Do the Candidates & the White House have Ukraine’s Sixes?

Voting is not only a right, it’s an obligation. Every four years Americans participate in what has been called a peaceful revolution. Voters base their decision on many issues, depending on their personal or group likes or dislikes, some of which are clear cut and others muddled.

If you are a Ukrainian American voter or a constituent who is sensitive to the issues of the former captive nations, then your decision this November regarding your candidate of choice in the 2020 Presidential Elections is not well defined. Indeed, your congressman or senators of any political affiliation may be staunch supporters of Ukraine in its life or death war with Russia and they sponsor or co-sponsor of suitable resolutions. The candidates for political office may also often voice favorable words and phrases about Ukraine and attend local events. However, the political parties themselves, the foundations of America’s vibrant, outspoken bipartisan democracy, are not ready to formally and strongly support Ukraine and all of the adjacent issues that are important to Ukrainian Americans.

I remember when years ago, the community and its leaders would jockey for positions to have one or another plank about then captive Ukraine included in the foreign policy platforms. The late Lev Dobriansky was active in the aisles with Republicans while the late Joseph Lesawyer advocated among Democrats. Their passionate efforts were bolstered by community leaders on the local level. All in all, a political slam dunk for the community and Ukraine. Since the days of Ukraine’s subjugation in Russia’s prison of nations through its Declaration of Independence in 1991 and beyond, Ukraine saw the political light of day at least in the United States thanks to that type of well-oiled community machine. And support for Ukraine by the candidates decided their presidential fates. Remember President Gerald Ford’s lapsus linguae about the captive nations and the uproar it created?

But in the 2020 elections, the wave has not resulted in the same political inundation for the good of Ukraine as in the past.

Secretary of State Pompeo’s recent statement on Ukraine’s independence anniversary merely restated Washington’s unwavering support for a “free, resilient, and democratic Ukraine” and hopes for a diplomatic end to Russia’s ongoing aggression in eastern Ukraine. He also said the United States rejects Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea and pledges to maintain this policy until Russia returns full control of all Ukrainian territory to Ukraine. Pompeo emphasized that friendship between Ukraine and the USA “has never been stronger.” Old hackneyed clichés that do not offer any fresh hope. While there are implied warnings to Russia, they weren’t backed up with the word “sanctions” or stronger threats and would push Moscow into submission.

Then there is the 2020 Captive Nations Week Proclamation that the President has been mandated to issue every year in July since 1959. This presidential document is meant to pay tribute to those peoples who were or are subjugated by Russian communism. This officially recognized policy greatly angered the Kremlin’s leaders who demanded that it be scratched from the record.

This year’s iteration did not mention Russia, Soviet or Communist/ism but only repressive regimes and China without any designation which one. President Trump did sign and authorize it as he should have but it lacks teeth. The last time this happened was during the heyday of President Richard Nixon’s peaceful coexistence policy.

On August 12, I posted a blog about Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice-presidential hopeful, saying that she favors Ukraine but distrusts Russia’s President Putin. It was a noteworthy remark but from 2019.

Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate, soon after the Democratic Party Convention concluded, issued a statement, in which he pledged that if elected “I will make it clear to the Kremlin that it must end its aggression toward and occupation of Ukraine. A Biden-Harris administration will ensure that Ukraine gets the economic and military support that it needs, including lethal weapons, while urging Ukraine to pursue the essential reforms that are vital to its success. Together, we will work toward the celebration of Ukraine’s Independence Day as a peaceful, whole, sovereign, democratic, and prosperous country.”

As strong as Biden’s statement reads, local congressional aspirants have issued stronger comments.

But the expected political language about Russia and Ukraine has sadly been missing from a public discussion among the partisan presidential contenders and their handlers.

For the record, the Democratic Party’s official foreign policy platform did include planks about Russia and Ukraine. For example:

• President Trump has undermined our alliances in ways that our adversaries could have only dreamed of—sowing doubts about our commitments to diplomatic agreements, mutual defense, democratic values, and strategic purpose. As a result, our alliance system today faces its biggest test since the end of the Cold War. He has pushed to bring Russia back into the G7 while lambasting our NATO partners and ignoring intelligence about Russian bounties for killing American troops and other coalition forces in Afghanistan. He has undermined confidence in America’s commitment to the alliance’s Article 5 mutual defense provision, and threatened to pull troops out of Germany without consultation. In the midst of a nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, he tried to extort our South Korean allies to dramatically increase their share of alliance costs.

• Democrats commit to strengthening the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, maintaining the moratorium on explosive nuclear weapons testing, pushing for the ratification of the UN Arms Trade Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and extending New START. Just as was the case during the height of the Cold War, it’s in our interest to work with Russia to verifiably limit and reduce our nuclear stockpiles. We will build on this foundation to negotiate arms control agreements that reflect the emergence of new players like China, capture new technologies, and move the world back from the nuclear precipice.

• In the 30 years since the fall of the Berlin wall, the United States and Europe have strived to build a transatlantic community of free and democratic societies that works together to bring peace, prosperity, and dignity to all our citizens. The Trump Administration has put that dream in grave danger. Donald Trump either does not know or has forgotten who America’s friends are. He sees Europe as a foe—not a friend—of the United States. He sees Vladimir Putin’s Russia as a strategic partner—not a strategic rival. He sees anti-European Union, far-right nationalists as political allies—not destructive antagonists.

• Democrats will join our European partners in standing up to a revanchist Russia. We will not allow Moscow to interfere in our democracies or chip away at our resolve. We will reaffirm America’s commitment to NATO and defending our allies. We will maintain transatlantic support for Ukraine’s reform efforts and its territorial integrity. Democrats will lower regional—and global—threats by reinforcing nuclear arms control.

For the record on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, probably because of President Trump’s dislike for foreign affairs, voted ahead of their national convention to abandon constructing a formal platform, opting instead to shake the cobwebs off their 2016 statement with the global issues of that day:

• In the international arena, a weak Administration has invited aggression. The results of the Administration’s unilateral approach to disarmament are already clear: An emboldened China in the South China Sea, a resurgent Russia occupying parts of Ukraine and threatening neighbors from the Baltic to the Caucasus, and an aggressive Islamist terror network in the Middle East. We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning. All our adversaries heard the message in the Administration’s cutbacks: America is weaker and retreating. Concomitantly, we honor, support, and thank all law enforcement, first responders, and emergency personnel for their service.

• For the people of Russia, we affirm our respect and our determination to maintain a friendship beyond the reach of those who wish to divide us. We have common imperatives: Ending terrorism, combating nuclear proliferation, promoting trade, and more. We also have a common problem: The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.

• The survival of the internet as we know it is at risk. Its gravest peril originates in the White House, the current occupant of which has launched a campaign, both at home and internationally, to subjugate it to agents of government. The President ordered the chair of the supposedly independent Federal Communications Commission to impose upon the internet rules devised in the 1930s for the telephone monopoly. He has unilaterally announced America’s abandonment of the international internet by surrendering U.S. control of the root zone of web names and addresses. He threw the internet to the wolves, and they — Russia, China, Iran, and others — are ready to devour it.

• Also neglected are our strategic forces, especially the development and deployment of ballistic missile defenses. The Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system has been delayed and underfunded. To curry favor with Russia, defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic have been neutralized and the number of planned interceptors in Alaska has been reduced. A New START agreement (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), so weak in verification and definitions that it is virtually impossible to prove a violation, has allowed Russia to build up its nuclear arsenal while reducing ours. Meanwhile Moscow has repeatedly violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (a treaty agreeing to the elimination of land-based mid-range nuclear missiles) with impunity, covertly testing missiles banned under that agreement.

• The United States needs a radical rethinking of our human rights diplomacy. A Republican administration will adopt a “whole of government” approach to protect fundamental freedoms globally, one where pressing human rights and rule of law issues are integrated at every appropriate level of our bilateral relationships and strategic decision-making. Republican policy will reflect the fact that the health of the U.S. economy and environment, the safety of our food and drug supplies, the security of our investments and personal information in cyberspace, and the stability and security of the oceans will increasingly depend on allowing the free flow of news and information and developing an independent judiciary and civil society in countries with repressive governments such as China, Russia, and many nations in the Middle East and Africa.

• Cyber attacks against our businesses, insti­tutions, and the government itself have become almost routine. They will continue until the world un­derstands that an attack will not be tolerated — that we are prepared to respond in kind and in greater magnitude. Despite their promises to the contrary, Russia and China see cyber operations as a part of a warfare strategy during peacetime. Our response should be to cause diplomatic, financial, and legal pain, curtailing visas for guilty parties, freezing their assets, and pursuing criminal actions against them. We should seek to weaken control over the internet by regimes that engage in cyber crimes. We must stop playing defense and go on offense to avoid the cyber-equivalent of Pearl Harbor.

• A single nuclear weapon detonated at high alti­tude over this country would collapse our electrical grid and other critical infrastructures and endanger the lives of millions. With North Korea in possession of nuclear missiles and Iran close to having them, an EMP is no longer a theoretical concern — it is a real threat. Moreover, China and Russia include sabo­tage as part of their warfare planning. Nonetheless, hundreds of electrical utilities in the United States have not acted to protect themselves from EMP, and they cannot be expected to do so voluntarily since homeland security is a government responsibility. The President, the Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the States, the utilities, and the private sector should work together on an urgent basis to enact Re­publican legislation, pending in both chambers, to protect the national grid and encourage states to take the initiative to protect their own grids expedi­tiously.

Is it safe to say that Ukraine and the other former captive nations will be safe and secure as they continue to evolve under the watchful eyes of the Kremlin that’s ready to pounce, as it has, on any one of them? Ukraine does not occupy enough of a solid place inside the beltway’s mentality to allow me to say “yes.” It could, but it’s not obvious. There are those lawmakers that are prepared to fight the good fight for Ukraine and those that are lukewarm on Ukraine, choosing to side with Russia. Ukrainian American voters will have to ride roughshod over this issue.

The absence of such a necessary discussion at this year’s national political venues was also the target of concern for Samantha Vinograd, a CNN national security analyst and a senior adviser at the University of Delaware’s Biden Institute, which is not affiliated with the Biden campaign.

In her commentary titled “Pompeo's dangerous foreign policy messages,” Vinograd wrote, in part: “But you know what we didn’t hear much about? Russia. You’d think that someone would have spent serious time talking about the threat from Russia, which is still trying to interfere in US elections. The fact that Russia didn’t get much of a mention isn’t surprising and probably wasn't an accident – Trump probably doesn’t want to risk upsetting Vladimir Putin this close to the November election. This egregious omission speaks volumes about how this administration views foreign policy – it focuses on what’s politically expedient.”

Considering what is happening in the United States – race riots, coronavirus, unemployment, economic hardships – and around the world, Ukraine is not top of mind for politicians. However, without a nudge or two from Ukrainian American voters, Ukraine will remain at the bottom of this election year’s issues. In other words, with insufficient, credible evidence to the contrary, Ukrainian Americans’ decision on whether to vote for Biden or Trump won’t be influenced by either candidate’s support for Ukraine.

But there are 65 days remaining to Election Day.