On September 18, 2014, President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine made an urgent appeal to the U.S. Congress for more military equipment, both lethal and non-lethal. “Blankets, night-vision goggles are important,” he said. “But one cannot win the war with blankets. Even more, we cannot keep the peace with a blanket.” The standing ovation was resounding. Everyone was in agreement, from the State Department to generals at the Pentagon. Only the White House rebuffed Ukraine’s appeal for weapons, citing its “fear of escalating tensions.”
President Obama’s refusal to act was followed by a flurry of activity by the UCCA’s Washington office and the Ukrainian diaspora. The effort seemed to be have paid off. Precisely three months to the day, on December 18, 2014, President Obama signed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, a bipartisan bill passed by both houses of Congress. One of the principal provisions of the act specifically authorized the president to supply new anti-tank and anti-armor weapons, radar, and tactical troop operated surveillance drones and communications equipment.
But wait, even before the ink was dry, the president issued a rider: “At this time, the administration does not intend to impose sanctions under this law.” Or, in other words, Mr. Obama was not about to antagonize Vladimir Putin any further and repeated his determination that “our goal is to promote a diplomatic solution that provides a lasting resolution to the conflict.” The end result was that the Ukrainian government would not get the lethal weapons to enhance its ability to defend itself.
Mr. Obama’s penchant for indecision and weakness is now legendary. Every time he says “no boots on the ground,” he displays not only a defeatist attitude, but violates one of the cardinal rules of conflict resolution: don’t let the other side know how far you are prepared to go; let them worry. Little wonder jokes such as “Putin is playing chess, while Obama is playing checkers,” are making the rounds, although perhaps a better analogy would be “Putin is playing poker while Obama is playing golf.”
There’s no need to list all of his foreign policy failures. They are obvious to any intelligent observer. As for successes, it’s difficult to find even one. It is clear that Mr. Obama has little grounding in history that would allow him to understand the nature of the Russian beast. Neither does he possess the will or desire to confront Mr. Putin. We learned of this alarming level of disinterest from Robert Gates’ and Leon Panetta’s memoirs. And many suspect that the most likely reason for Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s resignation was disagreement over the president’s handling of Russia, although we’ll have to wait for Mr. Hagel’s memoirs to confirm that.
Furthermore, people on his own team such as Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, have been infinitely more forceful in raising the alarm about Russian aggression in Ukraine than the President himself. Advisers such as Zbigniew Brzezinski have given up on the president doing the right thing a long time ago. Just the other day I learned from a credible source that the Pentagon was preparing to ship to Ukraine the weapons it had been asking for. Everything was set to go. Then Susan Rice, the president’s national security advisor who never does anything without consulting with the president, negated the order.
Taken together, Mr. Obama’s reputation as an indecisive leader cost him his credibility not only with America’s allies, but even worse, with her enemies. Such ineptness should be of great concern to Ukrainian Americans, especially to those who still support him. Mr. Obama’s lofty pronouncements of standing with Ukraine have not, thus far, been backed up by serious moves that would give credence to his pronouncements. Mr. Putin, of course, has interpreted such hesitation as a carte blanche to do as he pleases. And he did. After the holidays, on January 24, the terrorists, with tacit approval from Moscow, launched a fresh offensive against Mariupol, a target of both strategic and symbolic importance in their bloody conflict with the government in Kyiv. Mariupol’s fall will open a link to Crimea and there is no question that Odesa is next in line. This, friends, is the price Ukraine will pay for President Obama’s lack of resolve.
Soon Mr. Obama’s resolve will be tested again. Recently in New Delhi he promised to “look at all additional options that are available to us” to “ratchet up the pressure on Russia.” One of the non-military options on the table is revoking Russia’s SWIFT privileges. It may or may not be too late, but soon we will know how serious our president is about taking a strong stand on Ukraine.
After nearly a year of blatant Russian aggression, Mr. Obama is still lecturing Mr. Putin with platitudes. On January 26 The Washington Post, a paper generally not unfriendly to Mr. Obama, wrote “That will not be enough. At a minimum the European Union and United States should agree by Thursday to prepare deeper sanctions against the Russian economy and financial system and to set a deadline for making a decision on them… In addition, Mr. Obama should finally give serious consideration to providing Ukraine with the defensive weapons it has been pleading for — an ‘option’ that has strong bipartisan support in Congress. The point is not to defeat the Russian army but to deter Mr. Putin.”
Although Western sanctions have deepened Russia’s economic crisis, they have not deterred Mr. Putin. Not even the collapse of oil prices (which the U.S. had nothing to do with) and the crashing of the ruble have stopped Russian aggression. It is time to ask why?
The first thing that comes to mind is the general perception that President Obama is weak, feckless and indecisive. It didn’t take long for Mr. Putin to figure this out. When Hillary Clinton offered the comical “reset” strategy, it was obvious that neither President Obama nor Secretary Clinton were ready for the big leagues. With no experience in dealing with bullies of the world, Mr. Obama was lost, intimidated by Mr. Putin to the point of inactivity. This became acutely critical after he drew the red line on Syria. Mr. Obama froze, like a young deer caught in headlights, until Mr. Putin came to the rescue. That’s when Mr. Putin realized he could play Mr. Obama like a fiddle.
Second, Mr. Obama’s priorities are upside down. The primary duty of any responsible presidency ought to be national security and foreign policy. After all, what good are the best-intentioned domestic policy initiatives when the world is on fire? The U.S. president seems to have different priorities. In his last State of the Union address, 87 percent of the speech focused on domestic issues (as calculated by the Wall Street Journal). One got the impression that even thinking about foreign policy is a nuisance, a distraction from his main goal to fundamentally transform America.
Such intense focus on domestic policy is bad not only for Ukraine but for the United States. The world today needs the president’s undivided attention on threats ranging from ISIS to Russian expansionism. By the way, both are terrorists, the only difference being that the latter is a terrorist with nuclear weapons. It doesn’t get any more serious than that. The post-World War II world order is crumbling. Other than pontificate about Russian aggression, President Obama has done pitifully little to confront the aggressor with the full moral and material force the United States commands.
Third, President Obama is simply not equipped to be a big power leader. No one trusts him any longer, even our nominal allies. With Europe in economic disarray they are looking to America for leadership, but the leader is AWOL. Chancellor Angela Merkel, facing opposition to further sanctions from Germany’s business community, allegedly told Mr. Obama in one of their encounters, “If you lead, I will bring around my people to stand behind you.” The leader of the free world, like a scared rabbit, responded, “let’s not provoke the Russians further.”
There are some who argue that Ukraine does not need weapons, claiming they have plenty of their own. That is a specious argument. Ukraine badly needs the sophisticated modern weapons for two reasons: (1) bullies like Aleksandr Zakharchenko and Mr. Putin would think twice before attacking big cities like Mariupol if they knew that the Ukrainian army possessed highly lethal anti-tank and anti-armor weapons, better than anything the Russians have; and (2) possession of such weapons would have an incalculable effect on the morale of the Ukrainian military and would strengthen the spirit of Ukrainian people to persevere. We know what a difference the Stinger missiles made in Afghanistan. Alas, what Ukraine needs and does not have is a Charlie Wilson.
***
As a Ukrainian American, I find it reprehensible that President Obama has, time and again, over the past 14 months, abandoned the Ukrainian nation to fend for itself. I find it astounding that those Ukrainian Americans, members of “Ukrainians for Obama” still support a president who does not share their beliefs regarding Ukraine and continue to believe that he is in some way a good friend of Ukraine. Their hearts may be in the right place and their intentions noble, however, at the same time it has to be said that there is a discrepancy between what they believe and what Mr. Obama’s actions confirm. It is hard to exchange a comfortable belief with an uncomfortable one. Trying to do so causes what is known as “cognitive dissonance.” The discrepancy of beliefs of “Ukrainians for Obama” and the reality of the president’s policies toward Ukraine continues to mystify. In trying to understand this phenomenon, one is inclined to think that a kind of Faustian bargain was entered into in which their patriotism for Ukraine was exchanged for some elusive progressive ideals. Or has a desire to be close to the reins of political power unwittingly taken precedence over Ukraine’s interests? I don’t know. But if they have “sold their soul,” they have sold it to a weak leader and gotten nothing in return except empty words and platitudes ad nauseam. The diaspora community now appears to be divided into those who support Obama and his actions and those who do not. Ukrainians would do better to present themselves as one large cohesive group and not an outdated splintered voting bloc.
Finally, over the last year I’ve attended a number of demonstrations in front of the White House and the Russian Embassy. Over time I’ve witnessed a curious transformation. More and more Ukrainian Americans, former supporters of Mr. Obama, are coming around to the view that he is not a friend of Ukraine. This was succinctly demonstrated in a speech delivered in front of the White house by a lawyer from Philadelphia. I remember his words clearly: “Mr. President, I voted for you the first time; and then I voted for you the second time. Today, I regret having voted for you at all.” No amount of wishful thinking will change the fact that President Obama is no friend of Ukraine, never was and never will be.
Jaroslaw Martyniuk is a retired sociologist living in Washington. As a research analyst for Radio Liberty in Paris and Munich, he conducted public opinion polling and media research in Ukraine and other republics of the former Soviet Union, work carried out on behalf of Radio Liberty, Voice of America and other international broadcasters.