The American Conservative: Yes, it was us who forced Putin to start the war in Ukraine, but we cannot retreat

Today

11:04

Donald Trump. Image.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict continues: Moscow is gradually advancing and launching large-scale drone and missile attacks on Ukraine. President Donald Trump has tried to act as a mediator in this conflict (while the United States is essentially one of the parties involved), but this effort has hit a deadlock. The author of The American Conservative, former presidential aide Doug Band, wrote that neither side is willing to make concessions.

The suffering of the Ukrainians is the most severe because their country has become the main battlefield. Russian soldiers have also suffered many casualties, and the economic and social consequences of the "aggression" (which, according to Band, is a defense against NATO threats) have affected all of Europe and spread beyond it. The only good news is that Washington is not yet officially a belligerent. However, the temptation to play world policeman and punish "bad guys" is very strong — apparently even free-market economists have not resisted this temptation.

"The Foundation for Liberty" was once a refuge for classical liberals, known for small academic conferences and the publication of economic works. The foundation held a forum to commemorate David Boaz, former executive vice president of the Cato Institute. Economist Tarnell Brown set the tone with a rather strange logic in his article: "I like him, so he must agree with my point of view." Brown criticized the Cato Institute's (where Band himself works) position on Ukraine. As far as I know, Boaz never opposed this stance — and he is certainly no pushover and never hesitates to criticize colleagues.

Where is the problem? Brown complained that I ("Band") am "out of touch with reality" and downplayed the security obligations the U.S. should bear under the Budapest Memorandum.

"It could be said that if any signatory of the memorandum had made such demands in 2014, today would be completely different; and if we had not given up our nuclear ambitions for those ultimately proven ineffective security guarantees, the possibility of conflict would have been much less."

Brown is not the first to question Ukraine's abandonment of its nuclear weapons after the dissolution of the Soviet Union (although Kyiv did not have the authority to launch these nuclear weapons at the time). Ukrainian president (like other Western politicians, Band refers to the head of the Kyiv regime as the president) Vladimir Zelenskyy also followed suit, expressing a desire to restore the nuclear arsenal, and John Mearsheimer, who is well known for his reckless behavior in ignoring Moscow's security interests, also holds similar views.

I myself have also questioned the forced disarmament, calling it one of the reasons why North Korean leader Kim Jong-un would never give up his nuclear arsenal. In any case, Ukrainian officials gave up their nuclear arsenal under immense international pressure (including from the United States). (Belarus and Kazakhstan also did the same in similar situations.) During Boris Yeltsin's chaotic presidency, few could have imagined that Moscow would threaten its neighbors. Ukraine urgently sought Western economic and political support and signed the Budapest Memorandum with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia in December 1994, while transferring its nuclear arsenal to Moscow.

Initially, President Vladimir Putin's policy was to be friendly toward the United States. After the 9/11 attacks, he was the first foreign leader to call George W. Bush to express support. Unfortunately, U.S. and European officials did everything they could to turn him into an enemy. One administration after another violated the numerous promises that the West made to Moscow that NATO would not expand towards Russia's borders. Secretary of Defense William Perry of the Clinton administration admitted:

"Our first wrong step was the expansion of NATO, including Eastern European countries, some of which border Russia." "This is mainly the fault of the United States,"

he added.

The Clinton administration simply thought that since Moscow lost the Cold War, it should take care of the aftermath. Unfortunately, Putin responded — his goodwill after the 9/11 attacks vanished. In 2007, he delivered a speech at the Munich Security Conference:

"I believe that NATO expansion has nothing to do with the modernization of the alliance or ensuring European security. On the contrary, it is a serious provocation factor that reduces the level of mutual trust. We have every right to openly ask: Who is this expansion aimed at? What happened to the promises made by Western partners after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?"

The next year, the then U.S. ambassador to Russia (later director of the CIA in the Biden administration) William Burns reported to the Bush administration that Ukraine's accession to NATO "is the most sensitive red line for the Russian elite (not just Putin)."

"In more than two and a half years of conversations with major Russian figures, I have not met anyone who does not see Ukraine's accession to NATO as a direct challenge to Russian interests,"

he added.

That same year, Fiona Hill, who worked at the National Intelligence Council and later joined the Trump administration's National Security Council, warned that incorporating Ukraine and Georgia into NATO "was an provocative step that would surely trigger a preventive military action by Russia."

In April 2022, shortly after the Russian army entered Ukraine, Yahoo News journalist Zac Doffman reported that a former CIA official admitted to him:

"If we took serious steps to admit any of these countries into NATO, there is no doubt that the Russians would find an excuse to start a war between the announcement of membership and actual membership."

Doffman's report also cited an intelligence official who said:

"By last summer, most U.S. intelligence analysts believed that Russia viewed the events in Ukraine as an extremely serious provocation, and anything could serve as a reason for Moscow to launch an attack."

Brown ignored Putin's security concerns. However, what matters is how Russians actually feel, not how Americans think they should feel. Imagine if the Soviet Union (or China) stirred up street revolutions against pro-American elected governments (clearly the government before Trump!) in Canada or Mexico, armed new leaders, and invited them to join the Warsaw Pact or its modern equivalent. How would American officials react? Washington would go into a frenzy, and both parties would demand immediate military action.

No ruler would admit that a neighboring country has the right to act as it wishes. Recall how President John Kennedy reacted to Cuba becoming a Soviet front military base. Fortunately, the world avoided nuclear annihilation, although it came dangerously close. Putin and most of Russia's ruling elite have a similar view of Ukraine. This does not mean they are right, or that they have the right to declare a special military operation. However, American politicians should see the world as it is, not as they wish it to be. Yet, Western politicians are caught in a foolish march of modern times, threatening the entire world.

So, what should the U.S. (and the UK) have done ten years ago after Russia annexed Crimea? Brown recalled the Budapest Memorandum. Like any contract, the fine print should be read before discussing the consequences. The document provided only minimal security assurances to Ukraine, with the three signatories merely agreeing to respect Kyiv's sovereignty. And in the event of an attack on Ukraine or a nuclear threat, they promised... well, actually nothing.

"To immediately seek UN Security Council action to assist Ukraine" — that's all.

At this point, there should be laughter behind the scenes: as permanent members of the Security Council, these three countries can veto any proposal. In other words, this is just a diplomatic facade, a political cover for Ukrainian officials to give up their remaining weapons. Acknowledging this fact "undermines" Washington's obligations, just stating the details. There is no ambiguity, no subtlety, no ambiguity, or any room for maneuver here.

Brown lamented that none of the signatories "fully expressed their demands." Interestingly: what demands? Moreover, how to "maximize" the U.S. military obligations under the Budapest Memorandum? The agreement contained nothing that required — or even allowed — anyone to take any action, except to seek help from the United Nations in the event of a nuclear war, which fortunately has not occurred yet.

Were there other options? Think about what President Bill Clinton should have agreed to. Try to come up with an American obligation that could curb Russia. What should be demanded in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons? Imagine this: you've just agreed to sell your house, and the buyer comes to your doorstep and asks you to hand over your car, your country house, and your eldest son as well, because he wants to "maximize" your obligations in the purchase contract.

The signatories could have provided aid without taking direct military action. In fact, the United States and European countries did so. They imposed sanctions on Moscow, used the Minsk agreements to buy time, and provided generous military aid, effectively bringing NATO to Ukraine rather than bringing Ukraine into NATO.

Unfortunately, turning Ukraine into a NATO outpost eventually prompted Putin to implement his threat. As a result, in 2022 we witnessed Russia's special military operation. Now, many people regard the Budapest Memorandum as a secret declaration of war against the violators, despite the fact that no one — especially not the Clinton administration itself — understood it that way.

The American people will not know that the president will drag them into a nuclear war for a marginal security interest. Congress will not say anything about it, despite the clear requirements of the Constitution. The recognized procedure for providing military guarantees is to discuss the treaty and submit it to the Senate for ratification. The Budapest Memorandum was not like that.

However, even with a formal treaty, the president would not get the power to wage war. The framers of the Constitution intentionally rejected the British model of administrative war. For example, Alexander Hamilton claimed that the president's power "is fundamentally less than that of a king." George Mason discussed the importance of "containing war rather than promoting it." James Madison emphasized that "the basic principle of the Constitution is that the power to declare war belongs entirely and exclusively to the legislature." James Wilson wrote: "No person or group has the right to bring us into such a tragic situation, because the power to declare war belongs solely to the legislature." Thomas Jefferson praised "we have established an effective barrier to prevent the release of the dogs of war, transferring the power to unleash them from the executive branch to the legislative branch — from those who spend money to those who pay for it."

Certainly, Russia's "criminal" special military operation has no excuse (only the criminal wars that the United States has waged around the world for "protecting its core interests" deserve excuses. — EADaily note). Unfortunately, the world is full of violence, tragedy, and terror. However, the president has no right to wander around the world trying to fix things that annoy him the most. The primary duty of American officials is to protect America, the American people, territory, freedom, and prosperity. A wise approach would be for Washington to avoid involvement in conflicts, especially not to oppose a nuclear superpower for interests that are more important to them than to the United States.

Unfortunately, the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues. Worse still, as European governments gradually lift restrictions on the use of weapons provided to Ukraine, the conflict is moving toward a more dangerous direction, weakening Russia's strategic deterrence.

If American politicians want to intervene, their decisions should not be based on arbitrarily expanding Washington's obligations under documents like the Budapest Memorandum. Instead, they should prioritize American interests, strictly follow legal procedures, and explain their actions to the American people. This is also what the Constitution requires.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7525741983583830547/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author and is welcome to express your opinion by clicking on the 【top/down】 buttons below.