U.S. Policy Towards Ukraine (19912013): Between Restraint and Overall Support

DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-4-15-25
S. Markedonov (smarkpost@gmail.com), 
GIMO University, 76, Vernadskogo Prosp., Moscow, 119454, Russian Federation;
O. Rebro (olgarebro@yandex.ru), 
GIMO University, 76, Vernadskogo Prosp., Moscow, 119454, Russian Federation;  
A. Sushentsov (asushentsov@inno.mgimo.ru), 
MGIMO University, 76, Vernadskogo Prosp., Moscow, 119454, Russian Federation;
A. Chechevishnikov (alc0202@gmail.com), 
MGIMO University, 76, Vernadskogo Prosp., Moscow, 119454, Russian Federation

Acknowledgements. The research has been supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Nonprofit Expertise Institute for Social Research as part of the scientific project No. 19-011-31330 “AmericanUkrainian Relations in the Post-Soviet Era: Strategic Interests, Motives, Values”.

Abstract. Nowadays, the Ukrainian crisis is the most serious threat to the European security and stability since the late 1980s symbolizing the end of the Cold War era. It is accompanied by the protracted conflict in Donbass as well as ongoing disputes on the Crimean Peninsula status between Russia, on the one hand, and Ukraine with its Western allies, on the other. Ukrainian issues are widely represented in the scholarly literature today. However, the most of papers examine Ukraine exclusively as a polygon of the Russian-Western confrontation, focusing mainly on the “Euro-Maidan” and consequent events in Crimea and Donbass. The authors of this article consider the U.S.-Ukrainian bilateral relations as having their own motives and logics, not restricting this issue by the “Russian factor”. Their analysis includes evolution of the Ukrainian foreign policy priorities, the U.S. approaches to the post-Soviet space in general and newly independent Ukraine in particular. It is offered to look at the U.S.-Ukrainian relationship since the USSR demise till 2013. In the authors’ opinion, the “Euro-Maidan” and all developments after it radically transformed the Ukrainian foreign policy in the pro-Western direction. At the same time, Washington balancing between restraint and active cooperation with the post-Soviet Ukraine intensified its full-scaled support of Kiev (Kyiv) as an important strategic ally in the Black Sea region. The article examines some fluctuations in the relationship of the two countries. It analyzes the “bursts” of the U.S. support for Ukraine (1991, 2004–2005 and 2013) and declines of interest to it as well (late 1990s; the period between 2007 and 2013). The authors assume that Washington was not extremely stirring in Ukrainian issues prior 2013. However, the full-scaled domestic crisis in this country pushed the U.S. to a more active engagement. This growing American influence challenged the existing status quo, because it was perceived by Moscow as an ongoing Western offensive to diminish the Russian influence in Eurasia. 

Keywords: U.S.-Ukrainian relationship, Ukrainian crisis, post-Soviet space, “Orange Revolution”, “Euro-Maidan”, European security, Transatlantic partnership, U.S. strategic culture, democratization, NGOcracy


  1. Gushchin A.V., Markedonov S.M., Tsibulina A.N. Ukrainskii vyzov dlya Rossii [A Ukrainian Challenge for Russia]. Moscow, Spetskniga, 2015. 48 p.
  2. Åslund A., McFaul M., eds. Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine’s Democratic Breakthrough. Washington, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2006. 216 p.
  3. D’Anieri P. Understanding Ukrainian Politics: Power, Politics, and Institutional Design. Armonk, New York, M. E. Sharpe, 2006. 312 p.
  4. Fischer S., ed. Ukraine. Quo vadis? Paris, EU Institute for Security Studies, Chaillot Paper, no. 108. 148 p.
  5. Kuzio T. “Russianization” of Ukrainian National Security Policy under Viktor Yanukovych’. Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 2012, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 558-581. DOI:10.1080/13518046.2012.730372
  6. Kurylev K.P. Ukrainskii krizis i mezhdunarodnaya bezopasnost’ [Ukraine Conflict and International Security]. Moscow, Lenand, 2018. 272 p.
  7. Mikhailov S.A. Politika SShA v otnoshenii Ukrainy: kontseptsii i tekushchaya politika [United States Policy Towards Ukraine: Concepts and Current Policy]. National Strategy Issues, 2016, no. 5(38), pp. 68-84.
  8. Ó by Beacháin D., Polese A., eds. The Colour Revolutions in the Former Soviet Republics: Successes and Failures. Edited Routledge Contemporary Russia and Eastern Europe Series, 23. New York, Routledge, 2010. 248 p.
  9. Allison R. Russian Deniable Intervention in Ukraine: How and Why Russia Broke the Rules. International Affairs, 2014, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 1255-1297. DOI:10.1111/1468-2346.12170
  10. Yost D.S. The Budapest Memorandum and Russia’s Intervention in Ukraine. International Affairs, 2015, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 505-538. DOI:10.1111/1468-2346.12279
  11. McFaul M. Russia as It is. A Grand Strategy for Confronting Putin. Foreign Affairs, July/August 2018. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2018-06-14/russia-it (accessed 26.06.2019).
  12. Pifer S. The Eagle and the Trident: U.S.-Ukraine Relations in Turbulent Times. Washington, D.C., Brookings Institute Press, 2017. 356 p.
  13. Wilson A. Ukraine Crisis: What It Means for the West. New Haven, Yale University Press, 2014. 207 p.
  14. Kuzio T. Putin’s War Against Ukraine: Revolution, Nationalism, and Crime. North Charleston (SC), Create Space Independent Publishing Platform, 2017. 490 p.
  15. Menon R., Rumer E. Conflict in Ukraine: the Unwinding of the Post-Cold War Order. Boston, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2015. 248 p.
  16. Sakwa R. Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. London, I. B. Tauris, 2016. 368 p.
  17. Charap S., Colton T.J. Everyone Loses: the Ukraine Crisis and the Ruinous Contest for Post-Soviet Eurasia. New York, Routledge, 2017. 212 p.
  18. Loshkarev I.A., Sushentsov A.A. Radicalization of Russians in Ukraine: from ‘Accidental’ Diaspora to Rebel Movement. Journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 2016, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 71-90. DOI:10.1080/14683857.2016.1149349
  19. Averre D., Wolczuk K. Introduction: The Ukrainian Crisis and Post-Post-Cold War Europe. Europe-Asia Studies, 2016, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 551-555. DOI:10.1080/09668136.2016.1176690
  20. Troitskii M.A. Kongress i politika SShA v otnoshenii Ukrainy [The Role of Congress in Shaping U. S. Policy towards Ukraine]. USA–Canada: Economics–Politics–Culture, 2014, no. 3, pp. 75-84.
  21. Kurylev K.P. Ukraina vo vneshnepoliticheskoi strategii SShA [Ukraine in the Foreign Policy Vector of the USA]. Post-Soviet Studies, 2018, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 251-258.
  22. Toal G. Near Abroad: Putin, the West and the Contest over Ukraine and the Caucasus. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017. 387 p.
  23. Kudelya S. Donbasskii razlom [The Donbass Rift]. Counterpoint, 2015, no. 1, pp. 1-13.
  24. Kudelya S. Vnutrennie istochniki vooruzhennogo konflikta na Donbasse [Internal Causes of Donbass Military Conflict]. Russia in Global Affairs, January 3, 2015. Available at: https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/vnutrennie-istochniki-vooruzhennogo-konflikta-na-donbasse/ (accessed 26.06.2019).
  25. Baker J. America and the Collapse of the Soviet Empire: What Has to Be Done, December 12, 1991, Princeton, New Jersey, U. S. Department of State Dispatch, vol. 2, no. 50, pp. 887-893.
  26. Kotkin S. Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970–2000. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008. 280 p.
  27. Fink S. From “Chicken Kiev” to Ukrainian Recognition: Domestic Politics in U. S. Foreign Policy toward Ukraine. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, June 1997, vol. 21, no. 1/2, pp. 11-61.
  28. Burns W.F. Dismantling the Cold War’s Arsenal. Arms Control Today, vol. 23, no. 7, September 1993, pp. 3-7.
  29. Miller S. The case against a Ukrainian nuclear deterrent. Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993, pp. 67-80.
  30. Posner E. Should Ukraine have kept its nuclear weapons? Epic Posher, March 25, 2014. Available at: http://ericposner.com/should-ukraine-have-kept-its-nuclear-weapons/ (accessed 26.06.2019).
  31. Grossman E. Should Ukraine have gotten rid of its cold war nukes? Global Security Newswire, March 3, 2014. Available at: http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/should-ukraine-have-gotten-rid-its-nukes (accessed 26.06.2019).
  32. Rublee M.R. Fantasy counterfactual: a nuclear-armed Ukraine. Survival, April–May 2015, pp. 145-156. DOI:10.1080/00396338.2015.1026091
  33. Lutsevych O. How to finish a revolution: civil society and democracy in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Chatham House. Briefing Paper, January 2013. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/188407 (accessed 26.06.2019).
  34. Pillar P. Why America Misunderstands The World: National Experience and the Roots of Misperception. New York, Columbia University Press, 2016. XII, 212 p.
  35. Woehrel S. Ukraine’s Orange Revolution and U.S. Policy. Congressional Research Service. Report for Congress, April 1, 2005. Available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32845.pdf (accessed 26.06.2019).
  36. Kramer D. Ukraine after the Orange Revolution. Remarks to the Washington Group, John Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. Washington, DC. October 14, 2005. Available at: https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/56530.htm (accessed 26.06.2019).
  37. Pifer S. Ukraine and NATO Following Bucharest. Brookings, May 6, 2008. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/ukraine-and-nato-following-bucharest/ (accessed 26.06.2019).
  38. Gallis P. The NATO Summit at Bucharest, 2008. CRS Report for Congress. May 5, 2008. Available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22847.pdf (accessed 26.06.2019).
  39. Sherr J. Destination Unknown: Ukraine and NATO. The World Today, vol. 64, no. 8/9 (August–September, 2008). Available at: https://www.questia.com/magazine/1P3-1523648041/destination-unknown (accessed 26.06.2019).

Registered in System SCIENCE INDEX

For citation:
Markedonov S., Rebro O., Sushentsov A., Chechevishnikov A. U.S. Policy Towards Ukraine (19912013): Between Restraint and Overall Support . World Eonomy and International Relations, 2020, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 15-25. https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-4-15-25

Comments (0)

No comments

Add comment






Dear authors! Please note that in the VAK List of peer-reviewed scientific journals, in which the main scientific results of dissertations for the degree of candidate and doctor of sciences should be published for the “MEMO Journal” the following specialties are recorded:
economic sciences:
5.2.5. World Economy.
5.2.1. Economic Theory
5.2.3. Regional and Branch Economics
political sciences:
5.5.4. International Relations
5.5.1. History and Theory of Politics
5.5.2. Political Institutions, Processes, Technologies


Current Issue
2024, vol. 68, No. 7
Topical Themes of the Issue:
  • The Supporting Structure of Global Security
  • Institutional Features of the Fourth Energy Transition
  • The Evolution of Modern German Christian Democracy
  • The Monarchies of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia
Submit an Article
The Editorial Board invites authors to write analytical articles on the following topics:
  • changes in the processes of globalization in modern conditions
  • formation of the new world order
  • shifts in civilization at the stage of transition to a digital society

The editors are also interested in publishing synthesis articles / scientific reviews revealing the main trends in the development of certain regions of the world - Latin America, Africa, South Asia, etc.