For much of the last millennium, Ukraine as a state was more a vision of its people than a political reality. Rule came from abroad and initiative was repressed—until 1991. In that year, Ukraine split from the Soviet Union and gained its best chance to establish itself as a sovereign and independent state. Across the nation, millions of people formed a human chain in a call for freedom. Ten years later, Ukraine has established its independence and strengthened what was, in the early 1990s, a fragile nation-state. The character of that independent Ukraine is still evolving: how free a society, how strong its democratic values, how competitive its economy, how deep the rule of law, how much a prisoner of corruption?
Accomplishments and disappointments have filled the last 10 years. For most of that time, the Ukrainian people suffered a crushing economic contraction that wiped away their savings and cut their incomes by more than half. Yet as a nation, Ukraine held together, as if by some innate belief, produced through a thousand years of Ukrainian culture, that being Ukrainian meant something. Ukrainians often felt disappointed that the West did not help more. The West often resented that Ukraine did not make more of its assistance. Ten years later, we need to understand these clashing perspectives and use that knowledge to advance a shared goal of Ukraine as a democratic, market-oriented, and prosperous European state.
If any lesson has been learned, it is that Ukraine’s future is its own to define. Outsiders can help or hinder, but their impact is marginal. The principal choices are Ukraine’s to make. Never before has Ukraine been able to make this claim. Never before has Ukraine shouldered such responsibility for itself.Politically, there is really no middle road. Ukraine must either walk with the civilized world as a responsible democracy, or its indecision will isolate it. Indications are that Ukraine’s leaders understand this choice and are taking sound steps in their foreign policy, but in the long term, the success of Ukraine’s foreign policy will depend on domestic choices—the political and economic character of the Ukrainian state. These traits will fundamentally shape Ukraine’s possibilities as a partner in the Euro-Atlantic community.
From a U.S. perspective, this article charts some of the lessons of the past and issues for the future. Ironically, the next 25 years are perhaps easier to predict than the next 10 years. Imagining a state as large as Ukraine, given its history and culture, and with such natural and human resources, as anything other than European is difficult. The big question is which path Ukraine will take to reach that goal—an easy path or a difficult one. The choices that Ukraine’s leaders make now will determine that path and will have major consequences for the Ukrainian people.
[The resignation of assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs Wess Mitchell] is surprising news, which seems to have caught everyone off guard. He doesn’t appear to have shared this news with his ambassadors, who were in Washington last week for a global chiefs of mission conference. His deputy is also slated to retire soon, which raises question of near term leadership on European policy at a time of challenges there.
[Wess] Mitchell was a strong supporter of NATO, particularly in Eastern Europe where he will be sorely missed. His departure comes follows the resignation of senior Pentagon officials – Robert Karem and Tom Goffus – working on NATO along with Secretary Mattis. Without this pro-alliance caucus, NATO is now more vulnerable than at any time since the beginning of the Trump administration.