In a world gone diabolically green, organic and sugar-free, there’s one recipe you can count on being health-at-every-size. In fact, this oldie has nothing to do with food per se (if only figuratively). Nor is it known to the general Western public (why, oh why?). Perhaps because over the last three decades it has helped a nation of 52, er, 41 million people stuff itself full of gut-wrenching and artery-clogging failed policies? Don’t worry: According to much of Western media, they’re all spicy success stories.
If you’re a State Department vet, you probably get the hint. If not, let’s crack into it. On August 1, 1991, then-US president George H. W. Bush landed in Kyiv to send a message to the second-largest Soviet republic. The last (and first) US president to visit the capital of Soviet Ukraine was Richard Nixon, on May 30, 1972, during a fleeting East-West rapprochement known as détente. In the ‘70s, the USSR stood at the apex of power, its coffers swelling with petrodollars from the oil shock bonanza and its nuclear arsenal approaching parity with the US.
By mid-1991, however, the world looked much different: The US-led coalition had scored a spectacular win in the Gulf War against Soviet client state Iraq; the Eastern Bloc had collapsed; low oil prices, coupled with misguided reforms, had crippled the Soviet economy, fuelling a tide of ethnic violence, pro-democracy protests and calls for independence. Though headed to the scrapper the rusty Soviet Union may have appeared to many, nobody knew for sure or just how fast. Visiting US president George H. W. Bush certainly had no idea. Neither did Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev nor Soviet Ukrainian leader Leonid Kravchuk. And unlike the guy in Kyiv — a leader in search of a country, a big fish in a small pond — the whales in Moscow and Washington had vested interests in the status quo. Rivals as they were, they didn’t want the USSR to go. Obviously, Gorbachev didn’t want to lose his job. Bush, in turn, didn’t want to deal with a hellhole of 15 warring Soviet republics, four of which possessed apocalyptic stockpiles of tactical and strategic nukes. Since the ‘90s, this confluence of superpower interests has presided over Ukraine, leading to our denuclearization and marginalization under a coercive and abusive conservatorship of sorts. Many Western millennials have heard of Britney Spears’ shocking situation. Many have even heard of Trump’s and Biden’s ethically challenged Ukraine connections. But how many have heard of Ukraine’s sovereignty-crushing Budapest Memorandum and Minsk Accords? Ironically, having done most of the heavy lifting on our denuclearization, Conservator 1 (the overseas democrat) threw the controlling stake in our future at the mercy of Conservator 2 (the despot next door). In other words, hit them, Russia, one more time!
Back to August 1, 1991, in greater detail: Even before Bush set foot on the floor of the Verkhovna Rada, the parliament of then-Soviet Ukraine, you could “read his lips.” He wanted the USSR weakened but not wrecked. For us Ukrainians that meant yes to perestroika and no (or shall we say, nyet) to independence. (Fun fact: In less than a month, on August 24, Kyiv would declare independence anyway after a failed anti-democracy coup in Moscow. Other republics would follow suit, retiring the USSR by the end of 1991.)
Naturally, the piñata of well-meaning yet tone-deaf Moscow-centric rhetoric that Bush unpacked in Kyiv on the eve of independence upset many Ukrainians and Ukrainian Americans (hence the nickname “chicken Kiev,” as spelled at the time). The most stingingly memorable quote:
Yet freedom is not the same as independence. Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.
Oh, boy! Imagine Americans being told something like this by France in 1776 as they fought for independence from Britain. Interestingly, Bush’s benign interference in Ukraine’s nation-rebuilding efforts echoed unsavory remarks made by then-British PM Margaret Thatcher during her visit to Kyiv in June 1990.
Fast forward to December 5, 1994: Britain joins the US and Russia to impose on Ukraine the infamous Budapest Memorandum that the world still knows so little about. How much resistance could you expect from a fledgling democracy of “millionaires” — thanks to raging hyperinflation — with monthly wages averaging a few million karbovantsi, or just $20? And don’t forget about Chernobyl being a not so distant memory. So after some inept haggling, our leadership finally caved in to US pressure. We happily traded the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal — some 1,700 strategic nukes — for “security assurances” from the three nuclear powers. Had the trio provided us with bona fide spoilers on how the arrangement would work in practice? Shouldn’t Ukraine — a nation of 52 million (1994) and a founding UN member (1945) at that — have been accorded the decency of a referendum?
Well done, Ukraine! The reward came in the form of billions in Western aid — and heavy accolades lavished on our “bold and farsighted leadership.” Still, over the next quarter of a century Ukraine would sink behind all its neighbors — and into the depths of the third world.
Having lost our nukes to superpower pressure, we lost our government to rampant corruption, our industry to unhinged oligarchs, our national wealth to offshore bank accounts, our population to labor migration and depopulation, our conventional military to endless disarmament and (surprise!) parts of our country to Russia, one of our Budapest Memorandum “security assurances” pals. Having literally become Europe’s poorest country, we’re about to part ways with our farmland, some of the best in the world.
We did enjoy a few bright moments, a few sparks of hope as we tried to break out of Russia’s swampy sphere of influence. We call them the Orange Revolution (2004-2005) and the Revolution of Dignity (2013-2014). Cheered on by the West, none of these turned out to be a real revolution, each being a byproduct of its predecessor’s failure. The last one cost us particularly dearly. Still, on a positive note, in 2008, thanks to then-US president George W. Bush, we almost secured a pathway to NATO membership. Yesss, almost! Who would have thought that George H. W. Bush’s offspring would make the best US president in Ukrainian history?
Trump can become a close second now — now that we have Biden, who emulates Obama’s softer-than-Trump policies while enraging even Obama’s ethics chief. Biden says Ukraine has to “clean up corruption” in order to qualify for NATO membership. Seriously? Does that mean the US has to disqualify itself from NATO until Hunter Biden drops his performance-enhancing family name and refunds any lucrative deals made in connection with his father holding office? Shouldn’t NATO standards be at least equal to those at the Olympics?
But then again, as the latest moving of the goalposts suggests, in Ukraine’s case it’s not just the corruption and the lack of reforms holding us back. We need to be welcomed by all 30 NATO member states, primarily by France and Germany. Moscow, of course, views the duo as its go-to hit squad when it comes to Ukraine’s NATO aspirations. With the nodding approval of Washington (our “deeply concerned” denuclearizers), Paris and Berlin don’t mind us fully capitulating to the Russian-dictated Minsk Accords. Why not? Are those Budapest Memorandum “security assurances” going to fly anytime soon, hatchlings as they are of “Chicken Kiev”? Now listen to this: Under Minsk (what a lovely place!), Ukraine must rewrite its Constitution. We must do so in a vassal-like manner, even before a Russian withdrawal from Donbas (Minsk doesn’t mention Crimea). We must legalize Russia’s grip on our statehood by granting “special status” to Russian-held Donbas and amnesty to local collaborators (with the sole exception of war criminals). That means all sorts of other eligible characters, many with blood on their hands: People who fought against Ukraine, people who ran collaborationist institutions and people who grabbed Russian citizenship (up to half a million). Hey Boris! You clean? Good! Come vote for your favorite sniper or spotter or tankman or mayor — or even run yourself. Don’t be shy! We’ve got a few hundred Russian T-72B3s as election observers.
With a heavy flavor of Orwell and Machiavelli, the taste of Minsk couldn’t be more “Chicken Kiev”: The Americans “will not aid” us. We Ukrainians must pay for our “suicidal nationalism” and “ethnic hatred” of our Russian minority. That minority’s role in Russian imperial designs to keep Ukraine in Moscow’s orbit by military force must be excused at all costs. Just look the other way and play dumb. Novichok, Navalny, Nord Stream 2? No connection! No harm! And carry on: Minsk! Minsk! Minsk! NATO no, Minsk yes!
Let the French and German diplomats continue feigning ignorance of Article 157 of Ukraine’s Constitution, which prohibits passing any amendments — any “special statuses,” any safe spaces, any autonomous zones whatsoever — in wartime. We’re at war, n’est-ce pas? Our soldiers — many of whom grew up speaking mostly Russian — are getting killed this “summer of love.” Ja, ja, wir verstehen! As Biden put it, “they still have to clean up corruption.”
So what have we learned from three delicious decades of being served “Chicken Kiev” by Washington, London, Paris and Berlin? Perhaps instead of enriching our jet-set, offshore-loving, “buffer role”-“content” elites we should start enriching uranium? Can’t we do so while professing “our full and unwavering commitment to nuclear non-proliferation”?
Well, maybe there is a workaround, a way to extort NATO membership short of making Ukraine nuclear again (or embracing China). How about president Zelensky shows up at the US southern border using ze as his, er, hir preferred pronoun and carrying the following sign: “God, guns (gone), guts! Greetings from nuclear-disarmed Ukraine!” Wouldn’t that be irresistibly relatable? Mission accomplished. Bipartisan support guaranteed.
Let’s move on to Germany. If a million Syrian refugees can join NATO, why can’t a few more million Ukrainians? What’s wrong with the descendants of the millions killed and enslaved by the Nazis? That may include some 1.5 million internally displaced by Russia’s war against Ukraine.
In the meantime, let’s proudly kick off another decade of consuming our big, fat and-like “Chicken Kyiv.” Or maybe even order some from Hunter Biden’s art gallery.
