What were your powers as observers?
Such observation missions at the US elections are not regulated by American law, it is the good will of the US government to provide an opportunity for OSCE representatives to observe the entire process. We only monitor compliance with the procedure and do not interfere in the process. If we see a violation, we record it and at the end of the voting day, we note everything in the reports.
If you compare this US presidential election and the previous one — where you were also an observer — whatʼs the difference between them?
In the last election, I was in Washington [D.C.] and also in the state of Virginia. This time we had two precincts in Washington [D.C.] and the rest in Maryland. Essentially — procedurally or visually — the elections are no different. Here they always take place calmly, without queues. Unlike us, they do not have the habit of coming either in the morning or in the evening, creating a crowd. They somehow manage to come evenly throughout the day. I also did not see any disputes. This is despite the fact that they do not have a day of silence, that is, campaigning continues even on the day of voting, but, relatively speaking, at a distance of 150-200 meters from the polling stations.
The only difference this time is security measures in Washington itself. They drew certain conclusions from the events of four years ago, strengthened police patrols, surrounded the White House with several rows of fences, protecting it from possible confrontations.
And it also caught the eye that it is forbidden to use mobile phones at the polling stations — this had never happened before. That is, you cannot enter there with a weapon and with a phone in your hands: you cannot take them out, take pictures and just look at the screen.
Ambassador of Ukraine Oksana Markarova and a group of MPs who are part of the OSCE observation mission at the US elections. Serhiy Rakhmanin in the second row, first from the left.
Did you communicate with voters?
We are not allowed to do this at polling stations.
Some media wrote that the US could be on the brink of civil war because of these elections. Is this what it looked like from the inside?
I am not an American, it is difficult for me to evaluate such statements. My impressions are very subjective. As I understand it, these apocalyptic stories were pushed by certain people who are close to the political process, and not to society. So I donʼt think there was really that much of a risk. The only thing I saw was a study in some media that an almost record number of people surveyed justified the possible use of violence to defend their choice. They said that this point is critical. And people who know more about American politics said that there was a risk of riots only if Harris won by a small margin.
When you talked to Americans and said that you are from Ukraine, what was the reaction? Did they say anything about the war?
Washington knows a lot more about the war. But in Maryland — which is, in fact, very close — when we talked about Ukraine, they nodded their heads to us, but it was clear that they did not know such a thing. There are a large number of people here who are only interested in their own lives, only in their economic problems, the issue of abortion or taxes. It was and will be difficult for us to convince American politicians, members of the House of Representatives, and senators of the need to help Ukraine.
I know that some Americans of Ukrainian origin, members of the Republican Party, voted for Harris because, in their opinion, she would better protect Ukrainian interests than Trump. Have you encountered such a position?
I spoke with former colleagues who work here. American Ukrainians had a very difficult choice this time, their motivations were very different. Many in the Ukrainian diaspora are traditionally oriented towards the Republican Party. On the other hand, the story with Trump gave them reason to think. On the third hand, many of them said that they are of Ukrainian origin, but still American citizens, and, in their opinion, America and its economy need Trump more. There was a fourth point of view: Americans elected not only the president, but also the representatives in the Senate and the lower house of Congress, so some decided to vote for Trump as president, and in the Senate and the lower house to support representatives of the Democratic Party is an atypical approach.
And what did the politicians you talked to say about the Ukrainian issue?
It is worth understanding: if a representative of, for example, the Republican Party meets with Ukrainian journalists or politicians, the very fact of such a meeting means that he supports Ukraine — this is how it works in politics. We all expressed hope that bipartisan support would continue. However, it is not that simple. If Trump gets a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, this situation will be very difficult for us. It will be necessary to work out tactics, strategy, logic and mechanisms of coexistence with such a "monomajority".
It is now important for Ukraine that President Biden manage to give us everything he can in the period remaining before the inauguration. First of all, we are talking about the restoration of the full supply of equipment and weapons, which have already been declared, because, unfortunately, they did not arrive in Ukraine in full. A number of political decisions related to the war must be made. Well, if anyone had hopes that before the end of his term, Biden would officially initiate the invitation of Ukraine to NATO, I think they are no longer relevant.
Is it likely that Trump will not fulfill the commitments that the US has made before?
This is a complex and complex issue. One of the features of the American political system is a certain inertia and bureaucracy. If the Americans have already made some decisions, it is difficult to roll them back. When we are scared that Trump will come and the next day they will stop supplying us with weapons, it is not quite so. What has already been declared and financed cannot fail to get to Ukraine.
The second point is that the will and words of the president alone are not enough to initiate or cancel any decision. Most presidential decisions must be confirmed by Congress, which has two houses. And this system of checks and balances, where, as a rule, one party controls the Senate and the other the House of Representatives, it is such a safeguard. If it remains, and now Democrats and Republicans are still fighting for the House of Representatives, bipartisan support will also remain.
And I can also recall a whole series of promises that Trump made, but never fulfilled. Starting with a full-fledged wall between the US and Mexico, which was never built. Nuclear disarmament between Russia, the United States and China has not been achieved. He promised to conclude an agreement with North Korea, but did not. He promised to cancel sanctions and restore full-fledged relations with the Russian Federation — this did not happen. Instead, the problems with the Nord Streams began not under the Democrat Obama, but under the Republican Trump. And we received the first deliveries of lethal weapons under Trump. I do not want to instill unnecessary optimism or pessimism in anyone, I just want to say that public promises of politicians do not always become reality.
And we honestly promise to spend your donation on something useful. Support Babel: https://babel.ua/donate