One week ago, the Kyiv Post published my op-ed as a counterpoint to Maya Sobchuk’s article urging Ukrainians to vote Democrat in the upcoming elections. I limited my op-ed to comparing the records of the two parties in supporting Ukraine, but reserved judgment as regards the two current candidates until after their conventions. My concluding sentence was that I did not think “that Donald Trump disappoints both in his support for Ukraine and his pushback to Vladimir Putin.”
This last sentence sparked several op-eds and reader comments, most of which were reasonable, substantiated, and restrained. It was gratifying to note – at a time of intense polarization – that Ukrainians could still disagree in a respectful manner. We should applaud all Ukrainians who are active in the political life of their adopted homelands, because – whichever side comes to power – it’s better that Ukrainians sit at the table rather than stand in the corridors of foreign policy formulation
The author of an op-ed urging Ukrainians to elect Joe Biden was especially perceptive. Perceptive in that he correctly labeled Trump a faux-Republican and not a real one. In illustrating his point with reference to his own voting record, it is clear that the party (if not its candidate) that he is now supporting is faux-Democrat.
Starting with Barack Obama (for the Democrats) and with Trump (for the Republicans), both parties have been taken over by a new breed of luminaries who gained power by appealing to diverse constituent interests and emerging cultural, demographic, and generational factions and “movements.:
It reminded me of Ronald Reagan’s famous statement when asked why he left the Democratic Party: “I did not leave the party. The party left me.”
The Democratic Party has a presidential candidate whose nomination required commitments and abdication to the most toxic elements of that party – all united in their belief that “the system” (meaning the nation) is hopelessly racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misanthropic, etc. and requires massive government control and intervention for its “transformation.”
The Republican Party is split between the “real” party that is still wedded to traditional American values and conservative principles (as reflected by such honorable men as Reagan, George H.W Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney), and Trump’s “faux-Republicans” who control the executive branch but with a minority of committed loyalists in Congress. It is the real, the traditional, Republican party that I support ……partly for its strong commitment to Ukraine and fending off Russia, and partly for its sound policies.
It is important that we keep these points in mind because this election is not so much about the comparative merits of either candidate but about the voter’s perception of Trump, his sentiment towards Ukraine and Russia, and his performance as president. A recent letter to the editor from a trustworthy Ukrainian who claims familiarity with Biden’s record, leads me to believe that – despite Biden’s failure, as Obama’s vice president, to meet Ukraine’s critical needs – he may very well be an “outstanding friend” of Ukraine.
But that does not mean much when there is widespread concern that Biden’s service as president may be greatly degraded or come to an untimely end because of his age, health. frailty, and/or (discernible signs of) cognitive decline.
The appropriate match-up, therefore, is between Trump and Kamala Harris or Susan Rice (Biden’s probable Secretary of State who had nixed the sending of arms to Ukraine). Can one really believe that the Democrat Party’s mélange of radical “progressive” ideologies and “movements” would give two hoots about Ukraine?
But what about Trump?
Where does he stand on Ukraine and Russia?
Trump’s attitude towards both Ukraine and Russia is puzzling.
In the case of Ukraine, his rhetoric shows hostility toward Ukrainians and their country. He had even gone so far as to withhold badly needed military funding as leverage in pursuit of his political interest.
And he has stated that Ukraine – not Russia – may be responsible for all his problems with his election. An interesting and revealing piece of information as to the genesis of Trump’s antipathy is an observation offered by Fiona Hill, former Russia expert on the National Security Council.
She tried to get Trump Republicans to stop propagating what she knew to be Kremlin propaganda concerning Ukraine’s “interference” in the election, but Trump would not let go. She quoted him as saying: “Don’t forget, Ukraine hated me. They were after me in the election. They wanted Hillary Clinton to win.” Nevertheless, Trump’s level of support for Ukraine has been far greater than that of the Obama/Biden Administration, and cannot be simply shunted aside by his detractors.
As regards Russia, the reverse has been the case. No one has heard him say one critical word of Putin, Russia, or his regime. In fact, he has defended Putin publicly and even expressed greater trust in Putin’s representations than those of America’s intelligence community. However, his actions belie his words because (according to Daniel Vajdich of the Atlantic Council) the Trump administration has been “much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold War era”.
A variety of explanations have been offered but no one claims knowledge or certainty.
Some, like one of the op-ed writers referred to above, simply assume that he had no alternative but to bend to congressional pressure, or to ongoing programs, or had overlapping commercial motives, or out of spite.
Others claim this is part of a “good cop-bad cop” script played off on Russia.
Still others see Trump’s “salesmanship” skills in this.
As for me, I have three disparate theories:
(a) Despite his personal antipathy Trump recognizes Ukraine as a vital component of America’s defense posture versus Russia; or (b) The ground is being laid for a nasty surprise for Ukraine in a second term; or
(c) Trump knows that Ukraine had nothing to do with the election interference in 2016 but must find a “fall guy” to take the pressure off himself and Russia.
Let’s review Trump’s actual record on Ukraine and his pushback on Russia.
As regards Mr. Trump’s pushback on Russia, the Brookings Institution published a list of Trump “actions” from 2017 to 2019 to “set the record on actions rather than rhetoric”. Although many of these “actions” are not directly related to Ukraine, they do support Trump’s assertion that he has been tough on Russia.” (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/ ).
Very briefly, Trump:
1. Closed 2 Russian consulates and sent 60 Russians packing;
2. Tightened Obama’s sanctions and added new ones;
3. Badgered European governments to make good on their pledge of $130 billion for NATO;
4. Strengthened NATO’s eastern and Black Sea flanks with thousands of troops, air defense systems, and a Stryker brigade;
5. Added $1.4 billion for FY 2018 to EDI – a military effort to deter Russian aggression; 6. Loosened rules of engagement for U.S. troops in Syria resulting in direct military clashes with hundreds of Russian casualties. 7 Admitted Montenegro into NATO over strong Russian objections and attempted coup.
As regards Ukraine, Trump:
- Provided 360 Javelin missiles capable of destroying 75% of Russian tanks in Donbas. They are now located in east Ukraine for frontline use.
- Sold 16 of America’s most advanced “Mark VI” patrol boats capable of destroying much of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.
- Blocked Nord Stream 2, thereby preserving $2-3 billion annual transit fee revenue for Ukraine.
- Established joint US-Ukraine military training base and approved Ukrainian participation in NATO land, sea, and air exercises.
- Gave Ukraine license to purchase and receive military supplies and support from NATO allies
One wonders, given Trump’s record towards Ukraine and Russia as shown above, and the damage it has done or can do them, why the Russians would want to continue supporting Trump? Could those clever bastards be running an operation within an operation to actually discredit Trump?
So where does that leave the Ukrainian American voter in November?
Keep in mind that a vote for Biden is a vote (in the near term) for Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and the most socialist and intrusive government that this nation has ever seen, together with all the unpredictable effects on the economy, safety, education, etc. that is commonplace in socialist countries.
If Trump is unacceptable to you, you can always leave the presidential line blank, so that neither choice should burden your conscience.
But regardless of who you vote for (or not) on the presidential line, remember that the Republican candidates for Congress listed on your ballot are -more likely than not – the “real” Republicans (most of the overtly faux Republicans were washed out in the primaries).
Vote for all of them. These will provide the essential counterweight to an executive and legislative branch dominated by the Democrats.
The odds are that the Democrats will comfortably hold the House and are favored to take the Senate.
Your vote in November may be your last opportunity to hold back extremism.
See related op-eds:
Reno Domenico: The case for Joe Biden
Ukrainian Americans for Biden launch campaign
Ukrainian Americans for Biden counter Republican arguments for Trump
