Askold Lozynskyj
A subject of particular interest in Ukraine is Ukrainian American relations. I have the good fortune to have been invited by a number of universities in Ukraine to speak on this subject.
There is a somewhat lengthy modern history of these relations dating back to the early part of the XX century following World War I when America for the first time became a player in global politics.
Ukrainian history in the XX century is most dynamic, in almost every sphere of its existence as a people, a culture and its politics. Ukraine in whole or in part proclaimed its independence some five times in that century with the last proclamation on August 24, 1991, proving to be enduring. The Ukrainian people were decimated a number of times most significantly through a forced famine in 1932-33 as well as by World War II. In fact, some 7-10 million Ukrainians lost their lives during the aforesaid famine and another 10 million military and civilian Ukrainians perished during World War II. In fact, the British historian Norman Davies posed the question which nation suffered the greatest losses during World War II and perhaps surprised everyone by his Ukrainian 10 million count. Ukrainians fought against the Nazis and the Soviets. A good portion of the war took place on Ukrainian territory.
For America the recognition of Ukrainian political aspirations was somewhat less than dynamic, mostly clouded by political considerations, Soviet and Russian influence with very little regard for morality or historical truth. Politics are as far removed from morality as politicians from the truth so perhaps American reluctance can be understood but not justified within the context of governments in general who are rarely guided by right over wrong or good over evil.
President Trump in one of his rants pointed out that even as a peacemaker he is not guided by principles of human rights, but rather by profit and expediency. Trump is not the first politician to be so guided, but one of very few in history to besmirch his legacy by revealing his motivation.
A U.S. National Security Council document from August 1948 explains much:
“First of all, would it be our desire that the present territory of the Soviet Union remain united under a single regime or that they be partitioned? And if they are to remain united, at least to a large extent, then what degree of federalism should be observed in a future Russian government? What about the major minority groups, in particular, the Ukrainians? The Ukrainians are the most advanced of the peoples who have been under Russian rule in modern times. They have generally resented Russian domination and their nationalistic organizations have been active and vocal abroad. It would be easy to jump to the conclusion that they should be freed, at least, from Russian rule and permitted to set themselves up as an independent state. We would do well to beware of this conclusion. Its very simplicity condemns it in terms of eastern European realities. We cannot be indifferent to the feelings of the Great Russians themselves. They were the strongest national element in the Russian empire. Any long term US policy must be based on
their acceptance and their cooperation. The Ukrainian territory is as much a part of their national heritage as the Middle West is of ours. A solution which attempts to separate the Ukrainian entity from the rest of Russia is bound to incur their resentment and opposition, and can be maintained, in the last analysis, only by force. We would not deliberately encourage Ukrainian separatism, nevertheless if an independent regime were to come into being on the territory of Ukraine through no doing of ours, we should not oppose it outright. Such a regime would be bound to be challenged eventually from the Russian side. Our policy in the first instance should be to maintain an outward neutrality.”
That policy has been maintained throughout. Perhaps the most bizarre component is the comparison of Ukraine towards Russia as that of the Middle West to the United States. It represents a woeful lack of knowledge of history. Kyiv predated Moscow by some seven centuries. The independent Kyivan state predated the independent Muscovite state by a similar number of centuries.
There is no way to justify such American ignorance and political predilection. Under Trump the ignorance has become more severe and the predilection more skewed. There was clearly a lack of a moral compass which under Trump has turned over to the other side entirely. That complete lack of a moral compass explains America today. It simply does not represent the American people who still believe in freedom and justice for all.
October 22, 2025