KYIV

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, met with derision in his attempts to discuss the conflict in separatist-held Donbass with Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin, has launched new overtures to shore up support in the West in the light of Russia’s buildup of troops and weaponry on his country’s borders.

And he may have – mostly – heard what he wanted from Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who told his hosts in Kyiv the United States stood alongside them in countering any Russian threat.

But he also was admonished for what Washington sees as a go-slow on implementing judicial and economic reforms and for engaging in the old ways of disregarding standard Western corporate management practices.

The sting is compounded by the fact that the comedian-turned-leader of the country of 40 million was elected on a platform of mending ties with Russia. Specifically, resolving the conflict with Moscow over its support for proxies it backs financially and militarily in the Donbass area. More than 13,000 have died in seven years of recurring skirmishes.

And Zelensky refuses Putin’s insistence that Moscow is not a party to the conflict and that Kyiv must talk directly to the separatist leaders to end what the Kremlin says is a civil war.

Zelensky has concentrated much of his effort on Europe and received plenty of diplomatic support and soothing words of encouragement – but the European Union, which is not a military bloc, is limited in its scope of action.

Zelensky came to office believing he could do a deal with Putin to solve the standoff with the separatists who run two unrecognised statelets in eastern Ukraine.

After two years of getting nowhere, the centre-piece of his strategy is now to press for membership of NATO – and the key to achieving that, of course, lies in Washington.

“We stand strongly with you…and we look to Russia to cease reckless and aggressive actions,” Blinken told Zelensky at a meeting taking place as Washington works on arrangements for a possible summit meeting between President Joe Biden and Putin.

Both Zelensky and Blinken said the mass deployment of troops on the border with the separatist regions and in Crimea – annexed by Russia in 2014 – had not really been scaled down. Only a few thousand troops had returned to base and tens of thousands – Zelensky said 75,000 — remained in place.

Zelensky thanked the United States for its support “not only in words but through actions,” but said that Ukraine “desperately” needs more. He pressed Blinken for backing in securing a Membership Action Plan at a summit of the alliance in June, though – not unexpectedly — there was no clear U.S. signal on this.

Moscow last month massed at least 100,000 troops in what it later called “drills” but which seemed to be aimed at unnerving Kyiv, replete with Kremlin rhetoric that a new conflict could result in the destruction of Ukraine.

It later said it was pulling back its troop surge, but its intentions remain unclear.

“We can already say that the visit by the secretary of state was in no way a protocol visit,” commentator Vitaly Portnikov said on the Espreso TV website.

”And not just because it is taking place before a meeting of the U.S. and Russian presidents and the U.S. administration felt it important to show its support for Ukraine…. but also, because the U.S. administration made it plain during the visit what it felt was important in Ukraine and did so publicly.”

Navigation, new weapons

Zelensky said the two sides discussed what were described as joint actions to uphold freedom of movement in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov – a key consideration in view of Russia’s ban on foreign naval vessels in the region for the next six months.

And Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said he and Blinken discussed access to new weapons – anti-aircraft defences and weapons to counter snipers near Ukraine’s occupied regions.

This must have been a welcome counterpoint to Zelensky’s latest pleas to be considered a vital part of Europe’s future. Earlier this week he told Poland’s president: “Ukraine needs a clear signal concerning its prospects for Europe and Euro-Atlantic matters. All these questions that keep accumulating. Like ‘later’, ‘sometime’ or ‘in 10 years’, we need to put an end to them.”

Discomfort on “backsliding”

There were clearly uncomfortable moments for Zelensky.

Chiefly, U.S. discontent at “backsliding” on reforms and tackling corruption and of heavy-handed moves at variance with standard Western practice, particularly the dismissal last week, by cabinet order, of the head of state-run Naftogaz, Ukraine’s largest oil and gas company.

“Forgive me if you find me out of line when I say this. I don’t know to what extent you are aware of how much reform was carried out prior to our team taking office and how much is being done now,” Zelensky told a news conference alongside Blinken. “So I don’t really understand this talk of backsliding.”

Analysts and opposition politicians have suggested that the dismissal of Naftogaz CEO Andriy Kobalyev, praised for weeding out corrupt practices, could jeopardise the resumption of disbursements of a $5 billion IMF standby programme. That programme is under scrutiny to ensure Ukraine is meeting the very criteria raised by Blinken on reforms and an independent judiciary.

Blinken tackled the issue head-on.

“Ukraine is facing two challenges: aggression from outside, coming from Russia, and in effect aggression from within, coming from corruption, oligarchs and others who are putting their interests ahead of those of the Ukrainian people,” he said.

He told Kuleba that Washington will “work with you and continue to strengthen your own democracy, building institutions, advancing your reforms against corruption”.

Analysts said the cold shower might do Zelensky some good in the long run.

“Blinken is one of those diplomats who, despite the needs of diplomacy, knows how to set out a position clearly. And today, these things were stated in an understandable and clear fashion,” Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko said on the website NV.UA.

“And we have to be honest. Unfortunately, we sometimes provide grounds for doubt that we take change seriously. In terms of the national interest, I believe that such straightforward signals on, for example, backsliding on reforms, can be useful.”