Veronika Velch, a Ukrainian advocate and expert in international lobbying, a political science candidate and the wife of renowned Ukrainian director Oleh Sentsov, brings a wealth of expertise to discuss a range of pressing topics. These include Ukraine’s efforts for assistance in Congress, the challenges of demobilisation, thought-provoking questions from Americans to which we may lack answers, Trump’s ambitions, the status of Russian assets, and the crucial importance of upholding the morally right side.
***
Congress’s refusal to provide aid to Ukraine is helping Republicans rally their own base
After Mike Johnson was elected as the speaker, I was curious to know how he was viewed by many of my American colleagues, especially those from the moderate wing of the Republican Party. Their general consensus was that he is seen as a puppet of Trump, lacking strong opinions on international matters and supporting policies that align with the Republican candidate – Donald Trump. Among the potential candidates, apart from Nikki Haley, all others had mixed or unclear stances regarding Ukraine.
It seems that Ukraine has now become a mere bargaining chip in American political games. Unfortunately, beyond that, they don’t really think much about us anymore. If the establishment and the same Congress are talking about Ukraine, then the average voter doesn’t seem to care about us either. The war in Gaza has significantly changed the political landscape, shifting the focus from Ukraine to a broader geopolitical context. Ukraine has become an issue that is too complicated to be delved into. The emotions surrounding Ukraine have become more heavy than optimistic. All these things are quite complicated because Congress is directly influenced by the mood of the American voter. If the electorate isn’t thinking about Ukraine, then they aren’t thinking about Ukraine either.
This issue extends to districts where there are Ukrainian voters, such as Michigan and Ohio. Even former Ukrainian citizens or people of Ukrainian descent often feel disoriented. Russian propaganda is also affecting this group by spreading messages such as “This all needs to be stopped” and “How long can this continue?” At times, they also mention that “There are more Ukrainians in America now”. However, the proportion of Ukrainians in America who are already naturalised American citizens and have the right to vote has not changed.
So, this is the situation with Congress. And if it does change, it likely won’t be in our favour. Forecasts are already indicating a shift from the Republican-Democratic balance to fully Republican.
Mitch McConnell has already announced that he is leaving his position at the end of the year. Once a supporter of Trump and the leader of the majority in the party, he was, however, pro-Ukrainian regardless of one’s feelings toward him. A seasoned politician with an anti-Soviet stance, Ukraine held value in his system of beliefs. McConnell has been instrumental in shaping opinions on the issue of assistance to Ukraine. Another significant figure is Mitt Romney, a strong supporter of Ukraine with a notably anti-Russian agenda, who has also declared that he will not seek reelection. With fewer Republicans in high authority who were pro-Ukrainian, this poses a significant challenge for us.
I came across the letter from the Council of Evangelical Protestant Churches of Ukraine to Johnson, who is an evangelist himself. This is a very appropriate and crucial step. However, it has an interesting resonance in America as evangelists are a group known for upholding traditional values. For them, it’s not so much about Ukraine but more about Putin as a defender of traditional values. Even when our delegation—comprising Adventists and evangelists—speaks in America about the situation in the occupied territories, about the persecution of their believers, they are listened to and sympathised with. Yet, there’s always a caveat. This is again tied to the perception of Russia as a state where Putin can safeguard traditional structures.
In the end, it’s not just about the speaker at the moment. It’s about a much broader agenda. As I closely observe, paying attention to even the smallest details, I notice that this stance—Congress refusing to aid Ukraine—actually helps Republicans rally their own base and maintain relevance. For them, it’s seen as a positive, not a negative. So, this situation might persist for a while. The challenge is that this period is incredibly crucial for us.
“You don’t have a robot army”
A cool piece just came out in The New Yorker about the lack of rotation and the moral state of Ukrainian soldiers on the front line. They’ve been at ground zero for over two years now. And that’s our reality; it is what it is. But when such a piece comes out, some readers say, “Yes, this is terrible. People in such a position need help.” But there are others. And they say, “You see, in Ukraine, they don’t value people. They don’t rotate them.”
So, this piece comes out — and then they go ahead and pass the Law on Mobilization. They completely toss out the norms for demobilisation. Now, the question arises: Is Ukraine truly a democratic country in this scenario? Where, then, does the value of an individual lie within this system? In a paradigm where human rights are supposed to be the cornerstone (let me stress, we’re aspiring for EU membership), it’s simply not feasible to discuss mobilisation only without a clear mechanism for military discharge and well-defined terms.
The Americans are quite direct about it: “Alright, if you’re talking about needing resources from us, we can whip up a tank in two years. But you don’t have a robot army. It takes years to train a soldier. Where will you source your personnel? Why aren’t you placing more value on your own troops?” And we find ourselves without a satisfactory response.
Legitimate questions are being thrown our way. Sadly, we can’t always provide the answers — yet we must be prepared to. Why? Well, unfortunately, we’re stuck. A good chunk of the folks on the front lines, like my husband, would probably choose to stay put, even if they were suddenly offered a demobilisation. Perhaps they’d transition to a different role, become teachers or trainers for the fresh recruits taking their place. It’s because they see their purpose in this.
I’m getting more and more worried about a message that seems to be gaining traction among us. It is this idea that America is solely to blame for the tough spot Ukraine finds itself in right now. There’s no doubt that there’s some responsibility for the failed vote on allocating funds. But we really shouldn’t be quick to point fingers. The fact is, we’re in this situation because Putin launched a massive war, because he’s got backing from China and because the Islamic Republic of Iran is involved. It’s also because the sanctions aren’t quite hitting the mark because there are Russian agents of influence… We need to come up with solutions. But constantly laying blame on our partners? Not a productive approach, in my opinion.
A lot of effort is being put into this direction, but the challenges are immense. The closer we get to election day, the tougher it becomes. It’s unlikely anyone expects major breakthroughs from us on the front lines right now. Everyone’s keeping a close eye on Russia’s next moves. Biden has really placed his geopolitical chips on Ukraine, and while it showed promise initially, we’re facing a tough situation now.
Our hopes are now resting on the new faces in the National Security Council. Mike Carpenter is back there; he previously served as America’s representative in Vienna for the OSCE, and now he’s in the mix. He’s always been proactive on sanctions, incredibly knowledgeable, and a cautious, thoughtful politician.
Trump may have the unrealistic ambition to end the war ‘within 24 hours’
There’s a good chance Trump might get elected, but I wouldn’t want to make any firm predictions. When we last talked, I mentioned it might not be the worst scenario. Our ambassador to the US often brings up the point that we received a lot of heavy weaponry during Trump’s terms. However, considering his current demeanour… And the way Johnson, who’s sort of a mirror of Trump, is acting… I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s got this far-fetched idea of ending the war ‘within 24 hours.’ What that means for us, I honestly can’t fathom.
From a pragmatic, realistic perspective, Europe and Britain will become crucial allies for us. But it’s uncertain how much they can shoulder alone. Europe also has to handle the burden of temporarily displaced Ukrainians. In America, it’s simpler; under capitalism, there’s no safety net, so the strain on the system isn’t there. But in Europe, it’s a different story.
I believe the issue of blocking and involving Russian assets will once again come to the forefront. However, it’s not as straightforward as it might seem. These funds are spread across various banks in different countries, and there’s the matter of national regulations. In the U.S., for instance, approval is required from Treasury Secretary Yellen, who has expressed concerns about the potential destabilization of the entire financial system. There’s a fear that many countries might withdraw their funds from banks in what we consider democratic nations.
On the flip side, the highly respected Harvard scientist Larry Tribe, a giant in American academia, recently conducted a study suggesting that all it would take is Biden’s signature to transfer Russian assets directly to America for the benefit of Ukraine. In America, the rule of precedent applies, and such a move has historical precedent. However, everything is now entangled in the web of political clashes.
For us, the fight is not a matter of choice – it is a matter of life
I truly believe that Ukraine will emerge victorious. However, much hinges on significant geopolitical shifts, particularly the situation in Russia. Presently, Russia wields considerable strength, but there’s a saying about Russia that ‘nothing happens until everything happens.’ Perhaps it won’t happen right now. But then the question for us becomes — how long are we willing to endure this? What if it’s a decade of conflict? It might not involve heavy shelling but rather resemble a scenario akin to Syria.
I’m generally not fond of making comparisons, but I’ve had extensive interactions and collaborations with Syrians, so I’ll draw from that. Russia has a method, a kind of terrorizing the civilian population in specific regions. In Syria, they chose a city and subjected it to relentless shelling for an extended period. Then they moved on to another, repeating the cycle… Naturally, under such conditions, neither progress nor attracting investments seems feasible.
I’m not a military strategist, but I often hear from my American colleagues that the primary focus should now be on holding the defensive line. Additionally, there’s a discussion on how we can reshape the concept to prioritise people and put human lives at the centre. After all, what’s the use in fighting for territories where we won’t have Ukrainian families, where we won’t be able to safeguard the most precious thing we possess — women who dream of giving birth there, children who hope to grow up there, men who aspire to build a future there?
I strongly believe that Putin achieves his objectives quite effectively when he drives us away from our land when people decide not to return. It pains me deeply to hear them say, ‘It’s too frightening to come back.’ When they reiterate, ‘It’s too risky to bring a son home, who knows what could happen.’ I have sons, too. The uncertainty is truly daunting… Putin’s accomplishments are methodical and meticulously planned, no matter how much we may wish to underestimate them.
Now he’s talking about successful demilitarisation, about how if Western missiles disappear, then everything will come to an end. But they’ll keep pushing this ‘denazification’ agenda. And what does this denazification even mean? To me, it is the ‘isolation’ of every Ukrainian city the Russian occupier sets foot in. The Geneva Conventions are practically non-existent now. We’ve witnessed all of this firsthand. Yet, the international community still tries to look away, hoping that things will somehow change. But they won’t. Because even international institutions need a serious overhaul. We’re in uncharted territory now, where an authoritarian nuclear power has invaded a democratic nation that willingly gave up its nuclear capabilities. Naturally, this has shattered the foundations of our security system and set us on an irreversible path.
It seems that even without American support, our people are prepared to fight because, for us, it’s not a choice but a matter of survival. That’s why we’re slowly adopting an Eastern mindset, where decades or even centuries are seen as just a blip in history. The moment of Ukraine’s triumph might stretch out across time far more than we can currently grasp. The greatest challenge lies in constructing a life with this in mind… Yet, it’s an honest approach toward ourselves, our children, and our nation.
We’ll have to do many things simultaneously
I’m confident that Ukraine will eventually reclaim its 1991 borders, but the timing of that remains uncertain. Nothing is permanent—neither wars nor individuals. That’s why it’s crucial right now for the main efforts to be directed towards upholding Ukrainian statehood and democratic institutions in the territories we control. That’s the priority.
I recall how, at the onset of the full-scale conflict, there was talk of needing to deal with Putin first and then figure out how to establish democracy. Perhaps we won’t have the luxury of such a sequential approach—we’ll likely need to juggle many tasks simultaneously, just as we’re doing already—rebuilding here, completing there, transforming elsewhere. It’s about saying “no” to certain practices and embracing new approaches that might not be familiar to us.
Our Western partners often inquire about how things are faring for us. It’s a difficult question to answer, given the immense challenges faced by our military, the people of Kharkiv, and all the cities near the front lines. Yet, life in Kyiv, Lviv, or Uzhhorod continues on its varied paths. It’s such a diverse picture. Simultaneously, I always ask them what steps we can take to ensure that assistance to Ukraine is not just received but also sustained. How can we prevent it from being a one-time affair? It’s clear that the winter ahead will be harsh. We need to start planning now for how we’ll weather it — even though it might seem odd to think about in April. This planning needs to happen both at the state level and on an individual basis. Where will we place generators in schools? How will we secure gasoline? What happens when Russia begins targeting oil refineries in a back-and-forth exchange? These are the pressing questions we must address, along with all the associated concerns.
We must uphold the most civilised and amicable relations with our European neighbours. It’s thanks to our Herculean efforts, coupled with their unwavering support that we haven’t become akin to Eritrea. My overarching concern is the slow transformation of Ukraine into Europe’s Eritrea. This refers to any possible practices that sustain a state of continuous military control. In the past, there have been restrictions on leaving the country. These restrictions were imposed first on men, then on women, and now they are being extended to students who are completing their equivalent of A-levels on a military base in the fields. After completing their studies, these students will be required to undergo mandatory lifelong military service. This continuation of military rule just goes on and on…
That’s why the framework still needs to be built. We should express our gratitude to our Western democratic partners because they help us stay aligned with our core values. They can see the direction in which we are headed, and we simply cannot afford isolation.
Compared to Russians, Ukrainian advocacy experts are at a ratio of 1:20
In Ukraine, I’ll be taking on a new project, largely focused on crisis communications. It’s much needed from where I stand.
Alongside this, I’ll continue my work in America, albeit remotely and in a different capacity. The decision to return was tough, but the pull of home was strong. My younger son is here with me, while the older one wraps up the academic year in the U.S. before joining us later.
The past couple of years in America have been incredibly significant. It’s crucial to always keep in mind the stark difference in the ratio of professionals working in advocacy and Ukrainian communications compared to their Russian counterparts, which stands at least at 1:20, if not less. The Russian lobby wields significant size and influence, bolstered by substantial funding. In our scenario, success hinges on qualifications, connections, sympathies, and the willingness of the other side to lend a hand. This is precisely why I believe my contributions have been particularly impactful.
Now, as America heads into a pre-election phase, the spotlight turns toward their internal issues, which are taking centre stage in the narrative.
We’re discussing the rotation of military personnel, but it strikes me that there could also be a kind of rotation among individuals from the civilian, business, media, and communications sectors who come back and take on new initiatives, bringing fresh ideas and perspectives. It is true that everyone is feeling the strain. Despite managing children, work, and all the rest—I didn’t experience the same level of psychological exhaustion as those under fire in Ukraine.
As for my husband—naturally, he’s a major reason for my return home. Even though we have very little time together. Unfortunately, he’s often passing through Kyiv en route to comrades’ funerals or receiving treatment for yet another concussion. I’m thankful that Oleg has his closest circle, the ones who have been through so much with him and emerged strong. They truly stand by each other. I recognise that they are like his second extended family.