On Dec. 5, 1994, President Clinton and
the leaders of Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation signed a
Memorandum in Budapest in which Ukraine agreed to relinquish all of its nuclear
weapons in exchange for “commitments”
and “obligations” to (a) respect the independence and sovereignty and
the existing borders of Ukraine; (b) refrain from the threat or use of force
against Ukraine’s territorial integrity or independence; and (c) refrain from
economic coercion designed to subordinate Ukrine’s exercise of its
sovereignty. China and France provided similar national security assurances in
separate statements; and, five years later, Russia and the U.S. reconfirmed
their commitments in a joint declaration.
Although the Memorandum lacks enforcement
mechanism, Ukraine was persuaded to abjure its nuclear weapons and super-power
status because of U.S., Russian, and UK commitments. Of the signatories, only Russia could have been
considered an existential threat to Ukraine at some time in the future, but the
joint declaration made that appear very unlikely. The U.S. had “won” the Cold
War, was the sole superpower, and its word was good as gold. If its assurances were to have no underlying
enforcement implications, then it was simply engaging in a cynical, diplomatic
shell game.
We know, Mr. President, that you have made
firm and unequivocal commitments of support for Ukraine…as have other top
officials in your administration. Those were welcome and reassuring words. But words alone, even those as eloquent and
reasoned as yours, have not stopped one of the co-signatories of the Memorandum
from tearing it to shreds. In fact,
Putin’s actions seem designed to demonstrate that the U.S. is a toothless
tiger, that its threats and commitments are hollow, and that the scorn and
contempt that he has often shown towards you and the United States are
warranted. Is it not obvious that so much of what you hope to accomplish on a
global level depends on your and our nation’s credibility?
But despite the words, the limited material
support, and the modest sanctions, neither the U.S. nor UK have come even
close to honoring their implied commitment to come to Ukraine’s
assistance. Your insistence, and that of some European leaders, that Ukraine
should not be given “lethal” assistance is inexplicable. How, in God’s name, can you and Mr. Biden
reconcile your promises to stand with Ukrainians through thick and thin, while,
at the same time, refuse to provide them with the means to defend themselves
against a modern military machine that is ten times larger? Ukraine has never
asked for foreign military personnel to come to its assistance, but how can you
possibly withhold supplies Ukraine needs to merely defend itself? I can understand the Germans or the
French…..they are always playing
shameless double games. But why
are you resisting military and intelligence experts as well as political
leaders from both parties who are urging you to throw Ukraine the rope it needs
to save itself?
You insist that the U.S. act in concert
with its European “partners” and with the world community. But neither the EU nor the United Nations
committed to Ukrainé’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. The U.S. did.
Most, if not all of Europe will follow, and NATO is extremely likely to
look to the U.S. to take the lead. Trying to keep the various states to act in
concert is a little like herding two dozen cats, but restoring peace and the
rule of international law in Europe is worthy of a U.S. president. You, more
than any other leader on the world stage, are able to persuade the French to
hold off on delivery of “Mistral”; work out strategies for alternative sources
of energy; provide immediate support to
Ukraine of modern lethal weapons, training, and intelligence; and hit hard at
the Russian economy with sanctions – either alone or in concert with others.
Mr. President, I have proudly served in our
nation’s armed forces for over a quarter century; and I know that Ukrainians
would not now be fighting for their survival if they had not given up their
nuclear weapons. They trusted our
assurances – even if not explicitly defined – to offer protection against
aggression. You have already affirmed
and shown your intent to honor those assurances. Let’s show the world (in the
words of Mark Twain) that the reports of America’s demise are greatly
exaggerated.
With kind regards,
George Woloshyn
George Woloshyn worked in the administration of U.S. President Ronald Reagan. He is a former naval intelligence commander and former director of U.S. National Security Preparedness and a former director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Security Investigations.
