Kamala Harris's National Security Advisor Is a Friend to Ukraine
Philip Gordon might soon be in a position to prolong U.S. support for the Ukrainian war effort
Longtime diplomat and academic Philip Gordon was assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs under U.S. president Barack Obama between 2009 and 2011 and then, later in the Obama administration, special assistant to the president and White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Persian Gulf region.
With the election of billionaire and eventual multiple felon Donald Trump in 2016, Gordon stepped out of government and spent four years with the New York City-based think-tank Council on Foreign Relations.
Two years after Joe Biden defeated Trump in the 2020 presidential election, Gordon returned to government—first as deputy national security advisor to Vice Pres. Kamala Harris—and, starting in March 2022, Harris’s national security advisor.
With Biden’s Sunday announcement that he won’t seek re-election, Harris is now the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination. And if she defeats Trump in November, she may keep Gordon on as national security advisor.
Gordon’s proximity to power makes his comments on Ukraine extremely important. He, more than anyone, may shape a President Harris’s views if and when she’s in charge of U.S. foreign policy.
Gordon is likely to advocate for a continuation of the Biden administration’s pro-Ukraine policies. Contrast this with the Trump campaign’s belligerence toward a free and democratic Ukraine and open fondness for authoritarian Russia.
Gordon understands the stakes. Russia’s wider invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 triggered “the biggest land war in Europe that we’ve faced since World War II, with tremendous geopolitical consequences,” Gordon said at a May 2024 CFR event. The war is “threatening other close allies in Europe and NATO; driving up energy prices, food prices; disrupting supply chains.”
“We had intelligence that Russia was going to invade that many doubted, and we shared with our allies, we shared with the Ukrainians and we put the world on notice that this was going to happen,” Gordon continued. “It did happen.”
And then we immediately kicked into gear and helped the Ukrainians prevent, essentially, a Russian takeover of all of Ukraine. That was their plan. That was their assumption, that they would be able to do it. Many people thought they were right.
But we were determined to prove them wrong, surged in military assistance, political assistance, put a huge coalition together, hit the Russian economy hard with sanctions, and, again, I give most credit to the Ukrainian people for their valiant fight against Russia, but far from taking Kyiv they got stopped.
They not only got stopped, they pushed—they got pushed back. They ended up taking some territory in the east, but even that the following year—in large part thanks to our assistance, and no one has provided more assistance than the United States—we helped the Ukrainians prevent a Russian takeover of Kyiv, put together a coalition of some 50 countries who are all involved in supporting Ukraine.
And, you know, almost two and a half years after this Russian invasion with the intent to occupy Kyiv, Ukraine is a democratic country with support and solidarity from around the world that is standing tall and proud in the face of Russian aggression.
So I think, again, first credit goes to the Ukrainians for their fight. But I think the United States and our allies around the world have also done a remarkable job in providing support to Ukraine. And now in the, you know, well over $100 billion.
Gordon conceded that it “wasn’t easy” for the Biden administration to defeat Republican intransigence and get $60 billion in fresh aid to Ukraine through the U.S. Congress this spring. “But we even managed to come together,” Gordon said. “And there was a lot of skepticism that the American people would sustain support.”
I think that was [Russian president Vladimir] Putin’s assumption going in. Europeans wouldn’t want to do sanctions. Higher oil prices would lead them to want to turn the page and just move on. The American public would never support this for weeks, months, let alone years.
But here we are now, as we speak, having just authorized another $60 billion. And with aid flowing in to come to the rescue and make clear to Putin that he may have thought he was able to wait us out, but he is not going to be able to.
Gordon addressed the criticism that Biden hasn’t done enough to support Ukraine. “We have very few restrictions on what Ukraine can do or on what we provide to Ukraine,” he said.
It’s true that some of this has evolved over time as battlefield needs have changed, as our available resources have changed, as things have become available that couldn’t have been provided earlier, that we’re able to provide now.
To the point that, you know, whatever category of weapon you might be interested in, we’re essentially providing it to Ukraine now. So I don’t think—I don’t think it’s right to suggest that somehow our policy or what we are doing is preventing Ukraine from doing what it needs to do, which is to continue to stand up in the face of this Russian aggression.
Read more:
Maybe Karmala will have the guts to stop protecting Russia and permit a country to table a resolution in the UN to remove Putin's impostor representatives from UN premises.
Set aside your preconceptions that it will be vetoed or would require a super-majority. That is 33 year old Kremlin disinformation.
Millions of lives, cities and economies have been lost or destroyed, fiddling about this issue while Ukraine burns. It's time to act.
I invite you to read my substack which discusses every aspect: an overview with links is at https://x.com/hifromnz/status/1793386231994454043. Or you can start with the video at https://vlp888.substack.com/p/images-russia-and-the-un.
As few as 30 countries could be able to pass the necessary UNGA resolution - a majority present and voting - abstentions do not count. But to vote in favour of continued violation of the UN Charter and to give control over the entire world to a terrorist state sponsoring corruption and wars would be politically impossible for governments once the issue hits the public attention. Not to mention the vast majority of small states to whom the UN should be providing protection from aggression and economic chaos.
The legal way is the preferable way. It will remove Russia's platform and "get out of jail free" hegemony used to run and expand the Kremlin's protection racket and immediately open the legal avenue for NATO together with other countries to intervene legally under UN authority, expel the invaders and enforce a buffer zone in Russia.
Who is Putin going to nuke if the whole world moves together?
Let me know what you think. Have I missed anything?