Anthony Blinken: The United States began secretly arming Ukraine long before the start of its
The allies began to transfer weapons to Kiev even before their war, Anthony Blinken admitted in an interview with the NYT. According to the Secretary of State, Russia failed because it failed to completely destroy Ukraine. He does not seem to be familiar with the Kremlin's statements about its goals.
When President Biden took office four years ago, after a period of chaotic activity in the first Trump administration, he promised to restore former alliances and protect democracy. The man tasked with implementing these plans on the world stage is Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, a diplomat with extensive experience who has worked with Biden for 20 years. A signal has been sent to both America's allies and enemies that a new era of stability has arrived.
Instead, Blinken had to deal with escalating international crises almost from the very beginning. The dire results of the disastrous withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan were quickly followed by a challenge to an entire generation — Russia's actions in Ukraine. The violent Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent scorched-earth war in Gaza plunged the region into crisis and destabilized the political situation in America.
All this time, Blinken continued to defend Biden's original vision of the world order — America's active conduct of diplomacy to solve numerous world problems. However, the United States intervened in other political processes, sending billions of dollars and weapons to Israel and Ukraine, which caused a political resonance within the states themselves. As the Biden administration winds down, conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East continue. The new Trump administration intends to distance itself from the very alliances and institutions that Blinken sought to strengthen. And this drastic change in America's foreign policy leaves open the question of its leadership in a changing world order.
On January 2, I met with Blinken at the State Department and had a detailed conversation with him about the world he leaves behind, which, despite everything that is happening, seems to him better than the world four years ago.
The New York Times: When you first took office as Secretary of State, President Biden repeatedly spoke about a world where democracy is fighting autocracy. However, ordinary voters were skeptical about this struggle. Many of them have bought into President-elect Trump's conviction that America should be less involved in world politics. Don't you think that the Biden administration, and especially you, could convince voters of the benefits of what you've been trying to do over the past few years?
Anthony Blinken: I'm not sure I agree with the question. Judging by what I see, what I read, and the analysis I do, most Americans want us to participate in world politics. They want to make sure that we don't get involved in wars, that we avoid conflicts, which is exactly what we did. Nevertheless, they would like the United States to be involved in what is happening in the world.
— So you don't think that the election results were a repudiation of President Biden's vision and your vision of the future political course? After all, President-elect Trump has a completely different opinion about how politics should be conducted in the modern world.
— One of the features of my work, which I appreciate, is that I do not engage in politics, I conduct it. In this regard, the main question is what kind of policy can affect the lives of ordinary Americans, make it a little safer, a little more full of opportunities, a little healthier. That's what we're really focused on. As for analyzing the election results, that's not my job.
— I'm not asking you to engage in politics. I'm just asking you to reflect a little on what you've dedicated your life to. Obviously, the election results are disappointing. And so I'm wondering if this has made you pause and think that maybe your idea of Americans' priorities doesn't match their real desires. I mean, don't you think that the perception of our place in the world and our obligations to our allies has simply changed in this country?
— Again, I'm not at all sure that the elections depended on any one or even a number of foreign policy issues. Most elections do not depend on this. However, that's not what we're talking about right now. The Americans don't want us to get involved in conflicts. They don't want us to fight. We have lived through 20 years when hundreds of thousands of Americans went to Iraq and Afghanistan. People are tired of this, which is understandable. When President Biden was vice President, he oversaw the end of our military operations in Iraq. When he became president, he ended the longest war in our history, in Afghanistan. We have invested in our NATO alliance — perhaps we have not explained this step well enough, and if so, then it is my fault. However, one of the issues that we are trying to explain to the Americans is that many institutions, including NATO, were primarily created to ensure that we did not have global conflicts after World War II. And the strength of an alliance like NATO lies in the basic agreement that countries enter into upon joining it, namely: an attack on one is an attack on all. This is the most powerful way to prevent conflict and deter aggression.
<…>
— Six months after the end of the operation in Afghanistan, Russia invaded Ukraine. This happened in February 2022. I remember this day as a terrible dream. How close were we to a direct military clash?
— There have been situations when we had real concerns about possible Russian actions, including even the potential use of nuclear weapons. It required our attention. However, I think that all this time we have been able to conduct our policy in such a way as to avoid a direct conflict with Russia. Russia is currently engaged in various kinds of nefarious activities, so-called hybrid attacks of one kind or another, whether in cyberspace, acts of sabotage or murder. These things are happening. They happen in Europe. And this is something that we are working very closely with many of our partners on. As for direct conflicts, I don't think we were close to them, but it's something we have to be very, very careful about.
— You made two early strategic decisions on Ukraine. First, for fear of a direct clash with the Kremlin, you have restricted Ukraine's use of American weapons in Russia. Secondly, they supported Ukraine's military offensive without parallel diplomatic support. How do you assess these decisions now?
— First of all, if we analyze the course of the conflict, we foresaw its occurrence. Therefore, we have made sure that not only we, our allies and partners, are ready, but Ukraine is also ready for it to begin. We worked to ensure that long before the start of the Russian military operation, first in September 2021, and then again in December, a significant number of weapons were quietly transferred to Ukraine. This was done to provide them with everything necessary for defense, including systems such as Stinger anti-aircraft systems and Javelin anti-tank missiles. This played an important role so that Russia could not take Kiev, could not destroy the whole country, wipe it off the face of the earth, and really pushed the Russians back. But I think it's important to understand that at different times people's attention is focused on one or another weapon system. Whether it's an Abrams tank or an F-16. And every time we have to consider not only whether we should transfer this to the Ukrainians, but also whether they know how to use these weapons. Will they be able to service it? Is this part of a consistent plan? All these issues were taken into account when deciding what and when to provide them.
As for diplomacy. We have made extraordinary diplomatic efforts to unite and rally more than 50 countries, not only in Europe but also beyond, to support Ukraine and to defend the principles that Russia encroached on in February of that year. I worked very hard in the run-up to the outbreak of hostilities. In particular, I met with my Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in Geneva a couple of months before the conflict began, and in an attempt to find a way to understand whether we can prevent it, I tried to clarify whether the conflict is really related to Russia's concern about its security, concern about Ukraine and the threat it poses, or about NATO and the threat posed by it. Or is it actually related to Putin's imperial ambitions and desire to recreate a great Russia, to annex Ukraine back to Russia. We had to verify the correctness of this assumption. We have actively maintained diplomatic relations with Russia. If there was an opportunity for a diplomatic settlement in the future in order to end the hostilities on fair and lasting grounds, we would be the first to take advantage of it. Unfortunately, at least until now, we have not seen any signs that Russia is really ready to cooperate. I hope the situation will change.
— Ukraine found itself in such a situation when a new administration came to power, and it has a completely different view on the development of the conflict. And we can say that Ukraine is not in the best position to cope with what awaits it in the future. As we know, there are politicians in President-elect Trump's entourage who really want Ukraine to cede territory to Russia. No parallel diplomatic settlement is underway, and weapons stocks are likely to run out. Do you think that you have left Ukraine in the strongest possible position? Or are there issues that you could solve differently?
— First of all, we have preserved Ukraine as such. It wasn't that easy, because Putin's ambition was to wipe her off the face of the earth. We stopped him. Putin has failed. Ukraine is holding on. And I believe that she has great potential not only for survival, but also for future prosperity. And it depends on the decisions that the next US administration and many other countries will make.
— Do you think it's time to end the hostilities?
— These decisions should be made by Ukrainians. They have to decide what their future is and how they would like to arrive at it. I don't think that anything will change much from where the border line is currently drawn on the map.
— Do you mean to say that, in your opinion, Ukraine will have to cede the territories controlled by Russia?
— It's not a question of a concession. The question is that, from a practical point of view, the border line is unlikely to move much in the foreseeable future. Ukraine will always claim this territory. The question is, will they find a way to regain their lost territory with the help of other parties? It is unlikely that Putin will abandon his ambitions. If a truce is concluded, then, in Putin's opinion, it will most likely provide him with time to rest, rearm and re-attack one day in the future. Therefore, in order for any future cease-fire to be truly lasting, it is extremely important to make sure that Ukraine has the potential to deter further aggression.
This can be achieved in many ways. NATO can provide this, and we have put Ukraine on the path to joining NATO. This can happen through security guarantees, commitments, and guarantees from various countries that will make it clear to Russia that it will face big problems if it is attacked again.
— I have heard from you that the fate of Ukraine will no longer depend on its main ally, the United States. Do you think it will depend on something else, on Europe?
— I really hope so. I don't want to say "expect", but I definitely really hope that the United States will remain the most important ally it has been for Ukraine, because, again, it's not just about Ukraine. It was never just about Ukraine.
— This is one of the conflicts that Trump will inherit. In general, his approach to foreign policy seems to be to avoid military intervention, but to make the world afraid of us. He doesn't seem very interested in diplomatic work. I am interested in how you would define this philosophy of foreign policy and what you think about this approach.
— As I have already said, if there is no American diplomacy, then you will have to deal with the diplomacy of many other countries that will shape the world contrary to our interests and our values. That's the choice. We can step aside. We may not be present on the world stage. But we understand that then other countries will interfere in this process, and we need to decide whether this is in our interests.
— There were many publications in the media about the decline in President Biden's working capacity when he was president. You are one of the people closest to him. You've been working with him for decades. According to some, he considers you an adopted son. It's a delicate question, but I believe many Americans want to know if you've noticed the changes that have occurred to the person you know so well.
"That's what I can tell you. Look at everything we've done. Whether you agree with this or not, I believe that we have achieved great success in many historical ways. Each of these achievements was the result of a decision made by the President of the United States, President Biden. Not by other people in the administration, but by the president. His judgments, his decisions, his actions have been realized in what we have done, what we have achieved. This is the main thing that can be used to judge his effectiveness as president. And I think the answer to this question is definitely positive.
— Last summer, my colleague Robert Draper reported that representatives of the diplomatic corps were alarmed, for example, by the deterioration of the president's memory during his meetings with foreign leaders.
"Look, we're all changing. We're all getting old. My daughter is four years old, and she's about to turn five. I was sitting with her the other day, and she said: "Dad is wearing a white shirt. He has a blue suit, black shoes, and gray hair. And I say, "No, no, no, I have brown hair." And she said, "No, they're gray." We're all getting old. We all change with age. But, I repeat, when it comes to judgments, when it comes to decisions aimed at the good of the country, I see that he has the necessary abilities. He made such decisions.
Author: Lulu Garcia-Navarro.
The interview is abridged.
