In 2004, when the Orange Revolution showed that Ukrainians would not stand for Russia’s interference in their country, then Secretary of State Colin Powell remarked, “A dozen years ago, Ukrainians chose freedom and independence, setting their country on a path of democracy and prosperity. The United States has been a consistent partner with Ukraine in this journey.”
That this consistency has wavered, especially along partisan lines during a time of war, would be a tragic surprise for the late diplomat and general. The Republican Party’s growing reluctance to support Ukraine stands against Powell’s views about America’s place in the world. In contrast to Powell’s doctrine of supporting action and allies with maximal effort, the U.S. has not provided Ukraine with the resources necessary for it to apply “decisive force.”
The impotence extends beyond the U.S. The European Union has not been able to provide the full amount of ammunition it pledged to Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz refuses to provide Taurus missiles. This inaction indicates a strategic shortsightedness that fails to consider how Russia’s success is bolstering a global network of bad actors that includes Iran, North Korea, and China.
As Secretary of State when NATO members invoked Article 5 to support the U.S. after 9/11, Powell understood that the role of NATO went far beyond assisting member states within their borders. In a 2004 speech in Brussels, he said, “NATO has gone from being an alliance mainly about the defense of common territory to being an alliance that is mainly about the defense of common principles, wherever those common principles in the world have been violated.” NATO’s commitment to sovereignty is central to its mission. To downplay the implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for the sanctity of sovereign states is to deny reality.
Critics may say that Powell’s role in America’s invasion of Iraq nullifies the wisdom of his worldview. In reality, the U.S. intervention in Iraq was not representative of the foreign policy Powell stood for throughout his life. Powell himself admitted his role in supporting the war would be a black mark on his record. Yet, outside of this admittedly large exception, Powell’s record on foreign policy was impressive. In 1989, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he helped plan the swift defeat of Manuel Noriega in Panama. Two years later, he oversaw the successful withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The early ’90s were marked by extensive strife in the Balkans. Powell advocated restricting U.S. troop presence on the ground in conjunction with airstrikes and calls for multilateral negotiations. His actions contributed to the eventual signing of the Dayton Accords, a peace agreement still in effect today.
In contrast, that supposedly pro-Ukraine Republican House members have not forced new supporting legislation forward indicates that they are not prioritizing Ukraine as a key concern. “Our capabilities are our credibility,” Powell once said. By withholding America’s immense capabilities in response to Russia, America’s credibility declines every day.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Although he would leave the GOP a few years before his death, Powell was at one point the party favorite to lead the Republican presidential ticket. That Republicans today choose to hold hostage military support for an ally at war goes against the values Powell advocated his entire life.
To turn our back on Ukraine is a moral and strategic calamity.
Artur Kalandarov is an analyst currently studying at Stanford University’s Center for Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies. He has previously been published in The Hill, Newsweek, The National Interest, Kyiv Post and Small Wars Journal.