REACTION: Letter writers respond to Times editorial

On January 11, The New York Times published an editorial titled "Ukraine: Barrier to Nuclear Peace," which condemned Ukraine's position on nuclear arms and its desire for security guarantees.

"Washington has offered Ukraine ample inducements [to ratify START I and to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]. ... But Ukraine keeps asking for more. The Bush administration was right last week to say enough is enough," The Times wrote.

"President-elect Clinton will also need to tell Ukraine that it risks becoming a pariah if it delays carrying out its international obligations. ...The U.S. has offered an initial $175 million to reimburse Kiev for its share of the cost of transporting, storing and dismantling its arms. But Ukraine now wants $1.5 billion, an outlandish sum.

"Kiev is also seeking a U.S. security guarantee against Russia. But Washington would be foolish to offer one. That would needlessly affront Russian nationalists, already smoldering about Moscow's diminished stature. Offending them could jeopardize the nuclear arms cuts and make the U.S. and Ukraine less secure."

"...a nuclear armed Ukraine would alarm not just Russia but neighbors like Poland and Germany, feeding regional insecurities," the editorial noted.

Promises of aid and investment, The Times continued, "now need to be accompanied by a warning: The U.S. and its allies are prepared to isolate Ukraine and deny it economic help. To deliver that message Mr. Clinton needs an ambassador in Kiev less sympathetic to Ukraine than the incumbent, Roman Popadiuk."

Reprinted below, as they appeared in The New York Times, are two responses to that editorial. The first is by Bohdan Pyskir, a research fellow at the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. The second is by Vyacheslav Chornovil, president of Rukh, the Popular Movement of Ukraine.

Ukraine needs reassurance

To the Editor:

"Ukraine: Barrier to Nuclear Peace" (editorial, Jan. 11) suggests that the United States and its allies - "isolate Ukraine and deny it economic help" if it does not ratify the START I nuclear arms treaty. This would be like placing a man with a fever into a freezer: it might alleviate the symptom, but would not cure the patient.

The problem is not Ukraine's hesitation to ratify START I, but fear of its northern neighbor.

Is the Russian threat real or is it simply the figment of paranoid Ukrainian ultranationalism? Three of the most powerful political figures in Russia - Vice-President Aleksandr Rutskoi; Ruslan Khasbulatov, speaker of the Parliament; and the industrialist Arkady Volsky - have issued repeated public declarations against Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Furthermore, the Russian Army is now forming new rapid deployment forces with a mission to "defend" the interests of all people living in or outside the Russian Federation's borders who identify themselves as Russian speakers, not even necessarily Russians. Is there any wonder that Ukraine is seeking security guarantees for ratifying START I?

It is in the best interest of Ukraine and Russia, not to mention the rest of the world, that these two neighbors are able to co-exist peacefully.

Rather than stroking the bruised egos of Russia's nationalists who refuse to accept Ukraine's independence, the West would be wise to send a clear message that Ukrainian sovereignty is an irreversible fact of the new world order.

Ignoring Kyyiv's security concerns in its relations with Moscow may result in the breakdown of the START process. It could also allow for the reconstitution of the Soviet empire and trigger another dangerous and costly arms race.

Bohdan Pyskir
Research Fellow,
Ukrainian Research Institute,
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass., Jan. 11, 1993

What worries Ukraine

To the Editor:

As runner-up for the presidency of Ukraine, leader of the democratic movement Rukh, a member of Parliament and a former dissident who has participated in the struggle for a democratic and free Ukraine more than 20 years, I would like to respond to misunderstandings on Ukraine's nuclear weapons position in "Ukraine: Barrier to Nuclear Peace" (editorial, Jan. 11).

Ukraine does not seek to hinder or prevent prospects for peace, which can result from dismantling nuclear weapons and reducing nuclear stockpiles. Having suffered, and still suffering, the horrors of Chernobyl, Ukrainians are acutely sensitive to the destruction wrought by nuclear power and in no way aspire to maintain Ukraine's status as the world's third most powerful nuclear country.

Contrary to some Western opinion, Ukraine's hesitation on dismantling its nuclear arsenal does not mask a grand aspiration for power, but rather reflects concern over preserving its newly independent status. For centuries, Ukraine was dominated by Russia. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has made progress toward improving its relations with the West and its neighbors, and redefining its place in the world.

Ukraine's democrats warmly welcome this change. However, many strong chauvinist factions still exist in Russia, and stability there is far from guaranteed. The possibility still exists for an imperialist or extreme nationalist regime to take power and set its sights on recovering former Soviet territories, such as Ukraine.

Ukraine must seek concrete and precise security guarantees from other nuclear powers to protect the integrity of its internationally recognized territory before transferring all its nuclear weapons to its more powerful, still unstable neighbor, Russia. The sooner Russia comes to terms with its new status as a non-imperialistic nation, the sooner relations between Russia and Ukraine and Russia and other nations can be normalized.

Vyacheslav Chornovil
Kiev, Ukraine, Jan. 15, 1993

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, February 7, 1993, No. 6, Vol. LXI

| Home Page |