Two U.S. presidents, Richard Nixon and Ronald
Reagan were of similar mind about Russia: it was the principal enemy. For
Nixon, of primary importance was to split China from Russia’s influence. Henry Kissinger’s mission to Beijing didn’t come from the blue sky. As for Reagan,
there is no need to detail what he had done and how.
Nixon is justifiably credited for getting
the United States out of Vietnam mess. Vietnam was a distraction for America, into which
Nixon’s predecessor, President Lyndon Johnson and the Pentagon politicians had
plunged with both feet and made the longest war in American history (hold on
till Afghanistan). This gives one some idea how confused can be the White House
when it comes to defining and finding America’s national interest. President Barack
Obama is not the only US president struggling with conflicts. He had an idea of
“pivoting” on China, but wait, the ISIS are now coming in Iraq.
President George W. Bush was classical in
making bad decisions, no doubt with the help from his Vice President Dick
Chaney. Together they managed to construct a historic hodgepodge of nation building
in Iraq and Afghanistan, a feat that cost America trillions in financial
disaster and economic calamity in 2008.
Among the consequences of America’s
over-extension in Asia , NATO has become a joke, and Russia is not only making
war in Ukraine, but is also infusing its “legitimate interests” into the
thought process of western gurus, who seem to be taking seriously Mr. Putin’s
concern for the Russian language speakers outside Russia. They also see Moscow’s emotionally charged
geopolitical connivances as the mitigating if not entirely justifiable reasons
for expanding Russia’s borders.
Far from Russia, America’s media channels
at this moment are luxuriating in the coverage of race rioting in Missouri and
also in the horrors perpetrated by the suddenly mushrooming and marauding ISIS
Islamic state in Iraq. The irony of ISIS battlefield success is their
possession of heavy American weapons captured from Iraq government forces that
are in no mood to fight.
Recent panic from Iraq has traveled far and
beyond. At least one prominent US senator has demanded immediate action from
President Obama to prevent the ISIS from invading the United States (sic). Is the
US national interest under threat as perceived in the midst of this
confusion? Should we do the Iraq thing
all over again? Another ten years? And another batch of three trillion dollar
debt? Europe too is chiming in and is offering to send weapons for Iraq. Yes,
for Iraq, not for Ukraine which is invaded by Russia.
Most of western Europe is feeling blissfully
safe. But central Europe is totally dependent on the United States for security.
Without the US, the balance of power in Europe is on Russia’s side. Unfortunately,
the United States today is prepared to defend Europe about as much as it was
ready to defend Pearl Harbor in 1941.
One important difference between 1941 and
now is that the U.S. had President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the White House in
1941. None of today’s leaders in America measure up. Whatever his flaws, FDR
understood that Europe is key to the security of the United States. Victory and
US presence in Europe took priority over anything happening in Asia. That was
his perception of the US national interest. Those who hound FDR for “giving
center-east Europe to Stalin” at Yalta in January 1945 are mostly oblivious of
the reality of Soviet army already standing in Poland at that same time.
To say that today Ukraine is part of the
European equation is an understatement. Doubters should notice Russia’s
appetite extending all the way into central Europe. Ask why Russia now is in
the former East Prussia, which was German for a thousand years. And how
legitimate are Russia’s allegedly legitimate interests which require, by implication,
downgrading or ignoring the basic national interests of Ukraine?
These questions are tangentially mishandled
by Tony Barber in the Financial Times (“Poland’s past points to the future of
its neighbors”, August 19). No breakthrough there. Yes, Poland probably “never
had it so good” as it has now, certainly not in the last 200 years when it
mostly disappeared from the map, partitioned between Russia, Germany and
Austria. It owes its liberation to the
United States in 1989 at least as much as to its own grit and the good luck of
Michael Gorbachev’s ascendancy in Moscow.
But fundamentally, Poland’s leaders understand
a historic truth: Poland is much more secure if Russia is kept out of Ukraine.
Ukraine was lucky two years later the same
way as Poland was – with the collapse of
the hardliners’ revolt in Moscow in August 1991, which triggered the
declaration of independence in Kyiv.
Today Ukraine stands alone in war with
Russia, with diplomatic support from the West ,which puts some pressure on Russia
with sanctions that have no effect on Russia’s ability to invade Ukraine,
reinforce the proxies in Donetsk and Luhansk, and undermine Ukraine’s economy.
The ceasefire urged by Germany’s Chancellor
Angela Merkel, who now is in a leading role seeking some compromise, is at odds
with those who think Ukrainian forces should press to defeat the rebels, which
President Petro Poroshenko has tried to do. Putin most likely is playing it by ear and
looking for more openings to inflict more damage and wear out Ukraine’s
resolve.
Boris Danik is a retired Ukrainian-American living in North Caldwell, New Jersey.
