“America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there,” Rep. Adam Schiff said in the Democrats' opening statement during the Senate impeachment trial. “Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
Schiff did not elaborate on how providing lethal aid to Ukraine would prevent a Russian Red Dawn-style invasion of America, although we don't expect one soon. But his hyperbole raises a broader problem for his party. When it comes to prosecuting President Trump's impeachment on the basis that Trump's Ukraine policy has undermined American security, Democrats have no credibility.
Schiff's comments are not entirely baseless. We agree that America has an "abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism and resisting efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force." The post-Second World War international order has made us safer, wealthier, and freer by enshrining the democratic rule of law. That foundation requires defense against those such as Vladimir Putin, who trample the rights of others.
But Democrats are on weak ground in making this case.
When President Barack Obama was in charge, he pursued a policy of a “reset” with Russia that included canceling a Europe-based missile defense plan. His administration twiddled its thumbs as Putin annexed Crimea, and he resolutely refused to go as far as Trump has done in helping Ukraine, which has been to supply that besieged nation with lethal arms it requested and desperately needed.
Kyiv was keen to buy U.S. anti-tank platforms and anti-vehicle rifles. It didn't want Obama's binoculars and blankets. As President Petro Poroshenko told Congress in 2014, "Please understand me correctly. Blankets, night-vision goggles are also important. But one cannot win the war with blankets. Even more, we cannot keep the peace with a blanket."
Poroshenko's point is well-made. Without our help, Ukraine would not have the tools to disable Russian armored vehicles. That matters because Russian-supported rebels in southeastern Ukraine used armored vehicles to smash their way through Ukrainian army positions. It is much easier to alter the Russian strategic cost-benefit calculation when Javelin anti-tank missiles start punching their way into Russian formations. Only Trump, not Obama, was willing to provide those weapons to Ukraine.
During his Friday presentation, Schiff tried to shame Republicans by playing a clip of the late Sen. John McCain talking about the threat that a democratic Ukraine posed to Putin’s vision for the region. Yet he neglected to show the speech in which McCain described the Russian takeover of Crimea as “the ultimate result” of Obama’s “feckless foreign policy where nobody believes in America’s strength anymore.”
When Russia first invaded Ukraine in March 2014, Schiff tried to deflect blame away from the Obama administration and onto the intelligence community. That same month, the California congressman cautioned against a tough response to Russia's aggression, warning that "the challenge is, we do need to have some kind of working relationship with Russia. And while we can impose these costs and take these steps, we’ve got to be mindful of the fact that they can impose their own costs on us."
The impeachment case does not hinge on substantive arguments about U.S. policy toward Ukraine. The question is whether Trump abused power by delaying aid to Ukraine appropriated by Congress in an effort to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into announcing an investigation into Trump’s domestic political rival.
But Democrats pushing the idea that Trump's delay in sending aid endangered U.S. national security doesn't pass the laugh test. Given the Obama legacy, Democrats presenting themselves as enduring agents of support for Ukraine and defenders of global security is plainly ridiculous.
No comments:
Post a Comment