Europa partnership of newspapers questions Joe Biden

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/05/europa-partnership-joe-biden-ukraine-russia-isis

Version 0 of 1.

Europa partners: The war in eastern Ukraine is reigniting with great ferocity. President Obama has said the US is ready to “ratchet up the pressure” on Russia. What does that mean concretely? Should embargoes be tightened further? Can the main burden in negotiating remain with Germany? Would the US support an application by Ukraine for Nato membership?

Joe Biden: I agree that we are now seeing an escalation of the military conflict in Ukraine. Let me be perfectly clear about the cause of this escalation: from the start, this conflict has been directly caused by Russian aggression. Many of the separatists who are fighting in eastern Ukraine were recruited in Russia, they received and continue to receive heavy military equipment – including tanks and rocket launchers – from Russia, they have been trained in Russia, and they get direct financial assistance from the Russian government. In addition, Russian combat forces with Russian weapons and Russian tanks have crossed the border into Ukraine and have directly aided the separatists who are today fighting Ukrainian forces and shelling civilians in cities like Mariupol and Debaltseve.

The bottom line is that Russia is violating Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – the most fundamental tenets of the post-World War II international order. Russia has sought to change Ukraine’s borders by force and Russia-backed separatists have perpetrated horrific offences against the civilian population. As a result, the international community has taken measures to impose economic costs on Russia for its failure to uphold basic international norms and rules – and not only that, but also Russia’s continued failure to abide by agreements it signed in Minsk this past September.

We have therefore worked closely with our allies and partners around the world to condemn Russia’s aggression and, with our European and G7 partners, have imposed serious costs on Russia’s economy that have been impactful and will continue to have serious consequences on Russia if it does not change course. As President Obama and I have both said, Russia still has the option of fulfilling its commitments under the Minsk agreements, which would lead to the rolling back of some of the sanctions we have imposed. If it does not do so, however, we are prepared to intensify the costs for Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine. What we are seeing now with the shelling of apartment buildings in Mariupol is simply unacceptable, and tragic.

We have been quite clear from the beginning that there is no military solution to this crisis despite the fact that this is obviously what Russia is trying to impose. We have no interest in military escalation and are pushing hard for the reverse. But Ukraine has every right to defend itself and we are in fact providing security assistance to help Ukraine in this effort. We are also taking other actions, including the economic sanctions I just mentioned.

As far as negotiations are concerned, the United States has been very heavily engaged diplomatically. I have personally spoken on the phone with President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk more than 30 times since this conflict began, and have been regularly conferring with leaders around the world on how to achieve a diplomatic resolution. Germany has obviously played a critical role in this effort as well. Chancellor Merkel has been deeply engaged, and we greatly appreciate her contributions to the diplomatic effort. Nothing less than European security is at stake. We will continue to coordinate our efforts with Germany and our other G7 and European partners on this crisis.

Finally, with regards to your question about Ukraine’s Nato membership, Ukraine has not formally applied for Nato membership, nor do I think anyone believes membership is likely to happen anytime soon. That said, it is Ukraine’s sovereign right to determine its own foreign and security policy. Let’s also remember that this conflict has nothing to do with the question of Nato membership. Russia invaded Crimea when Ukraine chose closer association with the European Union, and when its people chose democracy over corruption and authoritarian rule. Fundamentally, this conflict is about the principle of a nation’s right to determine its own future. Russia has simply been unwilling to allow Ukraine to make its own decisions about its future, and we cannot let that stand.

Europa partners: In 2009 the US called for a “reset” in its relations to Russia. What went wrong? Can you envision normal relations with Russia under President Putin? What would a reset of relations with Russia look like?

Biden: Exactly six years ago, I spoke at the Munich Security Conference – where I will be speaking again [this weekend] – and I used the phrase “reset” to describe our relationship with Russia. I was very clear in that speech, and have been ever since, about what our goals were relative to Russia. As I said then, the United States has a fundamental interest in cooperating with Russia in areas where we share mutual interests, whether that be on counterterrorism, non-proliferation, arms control, or other global issues. However, as I said in 2009, and – please forgive me – but I am going to quote myself: “We will not recognise any nation having a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances.” When I said that, and when I said we would seek to cooperate with Russia but would not sacrifice our principles or the interests of our allies, we meant it then and we mean it now.

During the period between 2009-2012, we achieved a lot in cooperation with Russia. We negotiated and ratified the New Start treaty, we supplied our troops in Afghanistan through the Northern Distribution Network, and together we developed the most far-reaching set of international sanctions on North Korea and Iran to date through UN security council resolutions 1874 and 1929. We also invested in the type of Russia that we hoped – and still hope – to see emerge one day by supporting Russia’s effort to join the World Trade Organisation. We helped Russia join the WTO so it would become integrated into the world economy, more prosperous, and more vested in the international order. That’s the same reason why we established the Nato-Russia Council and supported Russia’s membership in countless other international organisations.

Unfortunately, President Putin chose another path. He chose a path of increased domestic repression and violation of international norms. For our part, we simply cannot abide by this flagrant disregard for the most basic tenets of the international system. We still cooperate with Russia where we can, but we have to be clear about the challenge we now face: we are dealing with a Russian state that has cast aside the most basic international norms. If Russia changes course and starts to abide by these norms and respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbours, then obviously our relationship will change too.

Europa partners: Looking back on Syria, does the United States regret the decision not to attack the Assad regime after Syria’s use of chemical weapons? What are the goals in the war against Islamic State (Isis)? Since Assad is a de-facto ally in the fight against Isis, is his removal still a precondition for any deal-making in Syria? Under what conditions could the west negotiate with him?

Biden: Through diplomacy, the US approach accomplished what military strikes could not: the removal of all of Syria’s declared stocks of chemical weapons. The prospect that such terrible weapons might remain in the hands of a regime brutal enough to use them or fall into the hands of terrorists affiliated with al-Qaida or Isis represents a threat to the security of Syria, the region, and the world – one dramatically lessened by the course of action we took.

Unfortunately, an agreement on chemical weapons does not solve all of Syria’s problems. An immense human tragedy is unfolding in that country. America and our partners are working to create the conditions for a political settlement to resolve and end the conflict, including by supporting the Syrian opposition, providing more than $3bn [£2bn] in humanitarian support to date, and strengthening Syria’s neighbours.

We are also working with a variety of forces, including Iraqi leaders across the ethno-sectarian spectrum and more than 60 partners, to degrade and eventually defeat Isis. Many countries have made significant contributions. All of us can do more. These countries – not Assad – comprise our coalition against Isis. We’re not coordinating with Assad; he’s under sanctions, and we do not see how, having lost all his legitimacy due to his actions, he can again preside over the stable, peaceful, unified Syria we seek. We will work instead with vetted elements of Syria’s moderate opposition so that they will be able to stabilise liberated areas and defend themselves against attacks by Isis or the regime.

With respect to jihadism, both homegrown extremism and foreign fighters pose a threat, as we have seen – not an existential threat to our way of life, but a danger nonetheless that must be confronted. We take extremely seriously the responsibility to work together to share intelligence, stop the flow of money to terrorists, counter violent extremism in our own communities including through effective economic and societal integration, and monitor and break up the networks that facilitate the flow of foreign fighters to and from the battlefield. The nations of Europe are among our closest partners in this effort.

• This was a written interview for the Europa partnership of newspapers.