Citizen Diplomacy: A Ukrainian Citizen’s Look at U.S.-Ukrainian Relations

Dear Uncle Sam,

You care about your country. You care about denuclearizing everyone but yourself and your allies. You made it happen in Ukraine.

When my country gave up its nukes — the world’s third-largest arsenal — it didn’t happen in a referendum. It didn’t happen in a classroom. It happened in Kuchma’s bedroom.

You treasured my country’s ability to trade its national interests for nothing but IMF loans and some aid.

As you know, the loans did us no good and the aid fell short of delivering the results it did in Eastern Europe. After all, from your Moscowcentric point of view, Ukraine’s “fledgling democracy” didn’t belong in Europe. The State Department pigeonholed us into “Eurasia” (Non-West/Little Russia), a class from which we never really graduated.

Bottom line, you took advantage of Ukraine at a tender age.


Any idea what this map depicts?

In an ideal world, you should have kept your IMF loans/aid, and we should have kept some of our nukes. We should have developed in a different way politically, economically and militarily.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Now what about foresight?

By continuing to take advantage of Ukraine whenever you can, you’re turning friends of America into a scarce commodity here.

The more Ukraine gets raped at home and abroad, the more we Ukrainians will remember it. The more you support our corrupt leaders, the more we’ll resist it. And once the pendulum swings in our favor — in the Ukraine-first favor — we’ll try to do it right. We’ll try not to repeat the mistakes of the Orange era.

And you guys will try to defuse a stockpile of enriched anti-Western sentiment.

Photos:
http://durdom.in.ua/public/main/photos/photo_14753.jpg
http://durdom.in.ua/public/main/photos/photo_14743.jpg
http://durdom.in.ua/public/main/photos/photo_14746.jpg
http://durdom.in.ua/public/main/photos/photo_14786.jpg
http://durdom.in.ua/public/main/photos/photo_23589.jpg

No More Russian-to-Ukrainian Dubbing on National TV

1tv.com.ua is becoming an affiliate of www.1tv.ru.

If you’re a post-Soviet-born Ukrainian who lives in Ukraine, you better learn Russian. Why? Because the Russians, Russified Ukrainians and some other people who have lived in Ukraine for generations don’t want to learn Ukrainian. Fair enough?



Take the National Television Company of Ukraine (NTCU). Neither its president, Yevhen Benkendorf, nor its vice president, Walid Harfouch, speaks Ukrainian.

Education Minister Dmytro Tabachnyk does speak Ukrainian, and God knows how much he hates it. In a bid to preserve the legacy of Russification, he wants to stop mandatory dubbing of foreign language movies into Ukrainian.

He has already revoked mandatory Ukrainian language exams for students completing their bachelor degrees. He says it’s the European way.

Well, the French would disagree, and so would some Germans.



Back to Ukraine, the list of reforms goes on:

No more Institute of National Security Problems
No more National Institute of International Security
No more interministerial NATO membership preparations сcommission
No more Euro-Atlantic integration center
No more rallies without arrests

Congratulations Rick Davis, Paul Manafort, Phil Griffin and the Appeasement Institute in Ukraine! You’ve just won your magic Pobeda ride!






Buckle up, Uncle Sam!

Govt OKs Stalin Monument, Flirts With USSR 2

As Washington cautiously OKs our new government, that government OKs things that make some in Washington feel all the more cautious.

In Zaporizhia, local communists plan to erect a monument to Stalin.



That’s the same Stalin who killed millions of Ukrainians (and Russians, for that matter).

Vice PM Volodymyr Semynozhenko doesn’t object. After all, he supports a union of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.




That’s an old idea championed by the Kremlin and shared by millions of elderly and Russified Ukrainians in and outside of our government.

Those who oppose the idea (such as the Belarusian ambassador to Russia, who supports a customs union only) can go where the sun don’t shine. The Kremlin doesn't mince words.



What's in it for Ukraine? No more silly borders issues. No more borders. No more Ukraine.




Meanwhile, Strobe Talbott tells Ukraine that non-alignment (read: alignment with Russia) doesn’t work. WTF? Has the Russia-first desk run out of vodka? Have you guys been playing a sobering version of the domino theory?

Maybe you could use Obama’s “reset button” and Clinton’s “sweet harvest” to keep the dominoes from falling?

Or maybe Bill Clinton could replace Stephen Byers as Yalta European Strategy chairman of the board?

Viktor Pinchuk and Damien Hirst could turn it into some art form that resembles Ukraine’s rule of law, European integration and prosperity.



And, of course, the Prostitutional Court would then adopt it as a mascot, upon issuing a clean bill of health to the Coalition of Carcasses.

Videos/pictures embedded/uploaded from:
http://censor.net.ua/go/offer/ResourceID/154540.html
http://censor.net.ua/go/offer/ResourceID/154731.html
http://censor.net.ua/go/offer/ResourceID/154685.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6cR-LKd6Xg
http://www.artukraine.com.ua/pic/events/2009-04-27,_25_kvitnya_v_pinchukartcentre_vidkriietsya_naybilsha_personalna_vistavka_demiena_horsta_rekviiem7.jpg/0/500/
Original sources:
http://tsn.ua

Obama Turns Missile Defense Into Stimulus Program for Kremlin

The U.S. Appeaser-in-Chief has produced yet another anticipointment. Apparently, stimulating Putin's reset button has become another sport in the Oval Office.

Yes, he can! He can talk. He can talk some more. And then he can toy with countries, including his own.



Mr. Obama, the more I watch you, the more I appreciate Zhirinovsky's vision — of you and of Ukraine.

So “watch Ukraine,” as John McCain put it.

Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj6vpMzuBIs
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/17/united.states.missile.shield/index.html?eref=rss_world

More Appeasement from the American Institute in Ukraine

After making Reagan roll over in his grave by misusing his famous quote, they’re back.

• Back with a quote about the “nationalist” Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Ministry;
• Back with less prevarication about their views/connections;
• Back with a noble mission of educating Ukrainians about NATO; and
  
• Back with more appeasement toward the good old benevolent Kremlin.

Discover these fresh offerings in Say No to NATO, an article by Graham Stack at Russiaprofile.org.

I found this article thanks to a French-language anti-NATO site that calls my blog “Ukrainamania” and puts it in the ranks of neocon public relations. What can I say? I’m flattered! Just get my blog’s name right, OK?

In Say No to NATO, the American Institute in Ukraine (AIU) finally abandons any pretense of neutrality and nonalignment: “Ukraine’s NATO membership is not in Ukraine’s interests. Nor is it in U.S. interests. All that it will create is a nuclear trip wire at the heart of Europe.” What took you so long, guys?

Now that you’re so brave, straightforward and openhearted, let’s examine the Kremlin’s hymnbook quote by quote:

Anthony T. Salvia, AIU Executive Director: In Ukraine, U.S. opinion is often represented as being monolithically in favor of Ukraine’s future membership of NATO. We’re here in Kiev to show this is definitely not the case.

Do you have any scientific — and independent — U.S. poll numbers? I, for one, can’t argue with the poll numbers in Ukraine. According to various polls, support for NATO membership clocks in at 20-30%, nowhere near the 77% found in Georgia. Which brings us to the question of why you’re here. You gave up on Georgia and focused on Ukraine. You’re here to tell us what to do with our security. Moreover, you think that our security has nothing to do with your security. Well, think again.

Doug Bandow, a guest speaker at AIU: The U.S. should refrain from making promises to Ukraine it cannot honor, but which might embolden Ukraine to provoke a conflict. The Ukrainians should realize that the US will never fight Russia over Ukraine. Ukraine must learn to rely on its own resources for securing its sovereignty, and not to trust to U.S. promises.

Would the U.S. fight Russia over Latvia or Poland under Article 5? (Just curious.) At any rate, thank you for disarming and disowning us! Indeed, today, we Ukrainians only have ourselves to rely on if attacked by our friendliest neighbor in the universe, Russia. If and when that happens, you shouldn’t expect us to control our missile technology as we promised you in 1998. We’ll be too busy. See if you can intercept a bootleg SS-18 with the “reset button.”

Salvia: Ukrainian NATO membership, by ruining relations with Russia, would make Ukraine less secure than it is, not more. And it would also harm U.S. security, by ruining the chances for cooperation with Russia over vital issues such as Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran, all issues that the new administration has said it will prioritize.

If you ruin our security with your art of appeasement, your cooperation with Russia over Iran and North Korea will become a joke. And the Kremlin will have no regrets.

Salvia: There are other mechanisms available for strengthening Ukrainian security. One is a new European security treaty, similar to that being proposed by Dmitry Medvedev. The other is for European Union membership. The Kremlin is basically open toward Ukraine’s future EU membership, especially if it is an alternative to Ukraine’s NATO membership.

A new European security treaty? You mean, a new Yalta Conference? The EU is a security organization and the Kremlin is open toward Ukraine’s future EU membership? Really? Can you call the Kremlin again and come back with the details?

Yelena Biberman, a U.S. Embassy policy specialist engaged in research on Ukraine’s foreign ministry (according to the article): Foreign ministry officials are ideologically anti-Russian and nationalist to the extent that they may not always be able to objectively assess Ukraine’s real national interests. They believe that Russia is inherently imperialistic and bent on regaining control over Ukraine as a step to rebuilding its empire, and NATO membership is the only way to stop this. Even for a new Ukrainian president, it will be very hard to change their perspective.

So, to restore objectivity, the new Ukrainian president should by all means try to change their perspective, as in “change Putin believes in?” That’s a very insightful perspective from an FSO trained at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO). Has the U.S. Embassy outsourced some of its staff to AIU or vice versa? What’s next? A garage sale of “reset buttons” and “Made in USSR” memorabilia? Clientitis classes? There’s nothing new about the fact that Russia hasn’t refreshed its historiography since the Brezhnev era — if not for a brief moment during perestroika. But, for State’s sake, aren’t there any post-Soviet history textbooks on Amazon.com or at Brown? Doesn’t Prof. Sergei Khrushchev have any?

Salvia: We don’t engage in lobbying, but work exclusively in the public field holding conferences, talks and round table discussions. What we are trying to tell Ukrainians is simply that you can be pro-America and pro-European without having to want to join NATO.

Tell it to the Poles. Tell it to the Czechs. Tell it to the Slovaks. Tell it to the Hungarians. Tell it to the Romanians. Tell it to the Bulgarians. Tell it to the Lithuanians. Tell it to the Latvians. Tell it to the Estonians. Tell it to the Georgians. Tell it to the IRS.

Sources:
http://www.aminuk.org
http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=International&articleid=a1247513208

A Quiz for President Obama: What Did Ukraine Contribute to U.S. Security?

That last aspect of Paul's character — a sense of empathy — is one that I find myself appreciating more and more as I get older. It is at the heart of my moral code, and it is how I understand the Golden Rule — not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else’s shoes and see through their eyes.

—Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope

After watching President Obama’s “Chicken Kiev 2” speech, I wonder how much he knows about my country and its contribution to U.S. security. Does he remember his visit to Ukraine in 2005?

So I decided to put together a short quiz.

1. How many warheads and delivery vehicles did Ukraine give up when disarmed by Washington in the mid ‘90s?
A. Ukraine? Oh, you mean the Ukraine?
B. The Ukraine, uh, sorry, Ukraine, had nukes? Are you serious?
C. Come on! Ukraine had simply inherited those nukes from the Soviet Union!
D. Ukraine sacrificed the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal (176+24 MIRVed ICBMs+600 ALCMs+≈3,000 tactical nukes≈5,000 warheads), much of it produced by Ukraine’s industry, labor and environment.

2. What did Ukraine get in return?
A. Ukraine is as prosperous and secure as its neighbors Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (NATO and EU members).
B. The Kuchma family made an overnight billion-dollar fortune and donated $5M to the Clinton Foundation.
C. Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in Europe, with a GDP per capita of $6K (PPP).
D. “Sweet harvest”+“change we can believe in.”
E. Both B, C and D are correct.

3. What did Ukraine get in exchange for walking out on a $50M deal for the supply of nuclear power plant turbines to the Iranian reactor in Bushehr in 1998?
A. In Bush what?
B. Don’t push it!
C. How can you be so ungrateful after all the aid we’ve provided you with? We hired our best consultants and paid them our best rates!
D. Nothing. Losers like you deserve nothing.

4. How much aid did Ukraine receive from the U.S. to process 5,000 tons of highly toxic rocket fuel from its scrapped nuclear arsenal?
A. Some personnel training+$30M+some “open burning” and “detonation” advice from Thiokol Corporation.
B. Once you scrapped those missiles and stopped being a threat to us, it’s your problem.
C. Don’t ever mention it again!
D. OK, we’ll probably give you some more money, but only if you beg.
E. Both A, B, and C are correct.

5. How many troops did Ukraine contribute to the coalition forces in Iraq and how many of them died?
A. Let’s change the subject.
B. 1,650 at peak (deployed 08/03, withdrawn 12/08), 28 dead.
C. Russia contributed more.
D. The war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do in the first place, so STFU!

6. How many times did the U.S. Air Force use Ukrainian airspace during 10/9/01-03/24/03 alone?
A. 4,358
B. 0
C. Russia will allow us 4,000 overflights per year (savings of $133M) and will have the right to inspect them.
D. You’re a neocon puppet!
E. Both A and C are correct.

7. Mr. President, can you reciprocate Ukraine by treating our security on its own merits, not on the merits of your relations with Russia?
A. Yes, I can.
B. No, I can’t.
C. I don’t know.
D. Putin knows best.

Thank you!

Obama Mentions Ukraine But Emphasizes Russia

No, he didn't call Ukraine the Ukraine, as he had done during the presidential debates. But he did say Kiev (7:53). So much for Ambassador Taylor's efforts to switch the U.S. government from Kiev to Kyiv (3:59-4:27).

Nitpicking aside, here's what President Obama said in Moscow today, in addition to commending Putin on doing “extraordinary work”:

State sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international order. Just as all states should have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the right to borders that are secure, and to their own foreign policies. That is true for Russia, just as it is true for the United States. Any system that cedes those rights will lead to anarchy. That's why we must apply this principle to all nations -- and that includes nations like Georgia and Ukraine. America will never impose a security arrangement on another country. For any country to become a member of an organization like NATO, for example, a majority of its people must choose to; they must undertake reforms; they must be able to contribute to the Alliance's mission. And let me be clear: NATO should be seeking collaboration with Russia, not confrontation.

(24:47-25:42)

And here's what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on March 5, 2009: “We should continue to open NATO's door to European countries such as Georgia and Ukraine and help them meet NATO standards.”

Sound interesting? Wait until you read what presidential candidate Obama wrote in a letter to the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America in October 2008.

He described Ukraine as being ready for a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) and said he would work with U.S. allies to convince them to grant MAP to Ukraine.

Now isn't that change we can believe in?

Sources:
http://london.usembassy.gov/obama089.html
http://twitter.com/GlobalEurope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKBYoJ2fJ5I

The American Institute in Ukraine: A Yanukovych-Friendly Appeasement Think Tank

You’d think that the only Washington spin doctor to promote Yanukovych and his anti-NATO/pro-Kremlin platform would be Paul Manafort. You shouldn’t. Meet the American Institute in Ukraine!

In his recent article, Ukrayinska Pravda’s Serhiy Leshchenko exposes this pseudo-independent organization, whose talent did business with Yanukovych as early as in 2003.

What’s in a name?
James George Jatras. The American (read: Appeasement) Institute in Ukraine (AIU) lists him as one of his associates, and so does Squire Sanders Public Advocacy, LLC. (Public advocacy...hmmm...sounds so much sweeter than lobbying, doesn’t it?)

Jatras’ profile at Squire Sanders credits him with a wealth of experience:

• Serving on the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee and as an American Foreign Service Officer in the Office of Soviet Union Affairs;
• Engaging in versatile legislative advocacy and international projects;
• Participating in panel discussions at the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the International Strategic Studies Association.

Specifically, Jatras assisted in the defense of Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague Tribunal. His organization, the American Council for Kosovo (ACK), opposes Kosovo’s independence. All of which makes the American Institute in Ukraine look like a clone.

That’s not an accident. Darren Spinck, another key AIU figure, happens to be an officer of ACK.

On March 6 and March 24, 2003, Jatras and his partner Patrick O’Donell at Venable, LLP inked two public relations deals with Alex Kiselev, a Yanukovych representative. Under the deals, Yanukovych was supposed get a dose of favorable publicity and networking in Washington, including, possibly, a meeting with then-President Bush. Price tag: $20K+$60K (for the meeting with Bush, if arranged).

Ukrayinska Pravda offers copies of the agreements:




For some reason, Yanukovych rescheduled his visit. A third agreement with Jatras and McDonnell was signed on November 24, 2003.

Cooperation between the Jatras and Yanukovych camps continued well into the fateful year of 2004. In December 2004, amid the Orange Revolution, Spinck put his signature on the addendum to a $23K+$15K Yanukovych-related consulting agreement with db communications, LLC.



What does AIU do?
“AIU is a privately funded U.S. nonprofit organization and neither receives, solicits, nor accepts funds from any government,” so they say, without disclosing their donors

“The activities of AIU are strictly informational and educational. AIU does not engage in lobbying, either in the United States or abroad.” But AIU talent has engaged in lobbying in the United States on behalf of Ukrainian clients, and the website fails to mention that, right?

Besides, if their current activities encompass “producing and distributing monographs, commentaries, analyses, news, bulletins, press releases and other informational and educational materials,” then why do they tilt to one side only? Does AIU offer a single monograph, commentary or analysis that explores the benefits of Ukraine’s membership in NATO, both for NATO and Ukraine?

If you click “About Us,” you will find this:

AIU takes no position on NATO per se. But whatever NATO's future may be, AIU questions the wisdom of further expansion without clear and convincing evidence that it would directly enhance U.S. security interests, defined as defense of American territory and the American people; protect the territorial defense of its member states, consistent with the sole mission of the alliance as specified in the North Atlantic Treaty; contribute to the security of countries considered for expansion, beginning with Ukraine; and not injure relations with Russia, which must be an ongoing priority of American foreign and security policy. There is reason to question whether any of these criteria exists now or will exist in the foreseeable future.

So if you “question whether any of these criteria exists” and have some foreign policy credentials to support your skepticism, here’s your chance! According to Ukrayinska Pravda sources, you can make $3K in speaking fees, travel and hotel expenses covered. In other words, Western scholars and policy makers who strongly oppose the idea of Ukraine’s membership in NATO and want make a few bucks would be more than welcome!

Ironically, had AIU been around in 2003-2004, then-PM Yanukovych would have probably sent trainloads of his supporters to rally outside its office. At that time, he firmly stood for NATO membership and his party rubber-stamped pro-NATO legislation. In fact, he even authored a white paper that called for NATO membership by 2008.

Serhiy Leshchenko says his interest in AIU began with an invitation to participate in one of the events held at that organization — front organization, as it turned out. Guess who called him? Dmytro Dzhangirov, a blatant Kuchma-Yanukovych propagandist whose two-minute-hate-style programs had blasted Yushchenko during the dystopian 2004 presidential campaign. Today, Dzhangirov mainly works for Kyiv mayor Leonid “Kosmos” Chernovetsky. But...you never know.

Apparently, AIU has found Dzhangirov to be an asset to their ill-concealed “disarm and disown,” “putting Putin first,” “quid pro-Kremlin” campaign.

Among AIU’s recent guest speakers was Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute and...of the American Council for Kosovo.

Bandow’s association with the Cato Institute was supposed to lend credentials to the one and only view promoted by AIU: that Ukraine is bad for NATO and that NATO is bad for Ukraine. The fact that in the mid ‘90s Ukraine had sacrificed the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal on the altar of U.S. security gets the silent treatment.

Back to Bandow: Leshchenko called the Cato Institute and asked whether Bandow represented their official policy views. Chris Kennedy, Director of Media Relations, said Bandow represented his views only.

Last, but definitely not least, Leshchenko notes, the Russian version of the AIU web site spells the organization’s name as Американский Институт на Украине rather than Американский Институт в Украине. What’s the difference? It’s the Russian way of saying the Ukraine (province, territory) as opposed to the Ukraine (independent country).

In this regard, I hope U.S. Vice President Joe Biden gets some polit-savvy toponymical tips before he visits Ukraine at the end of July. But my hope already lacks audacity. The siren calls of appeasement artists are getting stronger day by day. Some of them, such as Anthony T. Salvia of AIU, even couch their propaganda in romantic Reagan-era terms. Apparently, the Appeasement...uh...sorry, the American Institute in Ukraine has a busy work schedule.

President Obama will visit Russia on July 6-8, and all Ukraine will get is Vice President Biden two weeks later. As a Ukrainian, I think my country is being marginalized by this Eurasian pecking order.

It’s almost as if the current U.S. administration gets advice from AIU, forgets about Ukraine’s contribution to U.S. security, and ignores Ukraine’s missile technology.

As for Bill Clinton, a huge friend of the Kuchma family, he’ll probably stay out of AIU — unless they seriously rethink their budget.

Sources:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2009/6/25/97288.htm
http://www.aminuk.org

An Appeasement Article With a Reagan-Themed Pitch

He says: “Mr. Obama, for Ukraine's sake, tear down this wall!”

I say: “Mr. Obama, for America's sake, tear him a new one!”

Sources:
http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op_ed/44039

Another Appeasement Article

Some U.S. foreign policy experts refuse to learn from Neville Chamberlain.

Russia wants to be part of the world but free to figure out how to modernize its own country. As long as it respects the full political sovereignty of neighbors such as Georgia and Ukraine -- that is, it doesn't try to control their internal affairs or dictate their regimes -- it shouldn't have to fear foreign military bases in countries that abut its territory.

The U.S.-Russian joint focus should be on actions that actually do make the world a safer place. If the cost of getting that genuine convergence of strategic interests and results on the ground is giving up radars in Poland and the Czech Republic, and being honest about the very unlikely prospects for Ukrainian or Georgian membership in NATO, I would say it’s a small price to pay.

That's from The Russia Opportunity, a Foreign Affairs article by Bill Bradley, a former U.S. senator and now a managing partner at Allen and Company.

Little does Bradley seem to know that Russia does NOT respect the full political sovereignty of neighbors such as Georgia and Ukraine. Russia DOES try to control their internal affairs and DOES try to dictate their regimes.

Last year, Russia partitioned Georgia. Russia believes that Ukraine has no right to modernize its own gas pipeline without somehow kowtowing to Russian interests.

The Kremlin maintains a high profile in Ukrainian elections and demands special treatment for Russians and Russified Ukrainians living in Ukraine. It grants no such treatment to Ukrainians living in Russia, having assimilated them for decades. It incites separatism in Crimea and shows no interest in withdrawing its Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol once the lease agreement expires in 2017.

Aside from his blind quid-pro-Kremlin push, Bill Bradley does make a few sound points:

From 1993 to 1997, beyond supporting IMF infusions, the United States provided just $4.7 billion in direct assistance. Not only was American assistance to Russia long on rhetoric and short on impact, but hundreds of millions of those funds went into the pockets of American consultants, planners, and advisors who went up the learning curve over and over again even as billions more of IMF funds were stolen by the then ruling elite of Russia. Only pennies actually reached the Russian people.

The same thing happened to the Ukrainian people! Except that we gave up our nuclear arsenal — the world's third-largest — entirely.

So Bill Bradley thinks that, by disarming and disowning Ukraine, America will be a safer place?

I think he got it all wrong.

Well, for starters, we still have that long-range missile technology. We also have vast stockpiles of conventional weapons. Any idea where some of that stuff might end up once you kindly invite Uncle Vlad to Ukraine?

Bradley’s appeasement rhetoric culminates in the closing paragraph:

During the war in Georgia, Senator John McCain memorably proclaimed, “We are all Georgians.” To this I respond, “No, we are all Americans.” The sooner we recognize how central Russia is to American interests, the sooner we can form the basis of a meaningful partnership.

Mr. Bradley, how soon before you realize that the policy you advocate would actually encourage Russia to try to annex its neighbors? What effects would a Russian adventure in Ukraine have on regional and global security, not to mention humanitarian and energy issues?

Would American interests be well served?

Keep Ukraine Out of NATO, Washington Panel Recommends

Now that they made promises, wrote letters, pushed buttons and made more promises, they want to keep Ukraine out of the door.

That’s the foreign policy prescribed by a “high-level bipartisan commission” in Washington. Below are excerpts from the IHT article Panel flags state of U.S.-Russia relations:

The panel was headed by Gary Hart, a former Democratic senator from Colorado, and Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska. Its members include two former national security advisers, Brent Scowcroft and Robert C. McFarlane; Sam Nunn, a former Georgia senator experienced in Russia issues; and Lee H. Hamilton, a former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The commission report said that the new administration should "accept that neither Ukraine nor Georgia is ready for NATO membership" but that it should also work with NATO allies to find other ways “to demonstrate a commitment to their sovereignty.” The United States, it said, does not now have “a compelling security interest” in NATO membership for either country.

An excerpt from AFP's Obama urged to oppose Georgia, Ukraine NATO bids:

“A special relationship with NATO short of membership could serve the same function as membership, and would be a useful way to ensure that those Ukrainians and Georgians seeking to join NATO do not become discouraged,” it said.

Look who’s here! Sam Nunn! Is that the Democratic “disarmament diplomat” who patronized Ukraine in the ‘90s and happily oversaw our giveaway of the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal?

OK, guys. If you think you can trade friends for favors, then you should know the probable price of your trade.

If you decide to trade us in, then we should reciprocate by pushing our own reset button. We should keep the door open to mutually beneficial trade with Iran.

The day Russia decides to move in, our commitment to the MTCR should be null and void.

Don't be discouraged!

Sources:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2009/3/17/91450.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/16/america/diplo.php
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090316/pl_afp/usrussiapoliticsdiplomacy_20090316210308

Obama: 'Like a Poland or a Czech Republic' (Updated)

I remember presidential candidate Obama saying “the Ukraine” —
with the definite article — which defines my country as a territory, not as a country.

I also remember Obama referring to the Poles and the Czechs as “fledgling democracies.”

But this quote knocked me off my feet:

Russia needs to understand our unflagging commitment to the independence and security of countries like a Poland or a Czech Republic. On the other hand, we have areas of common concern.

Call me a nitpicker, but I had never heard the indefinite article applied to Poland or the Czech Republic in a context like this. Never had I imagined it being applied by a U.S. president, much less by a former chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs.

Now, I’m not a native speaker of English and I'm not a stranger to different schools of thought. But I just wonder how countries “like a Canada or an Israel” would feel?

Because I’m a smalltime Ukrainian who lives in a smalltime country that gave up the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal for chicken feed, I view Obama's remarks as a Bittergate.

UPDATE
I just had a light bulb moment!

I do remember a case of Ukraine and Georgia being used as countable nouns — in a geopolitical context, by a senior official/politician!

Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Vice Speaker of the Russian State Duma: Your country and economy will collapse. And what will NATO do? Georgia: Immediately there will be war with Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia. That's why NATO will never accept you, Ukraine and Georgia. And then there's a more important scenario. Suppose everything is fine in Ukraine and Georgia. But we here think that it doesn't benefit us. And never will NATO trade Russia for one hundred Ukraines and two hundred Georgias.

I guess perestroika must be about to start in America, just Zhirinovsky expected.


Sources:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101376609&ft=1&f=1004

Is Ukraine Next on Obama’s Quid-Pro-Kremlin List?

There appears to be a bargaining process going on between Washington and Moscow, and Ukraine may very well be one of the bargaining chips.

In 1998, Ukraine could have supplied the turbines for the Iranian power plant in Bushehr, but dropped out of the deal after Washington's sticks-and-carrots diplomacy.

Naturally, Russia got Ukraine’s contract and Ukraine got no carrots.

But there’s still a lot of stuff in Ukraine that Iran might be interested in. All it takes to push the reset button is a little war in "Little Russia."

Will Washington take its chances and trade friends for favors?

Is the Obama-Clinton administration listening?

Sources:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2009/3/3/90584.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/washington/03prexy.html?_r=1

Obama No Longer Supports NATO Track for Ukraine?

Remember that? Now see this.

Dem Congressman to Russia: We Won’t Expand NATO If You Cooperate With Us on Iran

When I said Obama should avoid the trap of a Moscowcentric “Chicken Kiev” foreign policy, I meant this (3:46):

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): Now, we have not been willing, we have not been willing to put our priorities properly. We have not been willing to say to the Russians or the Europeans: "Hey Russia, we won't expand NATO into...into Ukraine and...uh-uh-uh...Georgia, right next to your borders, if you cooperate with us on Iran." We said the opposite. We said, in effect, that expanding NATO into Ukraine and Russia is more important to us than getting Russia’s cooperation on Iran. I think it’s the opposite way around. I think Iran and Israel are a hell of a lot more important than expanding NATO to Russia's borders. Why should we? What do we need it for? We've not been willing to say that.

Female voice: Because they invade Georgia.
Nadler: So let them invade Georgia! It’s right next to them. Would we tolerate a foreign…a uh-uh-uh…a Russian army in Mexico? Which is more important to us: Georgia or Israel, frankly?

Male voice: What is more important to us: Czechoslovakia or Austria?
Nadler: That’s a completely separate iss…completely different kind of question…

Male voice: Sorry about that.
Nadler: …completely separate kind of question. You have to try to engage and you have to try to avoid war.

So what's the priority: appeasement or engagement?

The next time Rep. Nadler revels in illusions of zero-casualty appeasement and compares Mexico to South Ossetia, there’s something he should know.

Unlike Georgia, Ukraine possesses long-range missile technology that may fall into terrorists’ hands in case Russia invades Ukraine.

Nadler should know that the SS-18 “Satan” and the SS-24 “Scalpel” were designed and manufactured in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

After relinquishing the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for non-aggression commitments from the U.S. and Russia, Ukraine joined the Missile Technology Control Regime in 1998.

Now, will Ukraine be able to control its missile technology in a state of war with Russia?

So when Nadler exudes tolerance of Russia’s hypothetical aggression against its neighbors, whose lives does he want to make miserable? Is ignorance always bliss?

Sources:
http://cybercossack.com/?p=1128
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/11/dem_congressman_let_russia_inv.asp