The United States cannot fail the Ukraine as it has failed Egypt and other nations seeking freedom and democracy in recent years. Leading from behind has proven to be a failed type of foreign policy and the U.S. was not even sufficiently aware of conditions in Ukraine to lead at all. Another U.S. intelligence failure? Now, telephone diplomacy seems the only way the administration can deal with this severe breach of international law.
The yearning for freedom and democracy is an innate component of the human soul for millions and millions of people… just like Americans had to fight for and secure our freedoms over two hundred years ago. Of late, the President of our nation seems to have forgotten this fact and left those seeking freedom and democracy in the lurch all over the globe. Perhaps the United States cannot be the policeman of the world; however, we must be the strong advocate and protector of movements seeking to achieve human dignity and democracy.
Mourners carry the coffin of Volodymyr Topij, one of protesters that clashed with police at Kiev’s Independence Square, during his funeral in the city yesterday. Photograph: Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
Both the fall of communism and the Arab spring saw the blossoming of freedom. Yet the U.S., of late, has been slow to act decisively when threats have emerged and, as a result, people have died. This is especially obvious in areas of the world new to democracy and struggling to secure democracy.
Ukraine is a unique and pivotal nation for many reasons. Since its orange revolution some ten years ago, this nation of 45 million has been trying to develop a democratic form of government. This large, agriculturally significant, strategically located nation has had to endure corruption and the ever present gaze of the former mother Russia. Ukraine needs to have a stable government and cash—now. Phone calls, debate and extended diplomacy will not reduce the threat to a free nation in a timely fashion. Putin was planning and calculating, while the Olympics proceeded. Annexation of the Crimea, with its proximity to the Black Sea, cannot be allowed to stand.
The current Russian government seems intent on recreating the old Soviet empire. President Putin refuses to accept the dissolution of that empire and seeks to take advantage of perceived vacillation and indecisiveness on the part of the United States. For the Russian leaders there seems to be both a degree of nostalgia and a desire to extend their sphere of influence. With many nations reducing their defense budgets, including the United States, Russia under Putin must view this trend as an invitation to make daring and bold moves.
Ronald Reagan, the American President critical in the cause of the fall of communism, said, “Democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.”
The brave souls in Kiev Square recently proved this point again. How can the United States, NATO, and the free world fail them now?
Fletcher R. Hall
Joe Lill says
Editor,
After reading this editorial, and specifically the quote at the end from Ronald Reagan saying “Democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man”, I am wondering if the writer is advocating sending in the United States Military to prop up a country that is half way around the world. Aren’t we tired of that by now? George Bush, reacting to faulty intelligence, did the same thing in Iraq hoping that Democracy would take hold. Just last month 703 Iraqi’s died due to fighting between Shiites and Sunni’s, so our 1 TRILLION dollars and almost 5000 American lives lost were not enough to change things in that part of the world.
The editorial lacks specifics! What does the writer propose? Should we react unilaterally? Again?
As I, a registered Republican, type this response, there are meetings in Europe going on that would grant the Ukraine loans and put sanctions on the corrupt former Ukrainian politicians who have plundered the country’s treasury. I am sure there will be more talk of the diplomatic consequences that Russia will face if they continue their occupation of the Crimea or advance into the Ukraine heartland.
What I AM sure of is that this editorial, written by Mr. Hall, a former Republican lobbyist, has convinced me that I will vote across party lines in the next election.
Fletcher Hall says
Author Response:
I do not make it a practice to reply to my op-ed, opinion pieces. However, the initial reply to this piece, I believe, is off the point. The Ukraine piece was written to educate readers to the very serious nature of events in this country and the gravity of the implications across the globe. I do not imply military intervention. In fact, options in this situation matter are indeed limited. Without the agreement and participation of the entire membership of the EU and Nato, Mr. Putin may well achieve his objective of significantly increasing the sphere of Russian influence in the former states of the old Soviet Union. Due to the energy and agricultural assets found in Ukraine, especially the shale gas deposits in the Crimea, continuing to have Kiev look to Moscow rather than the West, is indeed a vital national interest of Mr. Putin’s Russia. However, violating international law and interfering in the efforts of Ukraine are to establish a democratic form of government are acceptable and must be resisted.
Having formerly being a lobbyist, has nothing to do with my views regarding the dangerous, serious and reprehensible Russian actions in the Ukraine.
Stephan Sonn says
Editor,
The author oversimplifies. Russia cannot survive as a viable nation without this important seaport and pipeline junction.
They need a 99 year lease on the infrastructure they actually built.
The cold war was rooted on the panic the author touts here as talking points.
Steve Payne says
Editor,
“Leading from behind has proven to be a failed type of foreign policy and the U.S. was not even sufficiently aware of conditions in Ukraine to lead at all. Another U.S. intelligence failure?”
Senator McCain posed very thing this to the Secretary of Defense at a hearing yesterday. He asked why the U.S. didn’t even know about the threat of the invasion in advance. Hagel responded that wasn’t the case and offered to meet with Sen. McCain to discuss it. They went back and forth with Hagel always offering a detailed briefing in a classified setting. Finally McCain sayed he didn’t need one because it was on the news and it must be a fact.
Joe Lill says
Editor,
I agree with Mr. Hall in that what is going on in the Crimea and in the Ukraine is a very serious matter. If it gets out of control it could easily become a disaster of major proportions that would certainly draw the United States and Nato into it. Poland, as a member of Nato, has invoked article 4 of Nato’s charter (only the fourth time in the history of Nato has this happened) so a military aspect of this problem is not out of the realm of possibilities.
I disagree with Mr. Hall that the United States needs, or has the ability, to take the lead in the solution. A quick web search (or look at a world map) shows that the capitol of the U.S. and the Ukraine are almost 5000 miles apart. Our Founding Fathers would roll in their grave if they even knew we were involved in such a distant controversy. Mr. Hall refers to the President and the U.S. administration ( one and the same?) as who should be solving this problem. In fact, Secretary of State Kerry is meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in Rome (hardly telephone diplomacy) to explain to him the sanctions, asset freezing, and visa revocations that Russia will suffer if they continue their path. The House and Senate of the United States have met and their Foreign Affairs Committees have offered a rare bipartisan support of President Obama’s total punitive and aid response to this crisis.
Not once in the original op-ed is the EU mentioned as a possible “Leader at the Front” even though some of its’ 28 members actually share a border with the Ukraine. The EU imports 267.5 billion dollars worth of Russian products (mostly natural gas and oil), which is almost 65 billion dollars more than Russia’s next 9 largest trading partners combined, and about 15 times more than the yearly U.S. imports from Russia.
No matter what course of action the U.S. takes, it is toothless if the EU does not threaten trade sanctions against Russia if they do not stand down. The EU, no matter what Mr. Hall would like, needs to take the lead here with the U.S. backing them up.
The situation of this crisis is fluid and may change by the end of the day. Hopefully common sense will prevail. Hopefully our country will reason with itself and not feel we need to be always at the political forefront in distant controversies and instead offer quiet back up and suggestions to our allies in those areas that also cherish Democracy.
To quote President Theodore Roosevelt, “Speak softly but carry a big stick.”
It looks like the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate are comfortable with President Obama’s handling of the situation, maybe Mr. Hall could be too. The original op-ed does not contain many actual facts or solutions but instead is full of hollow words and party line rhetoric.
Tom Timberman says
Editor,
Mr. Hall’s very well written article appeals to all the patriotic senses awakened within us annually on July 4th, or when we sing the National Anthem or America the Beautiful or hear taps at a military funeral. I’m certainly among them. Unfortunately, raw emotions are a bad basis for successful US foreign policy.
Most people I’ve interacted with in other countries for thirty plus years, particularly those in countries in conflict, aren’t “yearning to be free”, or desperately hoping for an American democracy to descend. They want enough food for their families, a less dangerous living environment, a less corrupt government that delivers some essential services, access to elementary schools for their children and the departure from their soil of any foreign military or officious civilian development folks.
There are Americans today who want American soldiers to remain in Afghanistan for another 20 years, or to return to Iraq and most recently, for the US Government to stand up to Putin and somehow force him to leave the Crimea. Implicit in these desires is the intervention of the American military. We lost around 5000 Americans in Iraq, approaching 2400 in Afghanistan and tens of thousands wounded.
What particularly critical US national interest would justify investing more lives and more billions in another war? Just so we can all feel proud to be Americans living in the most powerful-ever country on Earth? So we can all feel good that the US stood up to a bully and he backed down? Call me a pacifist, but that’s not enough for me.
Tom Timberman
Joe Diamond says
Editor,
To answer the question raised by the author in this most recent Fletcher Hall REDACTED…we fail the Ukraine the way we have done it before. I leave it up to Mr. Hall to suggest where we get an obligation to protect and save anyone. America has a long bloodline of persons who left Europe because they refused to continue as cannon fodder in the various squabbles among the princes of Europe.
America has become adept at failing distant lands. Rhetoric much like this recent Fletcher REDACTED is used at election times but rarely gets anything accomplished. Mr. Hall can pick how we will fail these non allies (I think Russia even joined NATO) this time.
As we did in Hungary in 1956. While Joe McCarthy (‘member him) was hunting communists in America the Voice of America motivated Hungarians to overthrow their godless communist masters. When they started shooting at the Russian tanks America watched as the Russians kicked their ass.
As we did in Cuba in 1960. As Castro moved landowners off their land we motivated and trained Cubans to retake the ranches granted them by the king of Spain…..except the naval base…we took that from the king of Spain…………..After those Cubans began their crusade to liberate their island…after the shooting had begun…….. we withheld the air cover we had promised. America watched on the evening news as Castro rolled those guys up
As we did in Vietnam. After assassinating the elected president (CIA job) and inventing a premise for invading the place (Johnson lied!) we put our own puppet in power and destroyed the place(Agent Orange was my fav) …and then left……watching this one in color every evening……..American soldiers ended up in military cemeteries, we got a new monument on the mall, the VA ignored returning wounded vets………….and Saigon became Ho Chi Minh City. No one was saved.
As we did in Iraq. Even though Bush the Younger was assured Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack and there were no weapons of mass destruction, America attacked, saving nobody. The last heard explanation was that we also saved the Saudis from Saddam; good us!
So Mr. Hall take your pick. We can fail the Ukrainians any way you want as long and nothing dangerous or expensive happens. Even better…you do it. Sign up as many REDACTED as you can. Strap on a bomber and have at it.