fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

The U.S. Doesn’t Need Another Dependent Client

Nikolas Gvosdev notes that the U.S. and the EU aren’t prepared to offer up the cash that Ukraine needs: Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov has helpfully quantified the cost of moving Ukraine into a closer Western orbit: Ukraine will need immediate financial assistance of some $28 billion “to provide conditions to minimize losses for the […]

Nikolas Gvosdev notes that the U.S. and the EU aren’t prepared to offer up the cash that Ukraine needs:

Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov has helpfully quantified the cost of moving Ukraine into a closer Western orbit: Ukraine will need immediate financial assistance of some $28 billion “to provide conditions to minimize losses for the Ukrainian economy,” a low-end estimate of the damage that would be caused if Russian sanctions were to be imposed in full. The EU’s treasury is not particularly overflowing with unspent cash, nor does the United States have emergency funding available for a bailout of Ukraine. Secretary of State John Kerry pledged that “the United States stands with the people of Ukraine. They deserve better.” But more concrete and tangible offers of aid do not appear to be forthcoming.

Gvosdev’s analysis is right, but I would add that this isn’t just a problem of being unable to throw money at Ukraine to change its government’s position. The last thing that the U.S. and its European allies need to have is another dependent client that offers little in return except another burden and the prospect of heightened tensions with another major power. The U.S. already fritters away enough resources trying to gain influence in different parts of the world, and in many cases the U.S. has ended up providing aid while having no influence worth mentioning. It is not just that the funding is not readily available, but that the U.S. has seen over the last decade how little has come from enormous expenditures overseas. There is understandably no appetite here or in Europe to prop up another government in a divided country when there is so little obvious benefit from doing so.

As Gvosdev points out, the U.S. wasn’t interested in supporting Ukraine financially a decade ago during the economic expansion at a time when the Bush administration was much more enthusiastic in its willingness to waste money on its so-called “freedom agenda.” It makes even less sense for the U.S. to do this in a weaker economy now that the “freedom agenda” has been thoroughly discredited. Even if the U.S. or EU were in a better position to bribe Kiev, it is not at all clear why either should want to do that. Once we get past the outdated notion that Ukraine is a great “prize,” there would seem to be no reason for it.

Update: Mark Adomanis repeats his argument that Ukraine is a huge liability for whichever patron ends up “winning” it:

Ukraine, then, is a country that is both poorer than China and demographically weaker than Russia. Not a promising combination.

None of this means that Ukraine is “bad” or that Ukrainians are somehow undeserving. I’ve been to Ukraine several times and the people I met (several of whom are out in the Maidan somewhere) were positively charming. But there is a desperate need for realism about the country’s short and long-term prospects, both of which are harrowing. Ukraine will inevitably require substantial infusions of resources just to limp along. Whoever provides these resources, whether the EU or Russia, should understand that it is not likely to be a profitable investment and that Ukraine will do little to bolster either of their fortunes.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here