4 hours ago
9
ARTICLE AD BOX
It is morally unacceptable to tell Ukraine if they want US support to continue they need to make a deal to pay the US back for what has already been supplied.
By SHERWIN POMERANTZ FEBRUARY 27, 2025 02:19
RUSSIA’S PERMANENT Representative Vasily Nebenzya speaks at a special session of the UN General Assembly, marking three years since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, earlier this week. The US, along with Russia, Belarus, and North Korea voted against a resolution condemning Moscow, the writer notes
(photo credit: Shannon Stapleton/Reuters)
This week, as we mark the third anniversary of Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the latter sponsored a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly condemning Russia as the aggressor in that conflict.
Amazingly, the United States, along with Russia, Belarus, and North Korea voted against the resolution. Given that US President Donald Trump last week opined incorrectly that Ukraine had started the conflict, the vote, while disappointing, was not surprising.
When the Russo-Ukrainian war began in the winter of 2022, Europe and the rest of the Western world understood that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and his attempt to, once again as he did in 2014 with Crimea, seize the territory of another sovereign nation was, in the truest sense, yet another battle against Western democratic values.
Disappointed that the once powerful Soviet Union had been dismantled when the Iron Curtain was brought down, the invasion of Ukraine was Putin’s way of trying to rebuild the Russian Empire to is perceived earlier greatness.
The change in America's policy on Ukraine
At the time, it was the United States who marshaled the European countries into an alliance that was prepared to supply Ukraine with the armaments and training it needed to stave off the Russian attack. Against formidable odds the Ukrainians have been able to defend themselves against what appeared to be a superior Russian fighting force but one that has met its match against a smaller but more dedicated military.
It is important to note that the support given to Ukraine by the West since the invasion was provided without preconditions, with no discussion of payments for these armaments that might come due after the war, or of any quid-pro-quo for the rich natural resources that can be found throughout Ukraine.
Just as the US came to the aid of Britain and their European allies in World War II, without any discussion about or concern for who would pay for the munitions and manpower supplied, the US Congress supported the leadership of then-president Joe Biden to do what needed to be done to protect the West from any unilateral incursions by Russia.
Of course, the West could have done even more than it did, but that is probably true whenever one country offers assistance to another.
In addition to fighting the Russians, Ukraine also very much wanted to join NATO to benefit from the mutual security pact that ties the member nations together. Although that has not happened and has been a bone of contention, it is easy to forget that during these three years, both Finland and Sweden did join NATO, given their fears about the possibility of being invaded by Russia at some future date as well, even though Putin was against that move as well.
NOW A new administration has come to power in the US which seems bent on allying itself with Russia’s objectives, claiming that Ukraine started the war (which is patently untrue) and demanding 50% of certain of Ukraine’s natural resources to repay the estimated $350 billion in military support that the US provided to Ukraine to assist in fighting their war of survival. Does this “after the fact” extortionist approach to aiding an ally not bother the conscience of anyone in America?
Stay updated with the latest news!
Subscribe to The Jerusalem Post Newsletter
Certainly, if the US had expected payment for the military supplies it provided Ukraine, at a minimum that should have been made clear before the goods were delivered. It is morally unacceptable to come back to them three years later and say if they want the support to continue they need to make a deal to pay the US back for what has already been supplied. Europe has made it clear that they have no such expectations.
Can anyone imagine former president Roosevelt going to Winston Churchill in the middle of World War II and demanding payment for what the US had already supplied before providing the additional assistance needed to defeat the Nazis?
Russia has performed poorly during these three years of war.
By all estimates, close to one million troops have been lost (estimates of death on the Ukrainian side are about 40,000), the Russian economy is in tatters, inflation is high, a significant portion of the middle class has left the country, there are protests in Siberia, and it is a generally weaker country than when Putin began this war.
Clearly this is not the time to make concessions to the weakened Russians.
Nevertheless, given the issues of realpolitik in the world today, Zelensky may have no choice but to make a deal with the US in order to achieve the security guarantees he needs, to maintain Ukrainian sovereignty. But realpolitik does not make something “kosher” that is morally wrong.
The world should have learned by now that appeasement is never a path to peace. Appeasement feeds the appetite of the aggressor and rarely brings peace to the appeaser.
Roosevelt said, “Appeasement is the policy of feeding your friends to a crocodile, one at a time, in hopes that the crocodile will eat you last.” At the end of the day, the crocodile eats everyone, so better not feed it at all.
The writer, who has lived in Israel for 41 years, is founder and chair of Atid EDI Ltd., an international business development consultancy; founder and chair of the American State Offices Association; a former national president of the Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel (AACI) and a past chairperson of the board of the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies.
English (US) ·