News Analysis
As tensions mount along the Ukraine-Russia border, critics have questioned why some of the same U.S. officials who contributed to regional instability during the Obama administration are again in charge of America’s response to the crisis, although some top Republicans support the Biden administration’s position.
Last week, U.S. Undersecretary for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland briefed members of the Senate on the situation between Ukraine and Russia—warning that Russian president Vladimir Putin has amassed some 100,000 soldiers along the border in a possible plan to invade.
If the name Nuland sounds familiar, it might be from her role in the previous Ukrainian crisis during the Obama administration—one that critics say is the reason the two countries are again on verge of war today.
As an assistant secretary of state in 2013 and 2014, Nuland participated in the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s then-democratically elected president. pro-Russia Yanukovych was facing political controversies at the time, and Nuland and others in the State Department saw his rising unpopularity as an opportunity to unseat him in favor of a more Western-friendly leader.
Nuland and the State Department were found to have supported the armed coup against Yanukovych. Most damningly, a leaked February 2014 phone call between Nuland and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt revealed the two officials handpicking Ukraine’s next government in the wake of Yanukovych’s downfall.
“Yats is the guy,” Nuland said at the time, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who was designated as the new prime minister of Ukraine following Yanukovych’s removal in February 2014.
Months later, Hunter Biden joined the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings in May 2014. More consequentially for the people of the region, the coup is widely seen to have contributed to regional instability that persists to this day.
Putin responded by annexing the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in order to protect an essential Russian strategic asset, the warm water naval base at Sevastopol, the largest city in Crimea. He also provided special operations assistance to the people of the eastern Donbass region, who were defending themselves from military assault by the U.S.-backed Kiev government after they refused to recognize what they considered to be an illegitimate coup junta.
With Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky renewing efforts to have his country join NATO, Putin has again reportedly responded by amassing some 100,000 along the two countries’ borders. NATO membership for Ukraine has long been a red line for Russia.
At last week’s Senate hearing on the matter, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) asked Nuland whether the Biden administration would provide any of the following concessions—rescind promises that Ukraine will eventually join NATO, cease providing Ukraine with arms, or pull back U.S. troops from Russia’s western border—in exchange for Putin withdrawing troops from near Ukraine.
“All of those would be unacceptable,” Nuland responded, reiterating the Biden administration’s support for the Ukrainian government.
But some critics question why Nuland is dictating terms in Ukraine-Russia policy after mishandling tensions some seven years ago.
“ same people who messed up in 2014 and made the absolutely ridiculous decision to overthrow the elected Ukrainian government—not only were they not punished for such dangerous and reckless behavior; they’re actually promoted,” Daniel McAdams, the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, told Pezou.
“She’s now more powerful than she ever was,” said McAdams, referencing Nuland’s move from an assistant secretary of state to undersecretary for political affairs—the fourth-ranking position in the State Department.
McAdams, who worked as a human rights monitor and election observer in Eastern Europe in the 1990s before serving as former Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas) foreign policy advisor from 2001-2012, isn’t the only Nuland critic. Fox News host Tucker Carlson said on his Dec. 7 show that “it’s amazing anyone is still listening to her”—also citing her support for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
“Not only is she obviously unimpressive as a person, she was one of the architects of the intervention in Iraq. Why is Toria Nuland still talking foreign policy? Is the guy who designed Chernobyl still building nuclear reactors? Probably not,” Carlson said.
“Only in Washington, where failure is rewarded, could someone like Victoria Nuland still wield power, which she absolutely does,” he said. “It’s scary when you think about it, that Victoria Nuland is driving our Ukraine policy.”
However, top Republicans have largely supported the Biden administration’s escalating conflict with Russia over Ukraine. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the second-highest ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said last week that he supports U.S. troops in Ukraine and even potential “nuclear action” against Russia to prevent an invasion.
“I think we start making mistakes when we take options off the table. I would hope the president keeps that option on the table,” Wicker told Fox News host Neil Cavuto last week.
“We don’t rule out first-use nuclear action, we don’t think it will happen but there are certain things in negotiations, if you are going to be tough, that you don’t take off the table,” he said.
Wicker’s comments sparked backlash against some Democrats and House Republicans. For instance, Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said on Steve Bannon’s Dec. 8 show, “War Room Pandemic,” that Wicker and his ilk are “insane.”
“I don’t serve the military-industrial complex. I’m not concerned in making sure the small-arms dealers and their contractors keep getting their paychecks. I’m not interested in carrying on forever and ever non-ending wars. And I’m sure as hell not interested in a nuclear war with Russia—first strike,” Greene said. “se people are insane,”
McAdams lamented the fact that opposition to the Biden administration’s escalating conflict with Russia has been largely muted amongst Democrats and Republicans alike, though he said he isn’t surprised.
“When it comes to foreign policy, there’s only one party, and it’s the war party,” he said. “And the war party runs Washington.”
McAdams did say he’s holding out hope that comments like the ones from Carlson, Bannon, and Greene reflect a growing anti-war sentiment amongst conservative populists.
“Sometimes you’ll see people appearing to be anti-war, but they say, ‘We shouldn’t be intervening here because there’s something even more dangerous over there.’ But I do think there is a populist wing within the Republican party,” he said.
“re used to be a consensus—the old Pat Buchanan-Bill Press consensus of progressives and populous Republicans opposing war—that would be great to see that emerge again.”
Pezou : Biden Official Steering Ukraine Policy Played Role in 2014 Coup