Why Are American Conservatives Garroting the Nation That Helped “Make America Great Again”?

No event more assured President Reagan’s legacy than his epochal reorientation of American policy – rejecting “lockdown” and “détente” and implementing an affirmative policy aimed at ending “the empire difficulty “, writing Victor Roud.

No wonder that, under the direction of KGB chief Yurij Andropov, agents in the United States were alerted that they might be asked to “get rid of Reagan”; this, from the KGB defector, Boris Youjin. North Korea’s Kum Il-Sung was also furious with the upstart Republican president and considered having Reagan murdered during his visit to South Korea in 1983.

Although the successor Bush administration tried hard to prevent it, the restoration of Ukrainian independence in 1991 laid the foundations of the USSR. It halted America’s strategic retreat, allowing us to reclaim a global primacy we hadn’t seen since the end of World War II. It is therefore amazing to wonder that by opposing aid to Ukraine, a growing part of the American conservative right is garrotting both it and the implicit torchbearer of their own party. It is one thing to honestly advocate for a revised legislative process to better help Ukraine. It is quite another to hail with paroxysmal zeal a Russian victory in a genocidal war against the very nation that saved the United States from an apocalyptic course. And proclaiming hosannas for Bucha’s butcher like the life force traditional values? The same Yurij Andropov was Putin’s pin-up during his KGB training. Putin reintroduced Soviet symbolism, laments the fall of the USSR and unfurls Soviet flags in Russia and now occupied Ukraine. by Putin colleagues the American conservative right knows that, doesn’t it?

A bit of context.

After Reagan’s inauguration, at the request of a member of his transition team, I sent Richard Allen, his national security adviser at the time, an analysis of the failures of our “containment” policy. towards the Soviet Union. It was a Pavlovian straitjacket, locking us into a perpetual crouching response/reaction by subcontracting to Moscow diktat the time, place and intensity of the next crisis, the “bureaucratic verbalization of a policy of derivative.” I argued that the trajectory could not continue and outlined the measures needed to stress the Soviet regime and hasten its dissolution.

I did not know that my proposal tallied with what was already formulated at the White House. Allen’s response of April 21, 1981 was direct: “We intend to be more imaginative and assertive in all aspects of our foreign policy, but especially with regard to the Soviet Union.” Reagan was perfectly aware that the USSR was not Russia“, but a multinational state, the last great empire, and subject to the same centrifugal forces clamoring for freedom as any empire. He wrote, “We must keep alive the idea that the conquered nations – the captive nations – of the Soviet Union must regain their freedom.” During this year, National Security Order Directive 32 encouraged “long-term liberal and nationalist tendencies within the Soviet Union and the Allied countries”. One year later, SDDS 75 called for “internal pressure on the USSR to weaken the source of Soviet imperialism, . . . and to reverse Soviet expansionism”, and to “promote evolutionary change within the Soviet Union itself”.

Back to today.

The Heritage Foundation has been the conservatively-influenced Brahmin in Washington, boasting of being Reagan’s heir. Recently, he cut his moorings in opposite An additional $13.7 billion in aid to Ukraine, €11.7 billion for military and economic assistance and $2 billion to help reduce rising energy costs. The joint of the need for “fiscal responsibility” is a rhetorical pretense. By a estimate, it cost us 13 trillion dollars – and 100,000 of our best – to win the Cold War, where Ukraine was the key to “victory”. And America’s 20-year “War on Terror” was another $8 billion. Our aid (no boots) to Ukraine is a fractional rounding error in comparison. Moreover, Ukraine is fighting against the original terrorist state which, in the 1970s and 1980s generates “Islamic terrorism” against America.

Joining Heritage was Worried Veterans of America, whose mission is to “preserve the freedom and prosperity that we and our families have fought and sacrificed to defend.” The veterans’ opposition actually endorses Russia’s central tenet in its doctrine of total war against the United States – the destruction of the very existence of the nation, Ukraine, which has helped “make America even bigger”.

Neither ignorance, nor naivety, nor individual political ambitions alone explain apostasy. Nor is partisanship, since on this issue the right has joined a pas de deux with a lot of the American progressive left, and not just the recent vintage. It is the Democratic Party that has historically had the hottest spot for the Kremlin. President Roosevelt extended diplomatic recognition to the USSR in 1933 as Stalin starved the Ukrainians into submission, ensuring the viability of the USSR for generations, with all its consequences. During World War II, the largest Hit Soviet intelligence was Harry Hopkins’ slice as President Roosevelt’s most trusted adviser, and who also ran the wartime Lend-Lease program that also funded the Iron Curtain. It has also equipped Moscow in its battle against Ukrainian and Baltic insurgencies and in suppressing Gulag uprisings. Under Truman’s watch, we engaged in a macabre repatriation Ukrainian refugees in post-war Europe, survivors of the 1930s genocide. And we sought to track, for Stalin, the informants in the Ukrainian underground who tipped off US Army intelligence about Stalin’s plan aimed at assassinating General George C. Patton.

In our lifetime, President Carter has seen the creation of nearly half a dozen new Soviet client states. President Clinton pushed Ukraine to hand over the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal to . . . Russia. He also assured Russia of the USSR’s seat on the UN Security Council and compared Russian President Yeltsin, during his invasion of Chechnya, to Abraham Lincoln. how is the president of Obama ‘what’s happening in Ukraine is not a threat to us’ different from Fox News’ Tucker Carlson’s “Ukraine is not strategically relevant”? And what about President Obama bonhomie in the Russian “reset” and, as a senator, his 2005 mission to destroy the Ukrainian conventional system weapons? President of trump “I loved him. He loved me. and “Getting along with Russia is a good thing”, are of the same kind as President Roosevelt being “determined to make himself likeof Stalin and President Truman “They have always been our friends and I see no reason why they shouldn’t be. . . so let’s go. It’s no wonder that President Truman didn’t officially embrace “lockdown” until four years after Moscow absorbed Eastern Europe and the northern territories of Japan.

As a growing segment of half the American political spectrum feverishly fuels head-exploding anomalies, the consequences are monumental. Consider them against the manifest introduced to the Russian General Staff Academy in 1997, the same year that Washington pushed for Russia’s inclusion in the G7: actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing the internal political processes in the United States

It would also make sense to simultaneously support isolationist tendencies in American politics. . . .” Specific aims include isolating Britain from Europe, introducing discord both within the EU and between the EU and the US, and destabilizing Turkey. Iran must be a key player in a Russian-Islamic alliance against America. And Ukraine, as a “huge danger” for this construction, must be extinguished.

What would Reagan say?


Victor Rud is the former president of the Ukrainian American Bar Association and now chairs its Foreign Affairs Committee. He is a senior adviser at Open Court, a non-governmental organization in Ukraine, and a senior adviser at the Center for Eastern European Democracy in Toronto. His affiliations are provided for identification purposes only.


Follow EU Today on social media:

Victor Roud

Victor Rud practiced international law for 35 years and, before the fall of the Soviet Union, he represented political prisoners in the West persecuted by the KGB. He was also special adviser to a member of the US delegation to the Madrid Review Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (“Helsinki Accords”).

His comment was made, among others, by Forbes, Kyiv Post, Foreign Policy Association, Defense Report, Atlantic Council, Global Strategy Centerand Euromaidan Press.

Victor is a senior advisor for Open Court, an NGO in Ukraine, and was the keynote speaker at the first Lviv Security Forum.

He is a founder and past president of the Ukrainian American Bar Association, and currently chairs its Foreign Affairs Committee. He received his undergraduate degree in international relations from Harvard College and his law degree from Duke University.


Comments are closed.