What Impeachment Means for Putin

Cover Image Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:-UNGA_(48796017461).jpg

President Donald Trump’s recent phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has precipitated a political crisis in the United States. As journalists, politicians, and average Americans have gradually uncovered and contemplated the contents of the call, the situation in the largest democracy in the Western hemisphere has deteriorated.

The actions of all individuals and parties involved will have both near and far reaching implications for the future of American politics and democracy in general. However, as it stands currently, the one actor who will unequivocally benefit from the ordeal has remained on the sidelines: Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In late September, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that the United States House of Representatives would proceed with an “official” impeachment process. Pelosi made this statement after receiving reports that Trump withheld aid from Ukraine in order to pressure Zelensky to investigate both Joe and Hunter Biden. Many Americans and Democratic officials saw Trump’s actions as a grave abuse of power, as the president seemingly exploited his authority to influence voters’ perceptions of the current democratic primary frontrunner – and therefore, his potential challenger in the 2020 election.

This development comes off of the heels of a highly anticipated report by special counsel for the Department of Justice Robert Mueller that house democrats hoped would provide evidence for impeachment. Mueller’s testimony was highly controversial and ultimately inconclusive, but it undoubtably established the foundations necessary for Pelosi to direct the six house committees already investigating Trump to continue their work with special attention to impeachable offenses.

The increased partisanship in the United States government has translated to an ever-developing perception of division in arguably the world’s proudest and most vocal democracy. The political infighting has undoubtably provided and will continue to provide Putin, at the very least, with the opportunity to rhetorically attack and exploit the chaotic appearance of the democratic process.

Aside from the long-term ideological implications of the impeachment proceedings, however, the contents released from Trump’s phone call with Zelensky implies that Russia may have more to gain politically and militaristically as well, particularly with respect to its position vis-à-vis Ukraine. 

From another rudimentary perspective, for instance, Trump’s call with Zelensky revealed that Trump was successfully able to withhold aid from Ukraine which was meant to resist Russian interference. In particular, Zelensky voiced his desire to obtain javelin antitank missiles to protect Ukraine against an armored Russian assault. Russia, the United States and the world have now had the opportunity to hear it from the President of Ukraine himself that the eastern European country feels that it is inherently vulnerable to a Russian attack.

Additionally, increasing the perception of Ukraine’s vulnerability and working to alienate Ukraine’s allies is Zelensky’s now public statement that the European Union is not doing enough to assist Ukraine. Coupled with Trump’s subsequent request for a “favor,” this statement highlights Ukraine’s apparent inability to control its own affairs without help from or even an overt reliance on the west. Zelensky, previously most famous for starring in a TV series about a history teacher accidentally elected to the presidency, has undoubtably demonstrated an unfamiliarly with both U.S. and international affairs. This ordeal has shown that Zelensky still has much to learn about the institutions that constitute the current world order. The question remains, nevertheless, whether there is enough time before Ukraine’s anti-establishment government is overwhelmed by Russia’s political weight and relentless encroachment.

More to that point, the phone conversation has called into question the state of corruption in Ukraine. Although Zelensky was elected on a platform of anti-corruption, the accusation that Ukrainian officials were, on multiple occasions, able to do favors for foreign leaders – whether it was Biden, Trump or the entire democratic party – diminishes Ukraine’s status as a national security interest. The implication is ultimately that Ukraine is actively fueling corruption in its government, providing Russia with more justification to intervene in the future – an especially salient argument considering Russia’s current occupation of Crimea and its operations in Eastern Ukraine.

“This is a damaging mess for Ukraine,” Ukraine’s former foreign minister Pavlo Klimkin stated. “It has always been a key point of Ukranian foreign policy to show we have U.S. support. We can’t afford to lose that.”

While the United States has now turned further inward to debate the possibility and potential consequences of impeachment, Russia has developed a stronger position with respect to Ukraine than it has in years. For Russia to capitalize on its militaristic, political and ideological advantage, however, it must first overcome its own internal divisions, which have matured in recent weeks with protests in Moscow.

The protests, which were in response to the banning of several opposition candidates in the elections for the Moscow City Council, have proved to be more formidable than Moscow would care to admit. Without a swift response, Russia could neglect the opportunity to capitalize on the internal divisions in the west that it has sought to incite over the past several years and claim the reward that it has sought for even longer – Ukraine.