My take on the American foreign policy shift on Ukraine

The American political Left and Right are full of takes on the recent public takedown of Zelenskyy by Trump and Vance in the White House. I’m a natural born American citizen and am politically receptive to America First governance in principle, and also a legal permanent resident of Ukraine where I have made a life for myself since 2018 and where most of the engineers I employ in my startup still reside. I should also note that my wife is Ukrainian. Therefore I have an unusual point of view in this debate, and I can’t restrain myself from weighing in.

A review of my posts and social media activity will reveal a spoiler of sorts: I fully and enthusiastically support Ukraine for both selfish and patriotic reasons, and if I were president I would provide such lavish military aid to Ukraine that she either wins or Putin makes his final mistake on this earth and throws a hot rock at the problem. I’m not writing this post to reiterate that position, which I think I’ve made clear already. I feel compelled to write this post because the discourse from the Left and the Right is so histrionic and misinformed that I have no choice but to intervene.

Over the last 8 or so years, it’s become a cliche to claim that anyone who is against a policy position held by the American left is a Russian bot. It’s about as worn out an insult now as “fascist”. This is unfortunate, because there actually are fascists in the world, and there actually are Russian bots operated by Russian intelligence and influence operations to sow discord and spread Russian propaganda to serve their own interests. Diluting the impact of these terms reduces our ability to recognize and call out legitimate threats. I see that happening now as it relates to the invasion of Ukraine.

In my own feed on X, anecdotally I have recently observed a lot more anti-Ukraine, anti-Zelenskyy commentary that is repeating Kremlin talking points. Some of this is surely actual Americans sharing their actual thoughts (perhaps influenced by contact with prior propaganda campaigns, perhaps not), and a lot of it is actual Russian bots. There’s no point in arguing with bot accounts; they are tireless and they outnumber humans. But it was unwise and ultimately destructive to the cause to just write off any skepticism towards Ukraine, her cause, the correct level of economic and military aid, or the winnability of the war as the mindless ramblings of Russian bot accounts and Putin’s fellow travelers. Now we get to hear from the people who came to power on the shoulders of a base that is at least skeptical of our role in the war in Ukraine, and it sucks.

Unfortunately I think Zelenskyy or at least those advising him made a grievous error in their approach to the new American administration. It’s so obvious to Ukrainians that their cause is just, the cause of freedom and democracy in the face of authoritarian aggression, that to question it is to reveal oneself as an agent of Putin. I fully understand that position, and were it not for my exposure to patriotic Americans who are skeptical of foreign adventures, I’d probably hold the same position. Unfortunately, Ukraine needs foreign support, and the European nations with their hollowed out military industries appear to be unable to shoulder that burden on their own. Zelenskyy dismissed any skepticism about Ukraine aid or talk of peace when he should have engaged with it behind the scenes and before the White House event that felt more like a public execution at the end.

To my many friends in Ukraine asking me to explain Trump’s policy position: I can’t; not in logical terms anyway. You shouldn’t have to justify why American and European interests are served by a Ukrainian victory and threatened by a Ukrainian defeat. But you should be used to it by now. The US and the European nations have been slow-walking aid since the early days of the invasion. Remember 700 Javelins? Remember how HIMARS, ATACMS, Abrams, and F-16s were out of the question? And that was with an administration whose party was enthusiastically pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia, but afraid to “escalate” and end up in a nuclear conflict. You should also know that American intervention in World War I and even World War II was controversial at the time. If Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbor, we might not have entered WWII at all. Was that because Americans were pro-Nazi or pro-Hitler? No, clearly not. But Americans are safe behind two oceans on a vast and rich continent, and for many it’s hard to understand why they should pay for, and in some cases send their children to die for, foreign causes. It isn’t fair that you should have to make the case for your own continued existence, but geopolitics are not fair. Your continued existence now depends on Ukraine’s ability to make this case repeatedly and convincingly at every turn.

If there’s one thing that I wish my Ukrainian friends and the Ukrainian leadership would take away from this, it’s that Americans skeptical of our aid to Ukraine (yes, in many cases influenced by Russian propaganda) are not automatically KGB agents or lovers of Putin or victims of Kremlin blackmail. You can act like there’s no possible way that a good person could make up their mind that America shouldn’t support Ukraine in her struggle, but if you do that you are not helping your cause, and you play into Russia’s divide-and-conquer strategy. For you it’s a question of your own survival, but for most Americans with no direct ties to Ukraine it’s a question of what to spend our tax dollars on, at a time when American finances are unsustainably red.

And for those on the American right who have either recently adopted Trump’s anti-Ukraine position, or have always been skeptical of Ukraine aid, I try (often in vain) to explain the following:

• Ukraine didn’t start this war, and neither did US policies. I’ve seen claims made that this war was an inevitable consequence of the encroachment of NATO on areas of Russian influence, that the US promised not to grow NATO beyond its 1994 borders, and that the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Yanukovich which precipitated the invasion of Crimea and Donbas in 2014 and eventually the full-scale invasion in 2022. I’ve recently read propaganda claims to the effect that Putin offered Zelenskyy just terms for peace in 2022 (“just” here in the Russian sense meaning “fuck you later”) and he didn’t take them therefore Ukraine is responsible for this war now.

  I think it’s useful to try to understand the Russian motivations for the actions that they take, just like it was useful post-9/11 for Americans otherwise unfamiliar with Islamic terrorism to ask why Al Qaeda hated America so much. But when the result of that analysis is “Putin did X because he felt Y when the US did Z”, it does not follow that “X is America’s fault”. NATO didn’t conquer and occupy Estonia or Poland or Finland or any of the new members; they all petitioned to join NATO because of their long and painful experience of Russian aggression and dominion, in the hope that NATO Article 5 and the nuclear security umbrella would protect them from any future aggression. NATO countries do not preemptively invade and conquer their peaceful neighbors, and if one were to try to do so there would certainly not be any Article 5 security assistance from the alliance. Russia’s talking points to the contrary are their own internal propaganda dating back to the Soviet era, and do not justify Russian aggression in Ukraine. Russia started this war. Russia could make this war end tomorrow by withdrawing to Ukraine’s 2022 borders. That they do not do so is Putin’s decision, and is not the fault of either the US or Ukraine.

• Zelenskyy and Ukrainians in general really do want peace. Ukraine has already lost a devastating number of her best people, both at the front and to Russian attacks on civilians. Ukrainian men of fighting age not already in military service live in fear of conscription and a violent death or dismemberment at the front. No one has greater desire for peace than the Ukrainians, the victims of Putin’s war of aggression. What Zelenskyy opposes, and what the Ukrainian people overwhelmingly oppose, is the typical Western idea of “peace”, which means the bad guy signs a document and makes promises to not be bad anymore, democracy is saved, business as usual can resume. They oppose it because they understand perfectly well that Russian leadership generally and Putin specifically will sign or promise or swear whenever it’s in their interest to do so, and then renege on their obligations as soon as it suits them. So a peace in which Russia and Ukraine sign documents saying they won’t fight and Russia won’t invade any further and Ukraine gives up the territory she lost is tantamount to surrender, because Russia will get what she wanted in this war, re-build her military capacity, and come back at her leisure to finish the job. Hand-wavy “security guarantees” won’t cut it, which is why so many Ukrainians long for NATO membership. It’s obvious to me that Ukraine will not be admitted to a NATO in which America is a member, but it’s understandable why that’s their desire. Short of Article 5 treaty obligations, there is little historical reason to believe the American or European forces would die on the battlefield to save Ukraine in some future Russian revanche.

• Ukraine is not a dictatorship and Zelenskyy is not a dictator. It’s true that Zelenskyy declared martial law when the war started, and has renewed that declaration whenever it has expired. Martial law is the legal mechanism in the Ukrainian constitutional system for placing the country on a war footing. It would be hard to argue that Ukraine is not at war; this is clearly not a blatant power grab or a coup. The Ukrainian courts have affirmed the plain language of the Ukrainian constitution which does not permit elections to be held under martial law for what should be obvious logistical reasons. If 20% of US territory was under occupation and we held an election in which the occupied territories could not participate, would that be a legitimate election? Ukraine’s courts and constitution take the position that it is not, and whether you agree or disagree I don’t think it’s an unreasonable or despotic position to take, particularly since this law was ratified by democratically elected representatives.

  If the suspension of elections and the censorship of opposition parties funded by and allied with the aggressor nation cause you to think that Ukraine must not be a democracy and has fallen to authoritarian dictatorship, then I urge you to make inquiries as to the British political situation during WWII, and even the years after the war ended. Perhaps your position is that the US was wrong to take Britain’s side in that war?

• Ukraine did ban political parties and media outlets that were directly tied to Russian interests, and she did expel the Russian Orthodox Church (technically it’s called the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church” which is affiliated with Moscow, while the actual Orthodox faith in Ukraine is represented by the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, a different religious organization entirely and not subject to any legal sanction) and establish a legal framework for the expropriation the Russian church’s property. To American sensibilities, this is prima facie evidence of a totalitarian dictatorship and not something democracies would do. But these facts have been misrepresented in Western media as if Zelenskyy banned Christianity and purged the government of all opposition. That is not at all the case.

  Religious liberty in Ukraine is alive and well. While the Orthodox faith is the majority religion in Ukraine, many Ukrainians practice Roman Catholocism, various Protestant faiths, of course there is a large Jewish population and a Jewish holy site in Uman (Zelenskyy himself is Jewish), there are a lot of Muslims particularly in the Crimea, and no small number of atheists. The state doesn’t interfere with the practice of religion, whatever it is.

  Ukraine also has diverse political parties, including parties of candidates who opposed him in the last election and in many cases still do. Look up Petro Poroschenko’s and Yulia Tymoshenko’s recent political activity if you don’t believe me.

  Certainly, any banning of a religion or a political party on the basis of affiliation with an enemy would run afoul of the First Amendment in America and should be fiercly resisted. But that’s my American opinion. The reality is that Americans are unusually, uniquely free in this regard. State crackdowns on certain political ideas and imagery are more common in Europe. If you doubt that, try to start a Nazi party in Germany or France and see how far you get. The fact is that Ukraine had some political parties aligned with Russia and in some cases operating as clandestine foreign influence operations for Russia, as was the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, giving material aid and comfort to the enemy. These crackdowns were popular among the Ukrainian population, so while they are technically authoritarian they were also democratic.

  To be clear, I dislike these laws and think that they were a strategic error in pursuit of a feel-good populist win domestically; there seems to be a lot of that going around these days though. If you find that to be beyond the pale, let me assure you that Russia is far worse in this regard, and some Western European nations are not much better.

• Ukraine hasn’t stolen half of the military aid. While Ukraine has a problem with corruption, and her officer ranks definitely include many traitors who steal whatever they can even when it means starving the war effort, the extent of this problem has been deliberately misrepresented by Russian propaganda. Zelenskyy famously said that half of the aid was missing, by which he meant that half of what had been promised to Ukraine had not been delivered. Much of the US aid is actual weapons and material purchased by the US government in the US; there probably is some corruption involved there but it’s the corruption of US defense contractors and not at all limited to the Ukraine war.

• Corruption in Ukraine is still widespread, but unlike Russia they have made substantial progress in rooting it out even in the years that I’ve lived there. If the concern is that corrupt officials are stealing some fraction of the aid we’re sending (see bullet point above) then by all means let’s stand up an org in-country like SIGIR in Iraq and put a boot on the neck of corruptioners [“corruptioners” is a loan word from Ukrainian; you know a country has a corruption problem when they have a specific word for “person who knowingly profits from corruption” - ed]. If you want the names of some bloodthirsty Ukrainians with an accounting background and a burning desire to root out corruption in the military reach out to me privately I’ll put you in touch with a few good people.

• Ukrainians in Donbas and Crimea did not vote to join Russia. Before 2014, it was true that the political sentiment and voting patterns in both Donbas and Crimea were largely pro-Russian. I believe Yanukovich won those oblasts handily in the election that brought him to power. But all of that changed, starting in 2014 and definitely in 2022. The “elections” that Russia held in the occupied territories to determine if they should join the Russian federation were as fair and trustworthy as any Russian election result in recent history, which is to say not at all fair or trustworthy. There was extensive evidence of election tampering and intimidation, including videos of Russian soldiers bringing ballots to individual apartments to be filled out in their presence, quite literally at gunpoint. There is no democratic justification for anything Russia has done in Ukraine, least of all the annexation of the Donbas and Crimea.

• Ukrainians are not ready to give up the occupied territories, even though it’s obvious to everyone that there is no military path to their liberation (short of my hypothetical administration’s “damn the hot rocks and full speed ahead” policy articulated in the intro). With my Ukrainian friends who know me well enough to know that I’m not a Kremlin agent, I even admit as much. But can you blame them for holding onto this position? How willing would we be to give up Alaska in some alternate reality where Russia invaded and occupied it? We all naively thought that the bad old days when the violent invasion and occupation of parts of sovereign nations was a legitimate and effective growth strategy were behind us. I don’t have a brilliant political proposal for how to solve this problem, but if the result is that Russia gets to keep the territories that she has violently annexed and occupied, I can guarantee that her appetite will not stop there. If you don’t believe me, look up “Neville Chamberlain” and “peace in our time” for an instructive historical example.

So, as I scream into the void, unheard and yearning for a catharsis that pointless acts seldom provide, here are my requests for both the Ukrainians waging the information sphere campaign for Ukraine’s survival, and for the politicians on the skeptical American right.

First, for the Ukrainians:

• Enough with the nonsense Trump/Vance/Musk-as-Russian-agents narrative. Believe that privately if you want, but the only people this reaches are people who already hated them and already supported you, and it alienates a lot of potential allies.
• In fact, completely stop the name-calling when politicians or other public figures question their country’s support for Ukraine. Yes, some of them are literally paid Kremlin assets, some of the rest are idiots feeding from the Russian propaganda trough, but I promise you many of them are neither. Engage them on the facts if you have the patience, or ignore them if you don’t. Your histrionics are understandable given the horrors of the war three years in, but they are not bringing you any closer to victory and actually play into Russia’s hand. Don’t fall for it.
• Make a heroic effort to patiently explain why it’s in America’s and others’ interest to support Ukraine, and why a ceasefire or a “peace” deal is not only not in Ukraine’s interest but also not in Europe’s or America’s. I know it’s maddening to have to argue for your continued existence, and it’s not fair that the world works this way, but it’s also not fair that Putin invaded and so many Ukrainians have been killed so by now you understand that the world isn’t fair. Do you want to be righteous and indignant or do you want to actually win over potential allies? If you can’t bear to do this in a way that will convince a skeptical interlocutor, it’s better to not engage at all.
• Zelenskyy needs to wear the suit and tie and come crawling back to the Trump White House. It grinds my gears too, and you can burn Trump in effigy on the streets of Kyiv after the war is over, but at this point your choice is Trump or Putin. They will both put you on your knees. One of them won’t let you get back up again.
• Introduce the death penalty for corruption in time of war. My guess is that informally this is already practiced in some cases in the military, but it really needs to be official. I know the European sensibilities recoil at capital punishment, but corruption in the military is still ongoing and it’s a huge propaganda boost for Russia, therefore it’s tantamount to treason. Yes, the executions will also feed Russian propaganda campaigns, but the corruption is worse, and the US also has the death penalty for treason so your biggest key ally is in no position to object. I suggest a format like the Nuremberg trials, complete with international judges, to make sure that the trials are fair and biased towards acquittal without being influenced by oligarchs’ money.

For the American skeptics on Ukraine:

• Visit Ukraine, at least Kyiv and if you have the nerve then go to Kharkiv or Kherson closer to the front. By all means, while there seek out Ukrainians who will confirm your priors or express any affinity for Russia or an unconditional surrender to Russia, if you can find them. Ukraine isn’t North Korea; you can walk around on your own and talk to people without SBU handlers giving them the stink eye. If you don’t believe me about that then send out some aides or fixers to do it for you and report back. Make sure you’re there during a Russian barrage and spend some time in an air raid shelter. Feel free to put on a ballistic helmet and body armor and take the photo op; just crop out the Ukrainian grannies in the background pointing and laughing. Try to explain your position to the Ukrainians you meet there, tell them the things you believe about Ukraine and Zelenskyy and Russia and Putin, and listen to their response. Then come back home and see if your position has changed.
• Reflect on your objections to support for Ukraine. Are they based on Russian propaganda talking points that I’ve addressed above? If not, try a thought experiment: apply your objections to American foreign policy in the summer of 1941 vis a vis Britain. Are you then opposed to American involvement in WWII? If so are you comfortable with this position?
• If you are still against American aid for Ukraine, please articulate why the fall of Ukraine to Russian aggression is not bad for American interests at home and abroad. Or perhaps alternatively, why you think a Russian victory in Ukraine serves our interests.
• Setting aside NATO treaty obligations, are there any European countries whose defense against a Russian invasion you would be willing to support at least to the extent that the US has supported Ukraine thus far? How close of an ally and how old of a democracy must a country be before it’s worthy of American military support against unprovoked aggression? What quality is Ukraine missing that makes it unworthy of American support?
• If you support continued US aid to Israel against her enemies, consider how Ukraine’s situation is any different. When Biden was threatening to suspend arms shipments to Israel and demanding an immediate ceasefire with Hamas, did you support that position? Now imagine that Hamas outnumbers Israel by population 4 to 1 and occupies 20% of her territory, as Russia does Ukraine. Do you make any distinction between Ukraine and Israel?
• If you insist on peace for Ukraine on your own terms, ask yourself why. What is different about this peace deal, compared to the countless times Russia has agreed to ceasefires or DMZs only to keep fighting? Is your position based on trust that Russia honors her agreements? Is it based on some vague hand-wavy idea, not ratified by the Senate as a treaty obligation, that we would intervene if Russia attacks again? If so, then what prevents Russia from using the peace to rearm and correct the mistakes she made in 2022? If you don’t have solid answers not based on wishful thinking or historical illiteracy, then your position is basically that of the America First movement in 1941 before Pearl Harbor:

As for me, I don’t know what more I can do but argue on the Internet, seeth with impotent rage, and send money to guys I know who are fighting the Russians. If you want to turn some dollars into Russian casualties, there are many units that you can support directly. I can personally vouch for and unreservedly recommend supporting the 92nd Separate Mechanized Brigade “Achilles”, or if you prefer a more quid pro quo arrangement, buy some sweet merch in the 92 OMB store. Make sure you click “Одяг” (“clothes”) and pick up a “RSN PZD” t-shirt (if you know, you know).

UPDATE: The always-provocative Handwaving Freakoutery posted a politically neutral mathematical analysis of the relative and absolute contributions of various NATO powers to Ukraine. If you care as I do about the survival and flourishing of an independent Ukrainian state, it makes for grim reading. If you enjoy owning the libs on Ukraine, you should enjoy this. It turns out that Trump’s claims about the US’s outsized contribution to Ukraine aid specifically and NATO securiy in general are not some figment of a deranged mind, but supported by NATO data. In particular, this graph ruined my day:

This confirms my position that I’ve articulated above, that Zelenskyy needs to put on the suit and tie and crawl back to the White House on hands and knees in the hopes of turning US aid to Ukraine back on. The European nations at this moment (with notable and heroic exceptions of the Poles and Estonians, with whom I would advise potential invaders not to fuck) do not support Ukraine with money the way they claim to support Ukraine with words. I see no reason to believe that Trump being a dick will suddenly shock them into cutting back on their welfare states and whatever else they spend their money on and fully funding Ukraine’s war effort. The one and only chance for Ukraine’s survival as a free and independent state is for someone to convince Trump that Ukraine is worth the cost to America to save. I and many Americans already believe that wholeheartedly, but it doesn’t matter what we believe right now. The only thing that matters is convincing Trump to change his mind.

Perhaps as a gesture of goodwill, Ukraine could rename the Batkivshina Mat statue in Kyiv to Dyadya Trump and give it a Trumpian haircut. Then rename John McCain Street in central Kyiv to Donald Trump Boulevard.

I’m joking to make the point, which is to damn your national pride for the moment and swallow whatever bitter pills are needed to save the country. If I were president of Ukraine, that’s what I’d do, even though it meant living out the remainder of my days as a pariah and laughtingstock in my own country. What’s the alternative? Heroically falling to Russian dominion for another 100+ years?