Throughout its history, Ukraine has never been as influential as it is today. Its current geopolitical significance and unprecedented international support are largely attributed to financial backing from the United States.
The challenges we have today did not originate with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022; the roots extend back to 2014, under President Barack Obama’s administration. A seldom-acknowledged fact of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is the extent of responsibility that can be attributed to President Obama’s policies.
Following the Euromaidan uprising in Kiev in 2013, the central government of Ukraine was overthrown in February 2014. The United States denied involvement, but Russian President Vladimir Putin was enraged to the point that he made very clear threats if interference continued.
Behind the scenes, it was evident that the Obama administration interfered in Ukraine’s political uprising. A recorded phone conversation between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, which was intercepted and released by Russian intelligence, was branded as “Puppets of Maidan.” In this conversation, Ms. Nuland and Mr. Pyatt discussed their preferred candidates for positions in the new government following the departure of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. The recording provided clear evidence of U.S. diplomats actively influencing the selection of Ukraine’s leadership.
A month later, President Putin annexed Crimea, followed by pro-Russian separatists seizing government buildings in the Donbas region, proclaiming independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk states.
As events unfolded, President Obama was focused on issues inside Syria and with ISIS, and ignored recommendations from top advisers to supply Ukraine with weapons to combat the growing threat from Moscow. Instead, President Obama bolstered America’s military presence on NATO’s eastern flank in a move to further aggravate President Putin. American inaction persisted, and this ultimately left Russia the opportunity to invade Ukraine.
The blunder has continued with President Joe Biden, who has employed the same Obama-era strategists. Victoria Nuland stepped down in March, after a long career with presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. She famously claimed to be using Ukraine as a battering ram to drive President Putin out of office.
As the United States prepares to send an additional $61 billion in aid to Ukraine (of which about two-thirds actually goes to U.S. factories), part of a $95 billion package, concerns grow about the potential for a never-ending conflict. If we’re not careful, we run the risk of repeating another Afghanistan or Vietnam.
The escalation in U.S. defense spending over the past two years now exceeds the combined military expenditures of most major nations. The sustainability of such spending, which also supports commitments to Israel and Taiwan, raises questions about potential overextension. Recent developments in Niger, which led to a significant withdrawal of U.S. troops and billions of financial losses, have benefited Russia, illustrating the complexities of this global military chess game, and the need for expert brinkmanship.
This recent round of funding—which is the largest aid package yet—casts a long shadow over any sort of Russia–Ukraine peace deal. Several leading diplomats have recommended ceding the Donbas region to Russia. After Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, Henry Kissinger wrote in The Washington Post that Ukraine will never be just another country to Russia. He advised Ukrainian leaders to aim for national reconciliation and suggested that Ukraine should avoid joining NATO, advocating for Ukraine to act as a mediator between Russia and the West rather than siding with either. And although Mr. Kissinger ultimately backtracked in 2023, supporting Ukraine, we cannot discount his initial analysis.
Furthermore, the recent comments by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) calling Russia, China, and Iran an “axis of evil” underscores the view held by U.S. leadership. I am not refuting that, but I am pointing out the increasing liability surrounding a three-pronged war.
Still, the ongoing neglect of comprehensive security improvements at the U.S. southern border and other domestic issues project an interesting image of misalignment and inefficiency on the international stage. While the bipartisan bill signals to the rest of the world that the United States can get things done, it’s obvious that trouble lurks behind the scenes.
