The United States of America is the leading supplier of weapons to Ukraine and the primary partner in countering Russian aggression. Without the financial support of the USA, it would be difficult for Ukraine to survive the seven months of the war. Despite this, there is no question of complete trust between the capitals.

Ukrainian authorities have long publicly stated that they are dissatisfied with Washington's position on certain military issues, such as the refusal to supply long-range weapons. And recently, there were rumors in state hallways that the United States encouraged Kyiv to negotiate with Russia before the counteroffensive in eastern Ukraine. Washington now denies this and suggests in private conversations that there was a misunderstanding and a distortion of the signals they really wanted to send.

What is Washington's position on Ukraine's most sensitive and controversial issues?

The US ambassador, Bridget Brink, agreed to talk about it with "European Pravda."

"President Biden unquestionably supports Ukraine"

–  Ambassador, let's start with the key question, which is related to the visit of Antony Blinken to Ukraine. Some sources say there were signals that Ukraine had to start negotiating with Russia. At the same time, US officials say that’s not the case. Let's clarify it, please.

–  I was so delighted and proud to have Secretary of State visit Kyiv, his third visit since the war started on February 24th and his first since I have been here as Ambassador. He came with one essential message from President Biden to show in person the unwavering support of the President and the American people for Ukraine.

He also made clear that the future of Ukraine, including how Ukraine defines victory, including when and how any talks might take place is entirely up to the democratically elected leader of Ukraine. He came here and spent the day in a way that I think underscores that message. He had a very productive meeting with President Zelensky, where they talked about the wide range of US assistance, and Secretary Blinken was able to announce almost $3 billion of new assistance on his arrival.

They also talked about future needs and so I'm that was an extensive and excellent conversation from our point of view. He also had the chance to see some of the victims firsthand, as well as some of the devastation firsthand. So he went to the Children's Hospital to meet the youngest victims of this war. 

Then he also had a chance to go to Irpin and see some of the devastations, including civilian structures, apartment buildings, and residential housing firsthand himself. He found those two visits very moving. It showed the destruction in a very personal, palpable way and so I think it was very important for him to be here. Finally, he was able to go to the embassy and thank his staff and my team for all the efforts in the work and including especially the Ukrainian staff.

– We know that high officials never come just to talk and see. For instance, I can elaborate on a reason for every three visits of Ursula von der Leyen, Scholz, or Macron. Antony Blinken had certainly a reason to visit Kyiv now. Could you please disclose it?

– He said privately and publicly, that the primary purpose of his visit was to show from President Biden the US’s unwavering support for Ukraine.

– How do you see the end of the war? Should it end with negotiations or some kind of deal?

–  It is up to the democratically elected leader of Ukraine to decide when and how negotiations would take place and to decide what victory is. My role and my job are to support Ukraine in terms of what it decides is its future. 

Our overarching policy goal is a sovereign, independent, democratic and prosperous Ukraine that is able to defend itself and deter Russian aggression. In support of that goal, we support Ukraine's ability to decide its own future.

– Ukrainian people are crystal clear here: all public surveys show the vast majority doesn’t support any compromises on territory, on Crimea and Donbas. And the Ukrainian President says that he's not ready to talk with current Russia. But we did not hear from the US side that you fully support return of all the territories in course of this war. Could you say that phrase?

– We leave it up to the democratically elected leader of Ukraine President Zelensky to decide what victory means and when and how to go into negotiations. As we have long said, we support the sovereignty and independence and the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

"This will not be a quick war"

– The US is #1 at security assistance to Ukraine. At the same time, we hear from Ukrainian officials some dissatisfaction with limits, like denial to supply long-range missiles. What is the logic behind this decision?

– I don't want to get into decisions on specific capabilities because that's something our militaries are doing together every day. 

What I can say is that from the beginning we have provided Ukraine with what it needs on the battlefield. That has evolved over time as you have seen two different capabilities and that's in part because the nature of the battlefield has changed.

– Our military does not confirm it. Reznikov (Ukraine’s Minister of Defence. – EP) publicly says the US refers to the danger of striking Russia with long-range missiles. 

– I don’t want to get into diplomatic and military conversations on how best to support Ukraine in this particular battle. What I can say is those capabilities have changed according to battlefield needs. 

At the moment we're watching carefully and we are encouraged to see how Ukraine has done on the battlefield as it is conducting the counteroffensive, which of course is not finished. 

We don't expect this war to finish soon. 

I think we're encouraged to see some territorial gains, some significant ones on the battlefield so far. And I'm really proud of the support that the United States and other partners and allies have provided to help that.

– Do you have any reservations of Crimea's counteroffensive?

– Our longstanding policies that Crimea is Ukraine.

– I mean military counter-offensive. There were statements before this stage of the war that Crimea should never be a place of military confrontation and the issue could be resolved only by diplomatic means. I doubt if this has changed.

– As the US diplomatic representative, I don't want to get into battlefield discussions. I can say our longstanding policy is Crimea is Ukraine.

– Would you say that you have never heard of reservations from the US not to use American missiles against Russia?

– The effort that we have put in place in terms of Security Assistance has been focused on helping Ukraine defend itself and defend its territory.

– We have to win, not to defend.

– We also support Ukraine prevailing, of course.

– Let me explain why I insist on it so much. I see that some people in Ukraine think that the US is interested not in a fast victory of Ukraine, but in weakening Russia with Ukrainian hands and lives.

– I will go back to over $15 billion of Security Assistance, plus billions of dollars of other assistance since February 24th, which is an enormous amount of tangible support to Ukraine. This is more than rhetorical support. This is support on the security side. This is direct budget support. That's been $1.5 billion a month for many months already. And it's humanitarian support. 

This is an outlay of support more than any other country in the world, an enormous amount.

With respect, I think the United States is not only providing political and diplomatic support but also actual tangible financial support to help Ukraine not just survive but also prevail.

– We do not expect this war to finish soon. Is it possible to end the war in 2023?

– As a 25-year-long diplomat, I have learned not to speculate into the future. I don't think that's going to be a quick war. I can say that just from my experience: we also need to support Ukraine's ability, not just to prevail on the battlefield right now, but also to prevail in terms of security for the future. We're already thinking about that. Some of the assistance that we are providing right now is also assistance that's going to help Ukraine build a military that can help it defend itself after this specific conflict is over.

–  Is the US ready to provide support for quite a long time if the war does not end next year?

–  We've already shown that and with some of this longer-term assistance. Some of the foreign military financing and other types of assistance are assistance that isn't an immediate battlefield. Simultaneously, we're providing immediate assistance now such as what was just announced today, about $600 million.

"Using nuclear weapons by Russia will cause serious consequences"

–  Ukraine currently needs financial support to sustain itself, to pay salaries, pensions, and so on. The US is the only partner of Ukraine that fulfills the pledges and provides $1,5 billion dollars per month (unfortunately we do not see this in the EU). But is this a sustainable solution? Or does Ukraine have to prepare for some kind of shift in its dependence on foreign support?

–  A sustainable solution is helping Ukraine prevail on the battlefield so that the economy can get back to normal, people return back home and the economy is working. That's the best solution. That's the solution we're aiming for together with Ukrainian partners.

–  Is it possible to reach it before the war ends?

– We have to do both. We have to provide the support and the help needed while Ukraine is fighting this specific the battlefield fights right now, but also plan for the future where Ukraine's economy is going back to normal. I'm really proud of the direct budget support. This is very unusual for us.

It's $8.5 billion so far since February 24th that we've provided.

I think Ukrainians want to have their economy going properly as well. This is also important for the government and the people of Ukraine that we help to do what we can to make that happen.

– That is definitely possible only if we rebuild Ukraine using seized Russian funds and assets. Do you have an idea when this money can be available for Ukraine?

–  As I've been told, this is a long process. There are conversations going on now about what and what to do with this money, as well as how best to support Ukraine in a reconstruction phase. 

–  One of the ways to achieve it is to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. The US is publicly against that. What is the reason?

– The Biden administration has already worked to put in place sanctions on those people and entities in Russia that are helping wage this war on Ukraine. A lot of the impact that one would have for such a designation is the same as what we are doing right now. 

We have heard the request from the Ukrainians to do this. There's also some discussion about this back home in America. It's something that my government is looking carefully at considering and also talking to Congress about this. I can't talk more in detail about this.

– So, the US doesn’t deny the designation?

– What we want is to avoid unintended consequences of any kind of designation. Our goal is to support Ukraine. We also need to think about how to ensure support from not just us, but the rest of the members of the international community. We'll continue to talk about this and try to ensure that we are living up to that goal.

– Do you see a chance of a nuclear attack with tactical nukes or weaponizing the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant? 

– As President Biden has said, any discussion of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield is absolutely irresponsible. We and Russia have said that a nuclear war cannot be won and so should never be waged.

– Putin did a lot of irresponsible things though.

– President Biden has made it clear: any use of nuclear weapons would be absolutely unacceptable and would entail severe consequences. 

With regard to Zaporizhzhia that is also a very dangerous situation. We support the Ukrainian Government interest in demilitarization zone there, and also the return of full control of it to Ukraine. We are working with the IAEA as well as international partners in support of this goal, but it's a dangerous situation.

– Do you have a plan for what to do if nukes are used?

– We're working together with internal and also with partners to discuss what we could do in response to something that it would be completely unacceptable as the President has made very clear.

Interviewed by Sergiy Sydorenko

Filmed by Volodymyr Oliinyk

"European Pravda"