U.S. ROLE IN THE UKRAINE CRISIS AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

COMMENTARY

by Gordon Hahn

One can perhaps understand that the US wants to support Kiev against Russia. I do not agree with this policy, and believe the US helped cause the crisis and should show leadership in resolving it rather than sitting by silently and letting it deepen or worse contributing to its escalation. But can anyone supporting our support for Kiev explain to me why we have not demanded that Kiev rein in its forces so they observe some minimal care for civilian lives and arrest Right Sector and other terrorists deliberately killing civilians and refusing to submit to state no less civilian control? Shameful. George Washington is rolling over in his grave or better President and General Eisenhower, who led the Western fight against German fascism. As the son of a West Pointer, after decades of loving my country, I can say with sadness that I am ashamed at the failure to seek a resolution. What vital American interest does Ukraine being in NATO and the EU serve, in particular, when a the jihadi threat grows and Russia can play an important role in fighting it. Rather than bickering and killing Ukraine, we should be preparing joint, full-scale military operations with Russia, Ukraine, and other willing states against IS and AQ in the Levant. When NATO member Turkey is overrun we will rue the day we allowed Cold War inertia, the NATO bureaucracy, and State Department/USAID democracy-promotion zealots to turn our heads away from the real threat.

Comments

[Michael Droy]

This is simple (and the question was probably rhetorical).

1. The US is not top down lead. Various groups within the administration lead it in various directions. They create public opinion and if they do it effectively enough the poor president has no real choice but to continue to back them. The phrase "vote-loser not to" wins all arguments. Pyatt, Nuland, and Gordon Hahn must know better than I who, lead the ukraine adventure. They got support from bits of the EU and of course NATO have been fighting this as a battle for NATO's existence.

So we are now in a position where the US has probably (for all the obvious and very sensible reasons) decided it no longer wants part of this mess. With the EU, the US has almost certainly been telling Ukraine to rein in. But to say anything official would require admitting the prior involvement, and policy now is to deny involvement.

2. The Economic, Political and Military policy of Ukraine though, is to draw the US into a war with Russia. The country is bust, and while it is tempting to blame the nasty nazis for this, the truth is there is no better policy available. Simples. The IMF can't help, the EU have bigger issues with Greece and the like, and the US can't take responsibility for a mess it denies it was ever involved with.

In a normal world, shelling Russian speaking civilians 30 or 40 km from the Russian border has to be the dumbest thing imaginable. It has only one effect - to provoke Russia - therefore that is clearly the rationale.

But Russia has waited and waited (and perhaps been the least aggressive nation conceivable - ha) and now there is no chance that the US will get involved. Poor Ukrainians, and poor E Ukraine.