The U.S.-Ukraine strategic relationship is clearly important, not just bilaterally, but also for our 21st Century relationship with all of central and eastern Europe. Unfortunately, the nature of that relationship has been badly obscured by the impeachment hearings.
- Listening to the testimonies and wading through hearing transcripts, one could easily conclude that Ukraine is as important to U.S. national interests as NATO. Simply put, it is not.
- Ukraine is important to the U.S. for sure, and how we handle Russian incursions in that country impacts deterrence and U.S. credibility. But Ukraine is not “vital” to Washington, the way it is for Moscow.
Any mentioning of even the idea of Ukrainian statehood excites extreme emotion in Russian officials as well as the vast majority of Russians themselves – as I personally witnessed on numerous visits to that country. The Putin quip that Ukraine “is not even a country” frames the Russian view precisely.
- Again, this doesn’t mean that Ukraine is unimportant. Ambassadors Taylor, Yovanovitch, and others in the House witness chairs repeatedly stressed the “strategic” importance of our relationship. U.S. efforts since Ukraine’s independence in 1991 have attempted to foster closer diplomatic ties and spur a lethargic economy fraught with problems of corruption.
- Given Ukraine’s size and its breathtaking economic potential, these have been worthy goals spanning four U.S. administrations. In this sense, the evolving relationship is indeed “strategic.” But that relationship is not “vital;” we won’t go to war to protect it.
Russia will ALWAYS have what the Pentagon refers to as “escalation dominance” over the U.S. regarding Ukraine. Nothing short of nuclear war can prevent Russia from absorbing Ukraine, should Moscow desire. And we won’t militarily escalate to prevent that. We’d be willing to fight, however, and our war plans are accordingly designed, should Russia attack NATO and attempt to hive off parts of it. That’s the difference. And that’s the underlying confusion that the otherwise revealing testimony over the last few weeks on Ukraine obscured.
Where every administration since 1991 - up to Donald Trump’s - has erred is in believing that Ukraine should be put on a path for eventual NATO membership. Trump has pulled the U.S. back from that path, and he and his team are smart to do so.
- As veteran European analyst Michael O’Hanlon wrote recently in USA Today, the Clinton/Bush43/Obama push for Ukrainian NATO membership “has managed to help inflame U.S.-Russia and Russia-Ukraine ties without making life better for the people of Ukraine.”
- Is it wise for the U.S. to try to continue to deepen diplomatic and business ties between the U.S. and Ukraine, and even encourage EU membership down the line? For sure.
- But it’s also wise, and long overdue, once the impeachment dust settles, for the NSC and the White House to quietly re-think the true “strategic” relationship between Washington and Kiev. Sadly, with the departure of so many seasoned diplomats and Ukraine experts over the last year, that task will not be an easy one.
