Damon Wilson belongs to a group of American officials who have long been involved in Ukrainian affairs, understand the country and have influenced decisions regarding it, but have remained in the shadows. From 2004 to 2009, with a brief break, he advised on US foreign policy on Ukraine on the National Security Council at the White House, including during the Orange Revolution in Kyiv. He then spent over 10 years at the Atlantic Council, a key US think tank, serving as the Executive Vice President, and in 2021 he became the President of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

We spoke in Kyiv. Since the start of the full-scale war, Wilson has visited Ukraine multiple times and believes that supporting Ukraine should be a priority. However, our conversation this time was not about the basic tasks, but about the West's perception of Ukraine and the war, and how this perception has changed. Wilson is convinced that despite the obvious problems and the usual rhetoric about "Ukraine fatigue" in the Western media, the situation is better than it sometimes appears.

"Americans understand there is something bigger going on which isn't really good"

We are used to reading about "Ukraine fatigue" in the Western media. How strong is it?

I think it's far overblown. First of all, for me personally, for the National Endowment for Democracy, there is no such thing as Ukraine fatigue.

There is no such thing as Ukraine fatigue at NED.

That said, even in my country, across the United States, we just came through a very contentious vote in the US Congress where essentially two-thirds of American elected officials at the national level backed Ukraine on the single largest package since the war began.

I think support for Ukraine has hardened. I don't buy into Ukraine fatigue.

However, I can imagine that for an ordinary American somewhere in Ohio, Ukraine feels very far away...

If you ask Senator Portman from Ohio or Marcy Kaptur from Ohio, these are some of the biggest champions for Ukraine and the United States.

But of course, this is the case for any foreign policy issue. If you have the luxury of living in the United States as an American, it's very easy to not be so impacted by what's happening around the world, or at least think that's the case. 

But that's the truth in many places around the world: you're really focused on your own community. 

The point ultimately is to help elected representatives in our country help lead in this discussion in their communities about why support for Ukraine is so important – not just for Ukraine, but for the future of democracy and freedom, to the future of standing up to autocrats that are trying not to just attack Ukraine, but really to undermine American leadership and engagement, to undermine our alliances, to challenge the way we operate.

And ultimately, this has a huge impact on quality of life, on security, on inflation rates in the United States because of what Russia is trying to inflict here in Ukraine. So it's not that hard to connect the dots, but at the same time, the American people understand there's more at stake than just pocketbook issues. There’s the future of moral leadership and the future of freedom that are at stake in the world.

Do you think ordinary Americans understand that?

I think they do. This is not the most important issue for ordinary Americans. Just like any Ukrainian has to worry about their family, about how to put food on the table, about their security, if their son or daughter is on the front line of the fight. They can have immediate concerns. That's normal. That's human.

That's how American voters are. They worry about their family, how to actually take care of their children, how to put food on the table, how to make ends meet. We're selfish in that sense, and that's okay.

But many Americans understand there is something bigger going on.

There's a bigger challenge in the world, and they understand that – whether it's Vladimir Putin attacking and invading in a completely unjustified war in Ukraine, whether it's the Chinese Communist Party challenging and competing in a very unfair way economically.

They see autocratic regimes on the march.

They don't understand all the details, but understand this isn't really good.

 "There is a history of not understanding the power of appeasing Putin"

In recent years and decades, attitudes toward Russia in the US have changed. Thirty years ago, Russia was perceived as the key threat to America. It is nowhere near that now. China is top of the agenda, and it seems acceptable even to cooperate with Russia against China. Is that the case?

It is true that there has been an awakening in the United States that the threat posed by the rise of a communist-dominated China is quite significant.

This is a big reversal, because for so long there was a theory of engagement, particularly economic, that could help China become a stakeholder in the world order, if you will. Despite what you see about American divisions politically, we've seen one of the most rapid evolutions in our country's view and foreign policy of a consensus in both parties that China does represent a challenge to the United States, to the world order, and that the economics are not enough.

But Russia doesn’t pose a threat…

Well, no, what I would say is that there's an increasing recognition, first of all, that Vladimir Putin is a thug, a bandit, a bully. American people get this.

They see this pathetic way of leading with this bravado, thumping on his chest, invading and attacking his neighbors, playing to issues of the past. 

They see through this, and they understand that we're dealing essentially with a thug on the international stage who happens to have nuclear weapons.

But they're also seeing Vladimir Putin with Kim Jong Un and North Korea, with what's happening with the leadership in Tehran, with Xi and China. And they understand this isn't good. These are pretty bad people who are all working together to protect and back each other up.

They understood that Vladimir Putin drove his country into a cliff if you look at the economy, the living standards: this is not an economic superpower. 

And yet, even with the decline of Russia economically, it has inflicted untold damage to its neighbors, to its own people, to American interests around the world. And I think that is pretty well recognized.

Everyone in the world wants the war to be over, but not everyone sees victory as we do. And even in America, some people just want the war to be over, regardless of who gets which territory.

First of all, it is a normal human sentiment to want peace. And that's a good thing – that people have a preference for peace.

It's the folks who have turned to war like Vladimir Putin that provoked that sense of "What are you doing, why is this worth it?"

The ultimate decision here, however, is going to be Ukrainian. 

This is your country. It's your fight. It's your struggle.

Now I think it’s a bigger struggle. It's actually part of our struggle, and why we have such an obligation to support the Ukrainian people. But this is your country. This is your fight. 

This has to be a Ukrainian decision about what victory looks like, about how to think about peace in the future.

It is natural to want peace, but you also need justice.

I think the Ukrainian people have learned – and I think many American policymakers have learned – that an unjust peace, appeasement, can fuel and provide the seeds of conflict in the future.

Unfortunately, even in the US, there are still politicians who would like to simply end the war, even if it means forcing Ukraine to make territorial concessions. Ukraine could also be forced into these concessions if insufficient weapons are provided, leaving it no choice but to make this difficult decision.

You are right that not everybody understands this at all. 

Look at history. Because in the 2008 Bucharest Summit European leaders blocked a US initiative to get Ukraine started on a path towards NATO, we saw Vladimir Putin first invade Georgia, follow up with the annexation of Crimea, the attacks on Donbas.

Many people don't quite understand that we’re dealing with someone who, if not stopped, goes for more. If you tell him what he can get away with, he will go for it. 

There is a history of not understanding the power of appeasement, if you will, of a bully like Vladimir Putin. 

Some have not fully learned and appreciated that. But I think you see many leaders really understanding that you don't satisfy Vladimir Putin. That's not the objective here. You have to create something that stops him and provides for a durable peace.

That's going to be the challenge for the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian leadership. It's going to be the challenge for American leadership and NATO leaders. How do you actually have a durable peace that is just and stops Vladimir Putin?

We have to listen to those who know this best. And it's why you have seen a fundamental transformation of policy inside the European Union, inside NATO – because increasingly the voices of our Baltic allies, the voices of our Nordic allies, those in Central and Eastern Europe often, who have known and experienced communism and Russian expansionism the best, have begun to impact the future of these institutions, and we see a fundamentally different approach from the EU today because of it.

"China has helped Russia degrade the international norms"

Do you see a change in attitude in US political circles towards the idea of appeasing Putin and the war in general?

There are very few people who are naive enough to think that you just have an easy agreement with Vladimir Putin.

Some do. We see them even in Congress.

Sure, but that's normal in a free society, to have differences of opinion.

There is a long, long tradition in the United States of real skepticism towards American engagement in the world. I’d say by definition in a country like the United States that's so big, such a landmass with oceans, it's very natural for there to be skepticism of why the United States should be so actively engaged in the world. 

We're really focused on how to take care of our own people, our own country. That’s a product both of geography and of democracy.

So it does take an effort to underscore why it’s in our interest to support Ukraine.

And yet if you look at what’s happened, we’ve had profound support for Ukraine.

Billions and billions of dollars – almost 7% of our own defense budget has been spent as a budget for Ukraine. This is one of the largest outlays of American military and budget financial support for a country around the world. 

Is there a debate? Yes, but even what we've come through, this was two-thirds. We had 75-80% of the US Congress backing this.

That's really remarkable! It's not like we had a hair-margin vote, actually. 

And so I think there's always going to be dissenting opinions, a very vehement debate. But we are coming out squarely on the side of the Ukrainian people.

There is currently a debate in Ukraine about whether to focus on our traditional allies (the US and Europe) or to increase the focus on the Global South, to gain worldwide support.

I think Ukrainians have been quite sophisticated about this. It's not an either/or choice.

It's been hard for Ukraine because the Global South is new terrain. 

Ukrainians aren't used to being deployed on a global basis, having relationships on a global basis. There’s a legacy in Soviet and Russian diplomacy that gives them an advantage of engagement on that global stage.

First of all, you’ve got to have the strongest engagement support for those who are directly behind Ukraine in its survival and its fight today. And that has been its allies – the United States, Canada, and its European partners. That makes a lot of sense, because who is standing behind Ukraine with military support and financial and economic support that’s rock-solid.

Without that, Ukraine would be in a really tough spot in this fight. And Ukraine has done that extraordinarily well.

But it can do more and it has done more, which the Peace Summit has shown.

We have other Ukrainian journalists that understand they need to host intellectuals, opinion makers, journalists from Latin America, from Africa, to help them come to the front lines, to help them come to Ukraine to see this story, to come meet President Zelenskyy.

We also have some groups that are working on accountability and justice – a significant issue around the world. Rather than getting into a competition of suffering – whether Ukraine's conflict is more important than Sudan's conflict, Gaza, Israel, what's happening in Myanmar – what I've seen is a real ability of Ukrainians to come to the table with a sense of solidarity. 

Because of your horrific experience with atrocities, you in real time are creating incredible standards of how civic actors can play a real role in demanding accountability and justice, not after the fact, but during the war.

Do you know how powerful this is, to share that lesson with African countries, with Latin American countries, with Asian countries who have suffered?

And so it doesn't become a competition of suffering. It becomes Ukrainians showing, first of all helping people see this isn't some geopolitical competition between the United States and Russia.

Come touch, come feel, come see the Ukrainian experience. It's very powerful!

And the Ukrainians saying not just "We’re asking for your sympathy," but "We can be partners in helping you think about how to develop your capabilities within Africa, within Latin America."

That's a really, really powerful story, and one we have been proud to support at the Endowment.

Is it also worth trying to persuade China to withdraw its support for Putin?

I don't think we should be under any illusion. 

Xi Jinping is not going to be a force for good. Xi Jinping and the People's Republic of China are giving Putin oxygen, giving him space.

First of all, they’ve helped degrade the international norms: the sense of international justice and the rule of law, issues of accountability within the United Nations and other systems.

So what Beijing has done has tilted the playing field in a way that makes it more acceptable for Vladimir Putin's behavior. That's a problem.

I don't fault Ukraine for trying to have a sophisticated diplomatic game to keep China as far away from this fight as possible.

But I don't think we can be under any illusion that Beijing is going to be an even broker here. They’ve played their cards. They’ve tilted the deck towards Vladimir Putin.

And the final question: Do you believe that Ukraine will win–in the Ukrainian sense of the word?

I have great confidence in Ukraine.

We started standing by Ukrainians that believed in their future in 1988. Nobody thought this was possible.

We have seen over and over again Ukrainians who have demanded more from their own leaders, from the Granite protest to the Euromaidan, the Revolution of Dignity, to even today in the midst of war, Ukrainians are pushing for reforms to strengthen.

This place inspires me so much.

Never underestimate a Ukrainian. Never underestimate what Ukrainians can do.

We saw everyone underestimate Ukraine and the Battle of Kyiv.

I wear this every day – bullets from Russia's attack on Kyiv – to remind me never to underestimate Ukrainians.

It's not for us to decide your future. You're going to do it.

It's your country. It's your fight. It's your struggle. We were proud to be your partners and stand 100% behind you in determining what is just for Ukraine’s future.

So the answer is definitely yes.

Yes.

Sergiy Sydorenko, Editor

Video by Volodymyr Oliinyk

European Pravda