Sir William Browder KCMG (known by most as simply Bill Browder) is a US-born British businessman turned human rights activist – and one of the main drivers behind the Magnitsky justice campaign against Russia – spoke to Kyiv Post about the likely outcome of “peace talks” between Washington, Kyiv, and Moscow:
“It is premature to assume that Ukraine will be thrown under the bus by everybody. Perhaps by the US, but not by everybody.”
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
On the sidelines of the 61st Munich Security Conference, billed by many as “historic” as it seemed to signal a clear departure from almost 80 years of trans-Atlantic cooperation, Kyiv Post sought Browder’s views on the way ahead given his experience of standing up to Putin’s Russia.
He gave his take on the upcoming meeting between Moscow and Washington in Saudi Arabia, alternative ideas around security guarantees, and realistic economic levers that the US could use in its negotiations with Russia. While he agrees there is not much reason to be optimistic about US involvement, he feels Europe has the means and [self] interest to successfully “fill the void.”
It is premature to assume that Ukraine will be thrown under the bus by everybody. Perhaps by the Americans, but not by everybody.
KP: There was a lot of discussion at the MSC about viable security guarantees for Ukraine, should President Trump’s peace negotiations go ahead.
What did you think about Senator Lindsey Graham’s idea to automatically grant NATO membership to Ukraine, if Russia breaks the terms of the deal?
Russia May Tap $300B in Frozen Assets to Rebuild Ukraine – With a Catch
BB: It’s probably an off-the-cuff idea. Lindsey Graham’s position on Ukraine is robust. His views have been consistent with mine. He is a supporter of Ukraine and an opponent of Putin.
The idea that if Russia were to break the ceasefire, Ukraine would automatically become a member of NATO is effectively making Ukraine a member of NATO right now.
What is NATO? It’s a joint defense treaty. And so, if Russia breaks the ceasefire, NATO will defend Ukraine. It’s effectively the same thing as bringing Ukraine into NATO right now.
Trump’s position, voiced by Pete Hegseth, is that Ukraine won’t be a member of NATO runs contrary to what the US administration is signaling now. There are mixed signals within the Republican Party, there are mixed signals within the Trump administration and there are even mixed signals with individuals who give signals one day and change them the next day.
And so, this whole thing looks like a shambolic mess that has not been thought through. It is basically driven by Trump’s campaign promise to end the war in one day.
And I suspect, when the rubber meets the road in negotiation with Putin and in negotiations with Ukraine and Europe, whatever is discussed here in Munich will be long forgotten.
The idea that if Russia was to break the ceasefire, Ukraine would automatically become a member of NATO is effectively making Ukraine a member of NATO right now.
KP: Many Western Europeans do not understand the nature of the Russian threat and the fact that Russia has been conducting a hybrid war that extends way beyond Ukraine’s borders.
Do you think on the other side of the Atlantic in America there is also a certain amount of naïveté about the nature of the Russian threat and the type of regime they are dealing with?
BB: I spent the last three days interacting with various politicians and government officials and, in particular, I spent a lot of time interacting with the members of the US Congress.
What I can say with absolute certainty is that Republicans and Democrats share exactly the same position on both Ukraine and Russia. They understand Putin’s criminality, violence, and dishonesty, and they support victims of that, in particular in Ukraine.
There is no difference in views between Democrats and Republican members of Congress who were present at the Munich Security Conference.
Members of the Trump administration have a different view. Their view has been consistently dismissive of Ukraine and its security needs, and quite sympathetic to Vladimir Putin.
So, one cannot generalize and talk about Americans. One can only speak about different groups of Americans. It just so happens that the group of Americans who are sympathetic to Putin and antagonistic toward Zelensky happen to be the ones who are making decisions right now.
Members of the Trump administration have a different view. Their view has been consistently dismissive of Ukraine and its security needs, and quite sympathetic to Vladimir Putin.
KP: In the absence of a strong trans-Atlantic alliance, are Europeans able to overcome their differences and take care of their own security needs, including addressing the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war? After all, many of them, such as Germany, are in economic and political crisis.
BB: First of all, we should first look at the numbers.
The amount of [military] aid that Europe has provided to Ukraine is $145 billion against $115 billion from the US. In total Europe has been a greater supplier of military aid to Ukraine.
Europe has the ability, if necessary, to come to the defense of Ukraine and has the interest in doing so, if the US decides to withdraw its military support.
Over time the US position has not been unreasonable. It has been, at least from the NATO standpoint, providing a disproportionate amount of support.
Donald Trump and JD Vance now effectively, if not in so many words, said: “Europe, you are on your own.”
Having done that, I am sure that despite the sentiments and dysfunction of Europe they will be quickly cast aside, and Europeans will do the right thing because it’s now a crisis moment. I am one hundred percent sure that Europe will step into the void and do what’s necessary because the alternative is much more expensive than the current situation.
Even though it all looks catastrophic at the moment at the end of the day some reasonable sober people with real resources will do what’s necessary. It is premature to assume that Ukraine will be thrown under the bus by everybody. Perhaps by the US, but not by everybody.
Donald Trump and JD Vance now effectively, if not in so many words, said: “Europe, you are on your own.”
KP: Various media reports suggest the start of the peace negotiations with Russians by the Trump administration this week, in Saudi Arabia. Let’s say such negotiations do go ahead, but the Trump administration quickly realizes that it is not easy to get concessions from the Kremlin.
What are the most effective economic levers of influence that the US can and might apply in such negotiations?
BB: I think that Putin is a very clever man. And he’s played every new president of the United States when they come into office since he became president.
There was George Bush who “looked into his eyes and saw his soul,” Barak Obama whose administration wanted to reset relations with Russia, Trump the first time around who said he could do business with Putin, and Biden who just wanted a smooth and predictable relationship with Russia.
Putin’s strategy is that he will promise the world, making all sorts of offers that he has no intention of keeping.
Trump can declare victory and then Putin will breach every promise that he’s made. That’s how he operates.
It’s hard to imagine that Putin will end up in a conflict with Trump because he understands that he can fake it.
The US holds all the power: if the US wanted it could, for example, coerce the Saudis to pump more oil and push the oil prices down, which would have a dramatic effect on Putin’s ability to conduct this war.
Washington could impose even more punitive sanctions, including secondary sanctions against the Chinese, Indian, and Turkish oil refineries, which would illuminate the customers for Russia’s oil.
The US could impose sanctions on all sorts of intermediary countries that are now helping Russia break the current sanctions regime. The US can impose economic sanctions that are more powerful than any others in the world economy – if it chooses to use them.
But my prediction is that Putin will make all sorts of unrealistic promises, Trump will declare victory, and that will be the end of the US involvement in the whole thing.
But my prediction is that Putin will make all sorts of unrealistic promises, Trump will declare victory, and that will be the end of the US involvement in the whole thing.
Bill Browder was the founder and CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, at one time the largest foreign investor in Russia. In 2005 he was denied entry to the country and declared “a threat to national security” for his attempts to expose corruption in Russian state-owned companies.
In 2008 Sergei Magnitsky, Browder’s lawyer, uncovered a massive fraud whereby Russian government officials stole $230 million of state taxes. After testifying against those involved in the fraud Sergei was arrested, imprisoned without trial and systematically tortured. After a year in custody, he was killed in prison on Nov. 16, 2009.
Since then, has led the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign which seeks to impose targeted visa bans and asset freezes on human rights abusers and highly corrupt officials.
The campaign led to the 2012 Magnitsky Act, formally known as the Russia and Moldova Jackson–Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, is aimed at punishing those Russian officials responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow prison in 2009.
The Global Magnitsky Act of 2016 authorized the US government to sanction not only Russian but any foreign government official worldwide that is considered to be a human rights offender, freeze their assets, and ban them from entering the US.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
