First, they stripped us of our nuclear arsenal, the world’s third-largest. Then, they promised us that “sweet harvest.”
Now that we have neither the nukes nor the harvest, some of them don’t mind us being harvested by a nuclear Russia.
Check out this brilliant appeasement article, written by Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute.
Eland states my country’s name as “the Ukraine.” Most English-speaking Ukrainians consider such usage insulting or ignorant. To us, “the Ukraine” means a territory, not a country, and underscores centuries of Russian domination. Since independence, Ukraine has persuaded the U.N. and the U.S. to drop the article and switch from Kiev (the Russian name) to Kyiv (the Ukrainian name).
So either Mr. Eland knows little about Ukraine, or “the Ukraine” carries a coded message from the Independent Institute.
By the way, Obama said “the Ukraine” during the presidential debates. To me, this came as a shock. How could the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on European Relations say that? Hadn't he mentioned his visit to Ukraine in The Audacity of Hope?
Two weeks before the election, Obama described
the Ukraine as being ready for a NATO Membership Action Plan. He wrote this in a letter to the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, in an apparent bid to court Ukrainian American voters. Since then, however, despite reassurances old and new, he must have changed his mind.
Indeed, U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine, in practical terms, is all about
chicken Kiev change.
It can be summarized by the following quote from Don’t Admit the Ukraine into NATO:
In any honest assessment of U.S. security goals, the faraway Ukraine is not strategic to the United States. To Russia, given its history of being invaded by foreign powers, the Ukraine, a large neighboring country, is much more strategic than even its small Baltic neighbors.
So “the faraway Ukraine” is no longer as “strategic” as it was in 1993-1995, when Washington was twisting our strategic arms? And Ukraine has never been invaded? Not even by Russia?
In other words, “disarm and disown.” That’s the policy. Wait, how about this one: Wasn’t Czechoslovakia more “strategic” to Germany than it was to France and Britain when they signed the Munich Agreement?
A fool and his nukes are easily parted. When Ukraine — lulled by the “end of history” — gave up its nuclear deterrent, it did one hell of a foolish thing. It gave up power and got poverty in return. The IMF loans we received in exchange for our 5,000 warheads did not help us to the “sweet harvest” that U.S. President Bill Clinton promised us. Instead, they helped our President Kuchma convert his sweet reform rhetoric into an overnight billion dollar fortune for his family.
And guess what? Bill Clinton, who now runs a foundation, has been quite friendly with the Kuchma family, even after his wife became secretary of state. Talk about the peace dividend.
Contrary to Western clichés, Ukraine did not just “inherit” its nuclear arsenal from the USSR. Ukraine invented and ingested a huge part of that arsenal. Ukraine produced some of the deadliest ICBMs in the Soviet nuclear forces and, on orders from Moscow, deployed them on its territory. Ukraine paid the price of collectivization, industrialization, Chernobyl and grabitization.
Now, what benefits did Ukraine get from its denuclearization? Or, in a narrow sense, what did “friends of America” in Ukraine get from “friends of Ukraine” in America? Prosperity? No. A ticket to Western Civilization? No. Constant threats from Moscow? Yes. A bunch of appeasement artists from Washington? Yes!
So what should Ukraine’s story tell Iran and North Korea?
A. Hey, why don’t you drop your weapons like Ukraine did?
B. Hey, why don’t you follow Ukraine into the NPT and the MTCR?
C. Wanna be bossed around?
D. Wanna get your chicken change?
Finally, what effects would Russia's appeasement-induced adventurism have on U.S. security goals?