So let me be the first to start the next round of questions that may start only a few months (a year or two at the most) in the future. It is a hypothetical question as long as Ukraine prevails in its defense of Europe, as it did in the 10th through 13th centuries against Asiatic hordes. But, unless Europe and the White House wake up to the daunting reality of what awaits them if Ukraine should fall, it may haunt mankind for generations.
The loss of Europe began in 1994 when both the U.S. and England pressured and stripped Ukraine of its strategic and tactical nuclear arms while committing themselves to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Had Ukraine retained at least its tactical nukes, the likelihood of Russian aggression against Ukraine would have been very small. But with British and US pledges, Ukraine thought such aggression equally unlikely.
After Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to test U.S. and British commitments to Ukraine in Crimea, and discovered that they were empty of content but heavy on rhetoric and diplomatic blather, it greatly strengthened his hand domestically and convinced him that neither British Prime Minister David Cameron nor U.S. President Barack Obama could hold a candle to a Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. Ukraine, like Czechoslovakia in 1938, was betrayed.
Putin now had every reason to believe that the deconstruction of Ukraine would be a cakewalk. After President Viktor Yanukovych and his ministers fled the country, the remaining government in Kyiv acknowledged that its mission was “suicidal.” Its army consisted largely of a few thousand demoralized, poorly trained and equipped troops. The nation’s information space was dominated by Russian and pro-Russian propaganda. Its treasury had been drained, and left with tens of billions dollars of debts. Every government agency responsible for the nation’s security was riddled by Russian agents, saboteurs, and traitors. The economy, already weak, was hit with a trade war and a cut off of energy supplies.
To everyone’s surprise, Ukraine miraculously rose like a phoenix out of the ashes within one year. It not only survived, but liberated some if its Russian-occupied territory, and proceeded to build one of the largest, combat-ready land forces in Europe.
While Russia is rapidly regressing into its dark, totalitarian past, Ukraine has shaken off two decades of post-Soviet passiveness and is moving rapidly towards democratic, modern, European statehood. And despite Russian threats and flexing of its military muscle, Ukraine – alone among all the NATO countries of Europe – has remained Russia’s primary obstacle to its European ambitions.
But there is also a dark side to what appears – on the surface – to be a happy outcome. Every day and every night Russian trains and trucks laden with military supplies and troops have been moving into the occupied territories, and barely a day goes by without Ukrainian casualties from Russian shelling. All signs point to a major Russian offensive in the works, and the possibility of a break-through at various points along the front lines. While Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande enjoy relative peace behind the backs of Ukrainian combatants defending the approach to Europe, none want to send them weapons with which they could save thousands of troops and civilians from superior Russian firepower and hold steadfast in the face of enemy advances. They are more concerned about the thug being “provoked” by a victim’s effort to defend himself than to help the victim beat back the thug. So this is what the “free world” has come to.
But if the line should not hold …..what then? Will NATO be prepared to deploy its troops to hold back Putin’s storm-troopers? Where are its troops? Which country in NATO will be the first to respond? Is any NATO country even prepared to respond? If not…how long will it take to mobilize? Will all countries honor their NATO agreement or will some make separate deals with Putin? What if Putin decides to use a small nuclear device on a frontline state as a warning….will Obama activate U.S. nuclear forces? The president has already debased the value of U.S. commitments under the Budapest Agreement, and has consistently rejected the urging of Congress, his intelligence agencies, his top military advisers, and his national security experts to arm Ukraine…..why would he suddenly change his trajectory in the face of a nuclear threat?
The simple reality is that Russia’s ambitions extend not only to Ukraine but to Europe. No single country in NATO is prepared to stand up to Russia’s military machine, so each puts its head in the sand and hopes that others will come to its aid. But, ultimately, the whole NATO house of cards depends on U.S. and British nuclear deterrents. It is precisely these two countries whose trustworthiness is at issue.
Only reckless leaders would put their countries at risk without unambiguous answers to all the questions raised herein. But the only unambiguousness is the Ukrainian combatant now guarding Europe. So it is of critical importance that he be given all the weapons and supplies he needs to safeguard himself and to.push back Russian forces. Only then will a diplomatic solution be possible, or a favorable military solution come within reach. Only then will future generations not look to Obama, Cameron, Merkel and Hollande when historians inquire as to who lost Europe.
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.
