Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Why should the United States be interested in Ukraine?

Discussion in 'The Americas' started by Averageamerican, Apr 13, 2017.

  1. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,922
    Likes Received:
    2,228
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Why should the United States be interested in Ukraine?
    Steven PiferWednesday, April 12, 2017
    There are reports that, at the G-7 foreign minsters’ meeting in Italy on April 11, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson startled his counterparts by asking: “Why should U.S. taxpayers be interested in Ukraine?” His spokesperson later dismissed the question as a “rhetorical device.”

    Author
    [​IMG]
    Steven Pifer
    Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, Center on the United States and Europe
    Director - Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative

    Twitter steven_pifer


    Rhetorical or not, it is a bit surprising that Secretary Tillerson would pose the question. It is, however, a question that many American taxpayers, less versed in foreign affairs, might understandably ask. After all, Washington’s foreign policy agenda is full, and Ukraine is 5,000 miles away.

    Here’s the answer.

    Good international partner
    Since Ukraine regained its independence in 1991, it has been a good partner for the United States on issues that mattered critically for U.S. foreign and security policy. For example, in the early 1990s, Ukraine gave up the nuclear arsenal that it inherited following the collapse of the Soviet Union. That included 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and 44 Blackjack and Bear-H strategic bombers, along with the 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads those missiles and bombers could carry—all of which were designed and built to strike the United States.

    In the late 1990s, Kyiv agreed to align its non-proliferation policy with Washington’s. One immediate result: The Ukrainian government terminated a contract that the Ukrainian company Turboatom had to supply the turbine generator for the nuclear power plant that the Russians were building at Bushehr, Iran. Years later, the Ukrainian government agreed to transfer all its highly enriched uranium to consolidated, secure storage, a key goal of U.S. nuclear security policy.




    In 2003, following the fall of Baghdad, Ukraine agreed to provide three battalions to the Iraq coalition stabilization force. From that summer until the end of 2005, Ukraine had the fourth largest troop contingent in Iraq, after the United States, Britain, and Poland.

    Ukraine has not moved as fast on domestic political and economic reforms as Washington would have liked—but on key foreign policy issues, Kyiv has been very responsive to U.S. desires. That merits American interest.

    Budapest Memorandum
    In 1994, as part of the arrangement under which Ukraine gave up the strategic nuclear weapons on its territory, the presidents of the United States, Russia, and Ukraine, along with the prime minister of Britain, concluded the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances for Ukraine. In that document, the United States, Russia, and Britain committed to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity as well as not to use force, or threaten to use force, against Ukraine. They also agreed not to use economic coercion.

    Russia has blatantly violated those commitments with its illegal seizure and annexation of Crimea in 2014 and subsequent support for the conflict in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. Fighting between Russian/separatist forces and the Ukrainian military in the Donbas has claimed some 10,000 lives, and a settlement is nowhere in sight.

    The Budapest Memorandum was a key piece of the deal that got rid of 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads that could target America. That mattered a lot to Washington in 1994, and U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts when negotiating the document that the United States would take a strong interest in what happened in Ukraine.

    Bolstering European security
    Above and beyond Ukraine, Russia’s aggression constitutes a fundamental challenge to the post-Cold War European security order and raises questions about what the Kremlin might try next. That is of interest to the United States, given that the trans-Atlantic relationship links us to our longest and closest friends and partners, and we are committed to their defense in NATO.

    Support for Ukraine, along with political and economic sanctions, are ways in which the West can make clear to Moscow that there will be consequences for its egregious misbehavior. The risk otherwise is that the Kremlin might undertake other actions that would further threaten European security and stability.

    Would Moscow use military force against the Baltic states, which are members of NATO? Most likely not. But five years ago, the answer would have been a resounding “no.” Supporting Ukraine and imposing costs on Russia for its aggression help ensure that Moscow does not miscalculate in a way that would lead to deeper crisis.

    Secretary Tillerson’s question, if odd coming from him, is one that many American might ask. However, there are very good reasons why the United States should take an interest in Ukraine.
     
    Sancho likes this.
  2. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,357
    Likes Received:
    2,191
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Disagree with pretty much all of that. Less buffer states between EU and Russia = More potential for things to go wrong.
     
    Sancho likes this.
  3. IndiranChandiran

    IndiranChandiran BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2017
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    784
    Country Flag:
    India
    Your reasoning is contrary to the national security and diplomatic aims of any intelligent , politically aware & successful nation .
     
  4. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,357
    Likes Received:
    2,191
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    How so? The world was briefly much safer after 1989 than before and I don't wish to return to that situation. Look at buffer states as sort of a DMZ.
     
  5. IndiranChandiran

    IndiranChandiran BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2017
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    784
    Country Flag:
    India
    That's precisely what I'm saying .More the buffer states more the security .
     
  6. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,357
    Likes Received:
    2,191
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    That's what I meant the first time. Stick the Ukraine in the EU then suddenly you have a border with Russia. Ukrainian government tries take back a disputed region and Russia responds and you have the potential for a major war.
     
    Sancho and kiduva21 like this.
  7. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,039
    Likes Received:
    1,471
    Well there is a limit to poke a bear and with publicly degrading Russia to a regional power, the missile defence sites in eastern Europe (allegedly against Iran) and offering Ukraine to be part of NATO Obama brought a safe world back into cold war.
    Russia went from Partner of the EU, even wrt defence codevelopments to bad hombre again.
     
    kaalapani likes this.

Share This Page