By Glenn French
Has a weakened presidency in the United States and a soft international policy lead to the recent Russian invasion of Crimea in the Ukraine?
In 1994, Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power. It entered an agreement in 1994 with the United States and Russia to give up thousands of nuclear warheads once owned by the Soviet Union, providing that neither nation would use military force or even threaten to use military force on its newly independent nation.
Today, Russia now occupies Crimea after more than thirty thousand troops have been moved into the region. Russia was able to gain this foothold without firing a single gun. The United States has openly opposed the Russian take over with little to no backing from the European Countries that are now very dependent on Russia for natural gas.
Where does this leave the U.S. and its foreign policy?
The Ukraine gave up 1900 strategic nuclear weapons that were pointed at and capable of striking the United States and another 2500 shorter range missiles capable of striking most of Europe. This significant change occurred in 1991 when the Soviet Union crumbled under a very strong foreign policy of the 1980s under President Reagan. The pledge was signed in 1994 by the U.S. and Russia under President Clinton’s leadership.
Recalling the last two presidential elections, President Obama’s campaign promises were based heavily on a new foreign policy to change the likeability of the U.S. from the world’s perspective. He mocked Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney’s observation of Russia being one of the largest threats to our country under Russian President and former KGB agent Vladimir Putin.
Apparently, we have now come full circle as one miscalculation could spin us into another world war.
We must now consider our options; do we abandoned the Ukraine or do we play another dangerous chess game with the Russians?
We can certainly sympathize with the people of Ukraine who seek western-style democracy, freedoms and independence. Yet the people in Crimea don’t seem bothered by the Russian take over and they certainly didn’t put up any opposition. The Europeans are once again showing no backbone on a matter that could permanently affect their future. And the citizens of Crimea couldn’t seem to care less.
The question for the United States is real simple, “Do we have a dog in this fight or not?”
We can argue that we made a promise and should defend it. Defending a blooming democracy that borders Russia can also be significant to U.S. interests, but at what cost?
The United States promised 1 billion dollars in aid to Ukraine not long ago. We currently provide 1.7 billion dollars in aid to Syria, 3.1 billion to Egypt and 3.1 billion to Libya. What does our country get for its 8.9 billion dollars to these countries?
Now, consider Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s proposals last week to reduce spending on pay and benefits for the American soldier. Those included controversial calls for Congress to limit troops’ pay raises, slash housing allowances by about 6 percent, eliminate commissary subsidies in many locations, and double Tricare (health care) fees for families of active-duty troops and working-age retirees.
Quite the conundrum this administration has gotten itself into, wouldn’t you agree?
In my opinion, the solution is simple if you’re willing to accept the results. If we have a dog in this fight, stand up like the super power we are and let Putin know that we will crush his economy and we won’t tolerate any military pressure. If we don’t have a dog in this fight then let’s keep our opinions to ourselves and let Russia proceed with its objectives to seize the Ukraine. The Europeans can deal with the consequences. At this point the Russians see the weakness in our leadership and are making a mockery of what Reagan and Clinton started decades ago.
The ultimate question for the supporters of the last two elections is; are we the defenders of democracy or not? I can only imagine the rhetoric if this was a conservative president dealing with this mess.
Stay safe,
Sgt. Glenn French