The Kyiv Post published my letter, but they cut out the best part: my alternative to NATO's or Russia's absorption of Ukraine into their sphere of influence. The full, original text is below.
Dear Editor,
In response to your paper's monolithic "pro" stance for Ukraine's NATO entry, which you say is required immediately because of Russia's overly aggressive response in Georgia, let me offer a different view.
First, let's remember: Ukraine is not Georgia. The two countries' fates are not necessarily intertwined -- not unless President Yushchenko chooses to meddle in the Russia-Georgia conflict, at Ukraine's peril. Let's hope Yushchenko knows the difference between expressing words of solidarity, and committing national suicide.
As an American, and a patriot, my first concern is whether Ukraine's admission into NATO is in America's interest. The answer is: No. NATO and the U.S. would gain little from Ukraine. As the Kyiv Post noted, Ukraine's conscript army is small, outdated, with terrible morale; and Ukraine cannot afford to fund its NATO commitments. Ukraine has offered radar listening stations to NATO, but they are not of much defensive value. With all of their current satellites and listening stations, America and NATO can already see and hear what is happening in Russia. These stations are not about defense, they are about reducing Russia's nuclear first-strike capability. This means eliminating the principal of mutually assured destruction (MAD), the terrible yet terribly effective foundation for nuclear peace for the past 40 years. After attacking Iraq and Iran, this is U.S. neocons' greatest mad dream. Naturally, this worries Russia, as it should worry any unbiased observer. Renewing a nuclear arms race with Russia is not in America's, or the world's, interest. Unfortunately, the fate of the world still depends on MAD.
More importantly to your readers, NATO expansion is not in Ukraine's interest. Ukraine could gain some side advantages, yes, like some international prestige and perhaps eventual EU membership. But overall, Ukraine is more likely to suffer badly as a result.
A majority of the Ukrainian parliament and population opposes Ukraine's membership in NATO. Moreover, the emotional intensity of the anti-NATO majority far exceeds the pro-NATO minority's, as violent anti-NATO demonstrations in Ukraine have recently shown. If Ukraine is a real democracy, public opinion -- especially on such an important question -- cannot be defied by one man or his cabal. Most Ukrainians recognize that Russia is very, very close, and America is very far away, and all the rational implications.
Russia is Ukraine's #1 trading partner; and it provides most of Ukraine's oil and natural gas. NATO can't change that. NATO membership would leave Ukraine just as vulnerable to all kinds of Russian meddling, not the least of which would be turning off Ukraine's gas supply in the middle of winter. NATO can't stop Russia from actively fomenting separatism in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, openly and in secret. NATO can't stop Russia from cracking down on the millions of legal and illegal Ukrainians living in Russia; and NATO can't stop Russia from refusing entry to the millions more who travel to Russia each year on business or to visit family. NATO can't stop Russia from imposing crippling tariffs on Ukrainian imports, or dreaming up pretexts to declare Ukrainian products "unsafe" for consumption. Russia can afford to do all this, and take some losses, because it is swimming in Western cash from oil and gas profits. Ukraine does not enjoy the same luxury. In summary, NATO can guarantee only helplessness in the face of Russia's escalation of non-military interference in Ukraine's affairs.
But what about Crimea, your readers ask? (Let's leave that contentious sandbar Tuzla aside for now.) Again, as a U.S. patriot, I have to question seriously the wisdom of admitting into my defensive alliance a militarily weak country with a potentially dangerous territorial dispute with a nuclear behemoth. (And that goes doubly -- no, squared -- for Georgia!) Yet as a grateful guest of Ukraine who greatly values Ukraine's independence, I must ask myself: Is there an alternative to NATO? An answer that precludes putting Ukraine in the middle of a tug-of-war between Great Powers? There is. The U.S. should exert its diplomatic muscle, gather its allies, and issue a clear and unequivocal statement along these lines:
The free world has no interest in controlling Ukraine, a sovereign and independent country, or in occupying its territory with foreign military personnel against Ukraine's wishes. The free world does have an interest in preserving Ukraine's freedom and territorial integrity along its current borders. The free world will not tolerate any diminution of Ukraine.
The U.S. could even say this in a UN Security Council Resolution. If Russia vetoed such a resolution, it would have a lot of awkward explaining to do, and risk international pariah status. (Russia's expulsion from the G-8 would be a good first response). Let America (and Ukraine) first take more moderate steps to preserve the status quo, without seeking to give one side an advantage in Ukraine that could upset the balance of peace, or move America and Russia toward a nuclear hair-trigger.
Finally, NATO or no NATO, we in the West should have enough gumption, and faith in our values and principles to say, publicly and privately, that we will not tolerate the worst-case scenario: Russia's full or partial annexation of Ukraine. Let me offer some perspective... Like Ukraine, Finland is a free and democratic European country which cooperates with NATO, but is not a NATO member. Russia has invaded both countries in the past. Yet nobody doubts that American and the West would fight a Russian attack on Finland, NATO or no NATO. The same tacit, universal understanding must exist regarding Ukraine's inviolability: Never again; not here.
In response to your paper's monolithic "pro" stance for Ukraine's NATO entry, which you say is required immediately because of Russia's overly aggressive response in Georgia, let me offer a different view.
First, let's remember: Ukraine is not Georgia. The two countries' fates are not necessarily intertwined -- not unless President Yushchenko chooses to meddle in the Russia-Georgia conflict, at Ukraine's peril. Let's hope Yushchenko knows the difference between expressing words of solidarity, and committing national suicide.
As an American, and a patriot, my first concern is whether Ukraine's admission into NATO is in America's interest. The answer is: No. NATO and the U.S. would gain little from Ukraine. As the Kyiv Post noted, Ukraine's conscript army is small, outdated, with terrible morale; and Ukraine cannot afford to fund its NATO commitments. Ukraine has offered radar listening stations to NATO, but they are not of much defensive value. With all of their current satellites and listening stations, America and NATO can already see and hear what is happening in Russia. These stations are not about defense, they are about reducing Russia's nuclear first-strike capability. This means eliminating the principal of mutually assured destruction (MAD), the terrible yet terribly effective foundation for nuclear peace for the past 40 years. After attacking Iraq and Iran, this is U.S. neocons' greatest mad dream. Naturally, this worries Russia, as it should worry any unbiased observer. Renewing a nuclear arms race with Russia is not in America's, or the world's, interest. Unfortunately, the fate of the world still depends on MAD.
More importantly to your readers, NATO expansion is not in Ukraine's interest. Ukraine could gain some side advantages, yes, like some international prestige and perhaps eventual EU membership. But overall, Ukraine is more likely to suffer badly as a result.
A majority of the Ukrainian parliament and population opposes Ukraine's membership in NATO. Moreover, the emotional intensity of the anti-NATO majority far exceeds the pro-NATO minority's, as violent anti-NATO demonstrations in Ukraine have recently shown. If Ukraine is a real democracy, public opinion -- especially on such an important question -- cannot be defied by one man or his cabal. Most Ukrainians recognize that Russia is very, very close, and America is very far away, and all the rational implications.
Russia is Ukraine's #1 trading partner; and it provides most of Ukraine's oil and natural gas. NATO can't change that. NATO membership would leave Ukraine just as vulnerable to all kinds of Russian meddling, not the least of which would be turning off Ukraine's gas supply in the middle of winter. NATO can't stop Russia from actively fomenting separatism in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, openly and in secret. NATO can't stop Russia from cracking down on the millions of legal and illegal Ukrainians living in Russia; and NATO can't stop Russia from refusing entry to the millions more who travel to Russia each year on business or to visit family. NATO can't stop Russia from imposing crippling tariffs on Ukrainian imports, or dreaming up pretexts to declare Ukrainian products "unsafe" for consumption. Russia can afford to do all this, and take some losses, because it is swimming in Western cash from oil and gas profits. Ukraine does not enjoy the same luxury. In summary, NATO can guarantee only helplessness in the face of Russia's escalation of non-military interference in Ukraine's affairs.
But what about Crimea, your readers ask? (Let's leave that contentious sandbar Tuzla aside for now.) Again, as a U.S. patriot, I have to question seriously the wisdom of admitting into my defensive alliance a militarily weak country with a potentially dangerous territorial dispute with a nuclear behemoth. (And that goes doubly -- no, squared -- for Georgia!) Yet as a grateful guest of Ukraine who greatly values Ukraine's independence, I must ask myself: Is there an alternative to NATO? An answer that precludes putting Ukraine in the middle of a tug-of-war between Great Powers? There is. The U.S. should exert its diplomatic muscle, gather its allies, and issue a clear and unequivocal statement along these lines:
The free world has no interest in controlling Ukraine, a sovereign and independent country, or in occupying its territory with foreign military personnel against Ukraine's wishes. The free world does have an interest in preserving Ukraine's freedom and territorial integrity along its current borders. The free world will not tolerate any diminution of Ukraine.
The U.S. could even say this in a UN Security Council Resolution. If Russia vetoed such a resolution, it would have a lot of awkward explaining to do, and risk international pariah status. (Russia's expulsion from the G-8 would be a good first response). Let America (and Ukraine) first take more moderate steps to preserve the status quo, without seeking to give one side an advantage in Ukraine that could upset the balance of peace, or move America and Russia toward a nuclear hair-trigger.
Finally, NATO or no NATO, we in the West should have enough gumption, and faith in our values and principles to say, publicly and privately, that we will not tolerate the worst-case scenario: Russia's full or partial annexation of Ukraine. Let me offer some perspective... Like Ukraine, Finland is a free and democratic European country which cooperates with NATO, but is not a NATO member. Russia has invaded both countries in the past. Yet nobody doubts that American and the West would fight a Russian attack on Finland, NATO or no NATO. The same tacit, universal understanding must exist regarding Ukraine's inviolability: Never again; not here.
No comments:
Post a Comment