. These guys have asymmetrical means, and they can make a variety of moves to gain an advantage in the short term. We can always roar back. I don’t believe that has changed.
It’s like World War I or World War II. If they probe and if Putin decides that the sabotage activities indicate that we are weak, that NATO has no teeth, and then decides that he wants to invade (NATO member) Estonia and we do nothing and don’t invoke Article 5 he will believe that he has won. We cannot allow that to occur.
We’ll eventually be at war against Russia. I can’t see another way, because he won’t stop. We’re going to have to stop him.
The Kyiv Independent : Do you think that Trump and his team are aware of the risks you have just described?
Evelyn Farkas : You must first answer the question about his team.
Does Robert O’Brien understand the world and the threats? Robert O’Brien remains in the circle. Mike Pompeo is also in the circle. He was the former U.S. Secretary of State (during Trump’s first term). He knows the risks. He did some, in my opinion, reckless diplomatic things by negotiating with Taliban and getting nothing back, but he knows what he is doing.
There will be other people in the administration who have real national security experience and know what’s happening and can see the stakes.
Elbridge Colby, a senior Trump official, is another person who says that China is the real threat and that we should ignore Russia.
It’s ridiculous. Russia is China’s pawn. China uses Russia to weaken the United States. China loves it. Once they see that Putin is getting his way, then they will see that we are distracted and turn to take Taiwan. We don’t yet know Xi Jingpings timeframe, but we cannot be complacent.
The Kyiv independent: It depends on Trump’s team, but would you then say that his rhetoric surrounding the elections is populist? Do you think that he, and (his vice-presidential nominee) J.D. Vance, in particular, reflect these views?
Evelyn Farkas : Who knows their views? Trump believes he will do anything to help Putin, for whatever reason. He’s particularly fascinated by him.
It will take the entire will and fighting power of those under him to continue the current policy of support for Ukraine, and opposition to Russia’s autocratic agenda.
J.D. Vance is empty. He just goes along with the flow and who knows? If Trump leaves the scene, he might suddenly become interested in Ukraine. My view is that he’s a cipher, because he lacks any principles.
The Kyiv Independent asks: Is it possible that Trump is thinking that he has learned from his first term when he had guard rails around him, blocking everything, and he’s thinking ‘not this again? The fear is that I’m going put in people who will do extreme stuff. Would you say this is a fair assessment of the situation?
Evelyn Farkas: Absolutely. He’s going to pick all the yes-men.
Kash Patel is an example of a man who has no principles and only wants to be in power. He also feels the same way about Trump. So he will do anything to make him happy.
The Kyiv independent: How do you think this will affect the foreign policy of Ukraine?
Evelyn Farkas : They will do whatever Trump says. Trump says let’s get rid of NATO. They’ll try.
In the wake of Trump’s previous attempt, the Senate passed a piece legislation stating that the Senate must ratify withdrawal. But he does not care about the rule-of-law. Congress may say that you must continue to spend money on NATO but he will not care. He could cause a constitutional crisis/meltdown.
The Kyiv independent: What can the Biden Administration do to support Ukraine in these last few months and what do you anticipate from the next Ramstein format meeting of allies regarding the provision of weaponry to Ukraine
Evelyn Farkas : There is an understanding that Ukraine will have a small window of opportunity, regardless of who wins, but especially if Trump wins.
In the worst case scenario (Trump winning), Biden will want to cement his legacy, and he will want to help Zelensky in the final days of his term as much as he can. Even if Harris is elected, I believe he’ll be motivated to cement the legacy he has built.
I understand that they are discussing what they can do in response to (Zelensky’s) “victory plan.” I believe they are looking at NATO’s invitation and the modalities.
I would ask him to remove the restrictions on Ukraine using long-range missiles provided by Western countries for deep strikes in Russia. I would be shocked if the U.K. didn’t know that Ukraine could use Storm Shadows.
But I also think we should — and we have a good chance of doing so, more than 50% — lift the restrictions placed on long-range capabilities. They’re holding off right now. They are holding back right now.
Where are the Patriot missile systems they committed to in May? They need to speed up the assistance and bring trainers to Kyiv. They need to send people to help with the logistics. They should consider air support for civilian protection. We can simply say, “We’re not involved in the conflict. We’re protecting the civilians. We’re protecting airport.
It’s important to also push for a resolution of the conflict and a return to normal. The administration must also have a dialogue with the Ukrainians. We’re considering a unity government, because it’s still not possible to hold elections.
It would be impossible to do, as it would cost five billion dollars and would be difficult to justify. Some people would also feel disenfranchised.
Also the money. It is important to defrost that money (a 50 billion dollar loan from the profits of frozen Russian assets outside) so that Ukraine can have funds. If Ukraine implements reforms and addresses the structural problems which lead to corruption, then it will be wealthy.
Liliane is a business editor for the Kyiv Independent. She worked previously at the Kyiv Post, first as a business reporter and then as a business editor. Liliane has a master’s in Russian, Eastern European and Eurasian Affairs with a focus on Ukrainian Studies from Columbia University. She served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Ukraine from 2017-2020, and then interned at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.
Read More @ kyivindependent.com