DOCSLIB.ORG

Npr 1.3: Ukraine's Flawed Nuclear Diplomacy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Npr 1.3: Ukraine's Flawed Nuclear Diplomacy Steven E. Miller n December 1991, U.S. Secretary of State James Ukraine has combined the rhetoric of denuclearization Baker visited Kiev to consult with the leaders of newly with behavior that has raised doubts about the sincerity Iindependent Ukraine. Nuclear weapons figured of its commitment to become a non-nuclear state. prominently in these There are a discussions. Pres- number of plausible ident Leonid explanations for Kravchuk of Ukraine VIEWPOINT: Ukraine’s ambigu- agreed that the with- ous nuclear policy.2 drawal of Soviet tac- One is that its com- tical nuclear weapons mitment to denucle- from Ukrainian soil UKRAINE'S FLAWED arize is sincere, but would commence implementation of immediately; and he NUCLEAR DIPLOMACY this commitment is assured Secretary of hindered by a variety State Baker that of practical and po- Ukraine was firmly litical difficulties. committed to becom- by Steven E. Miller A second interpreta- ing a non-nuclear tion suggests that weapon state. The Ukraine has not American delegation made a firm and fi- left Ukraine feeling that the visit had been a success and nal decision to become a nuclear weapon state, but for that the nuclear weapons issue had been addressed in a the time being does not wish to foreclose the option to satisfactory fashion.1 After this relatively promising be- do so.3 A third possible explanation of Ukraine’s am- ginning, however, the road has been far from smooth. biguous nuclear behavior is that Ukraine wishes to be- To be sure, Ukrainian leaders have on numerous occa- come a nuclear-armed power but is not yet prepared to sions reiterated the pledge to denuclearize. But the pe- face the international consequences of unambiguously riod since December 1991 has not witnessed the final embracing the nuclear option. Finally, a fourth argu- resolution of the denuclearization issue in Ukraine, and ment is that the nuclear weapons on Ukraine’s territory Kiev’s ultimate nuclear status remains in doubt. constitute potent bargaining chips, and that Kiev has From the American perspective, Ukraine’s behavior understandably sought, in its nuclear diplomacy, to get on the nuclear issue has been evasive, ambiguous, and as much as possible for these weapons before it gives frustrating. Thus, the U.S.-Ukrainian negotiations to them up. This approach is all the more irresistible—and reach an umbrella agreement that would permit the pro- all the more comprehensible—because Ukraine has few vision of U.S. denuclearization assistance dragged on other sources of leverage in its interactions with Mos- for more than a year, and agreement was not reached cow and the West.4 until October 1993; Kiev’s delaying tactics, which blocked Doubts about Ukraine’s nuclear intentions derive the provision of U.S. assistance to Ukraine, appeared to from the fact that the evidence so far does not exclude Washington to reflect a desire to stall the denucleariza- any of these interpretations. Further, all four of these tion process. Similarly, the Lisbon Protocol of May approaches are represented in the Ukrainian debate on 1992 made Ukraine a party to the START I agreement, nuclear policy.5 This essay assesses the merits of the but it was not until November 1993 that the Ukrainian “bargaining chip” explanation, the one most often cited Rada, under strong international pressure, finally rati- in the West to explain Ukraine’s nuclear diplomacy. fied START. Even then, it did so in a conditional man- ner that both Russia and the United States found unac- ceptable. Only in February of 1994 did Ukraine finally Dr. Steven E. Miller is Director of the International pass an acceptable START instrument of ratification. Security Program at the Center for Science and Meanwhile, Ukraine has yet to accede to the Nuclear International Affairs of the JFK School of Government, Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and its failure to do so Harvard University, and Editor-in-Chief of the journal prevents the entry into force of START I. In short, International Security. The Nonproliferation Review/Spring-Summer 1994 47 Steven E. Miller ASSESSING UKRAINE’S BARGAINING CHIP Ukraine on the Agenda? STRATEGY With respect to attention, the supposition is that the According to a bargaining chip explanation, United States and other Western powers would have taken Ukraine’s behavior has represented a natural and sen- little note of Ukraine and paid little heed to its interests sible effort to make the best possible trade with one of and perceptions were it not for the continuing presence its few diplomatic assets--nuclear weapons. The preoc- of nuclear weapons on its territory. The on-going nuclear cupation of the United States and its industrial allies issue has required outside powers to interact with Ukraine with the nuclear issue, it is often argued, promoted this and compelled them to take account of Ukraine’s inter- approach by making it clear that they attached a high ests. value to denuclearization. Following this logic, eventu- It is certainly true that Ukraine has attracted a lot of ally Kiev will conclude that it obtained all that it can international attention by its nuclear diplomacy. But get for its nuclear weapons, and denuclearization will there are several problems with this argument. First, proceed more smoothly. much of the attention Ukraine has received has been If this has in fact been Ukraine’s policy, how well negative, damaging its reputation and making it the tar- has it served Kiev’s interests? This question can only get of international pressure. It is hard to see why this be answered by weighing the costs of the policy against is desirable. Second, it is far from clear that outside the benefits sought and gained. The cost side of the powers are more understanding of or more sympathetic ledger is not inconsiderable. Ukraine’s nuclear policy towards Ukrainian interests just because Kiev has been has inhibited the development of good and close rela- difficult on the nuclear question. It seems at least equally tions with the United States and the West. It has de- likely that Kiev’s nuclear policy has made Western elites layed the provision of assistance and the development more suspicious of Ukraine’s designs and more doubt- of cooperative programs. It has drained the reservoir of ful of Ukraine’s attractiveness as a potential friend and good will toward Ukraine and, indeed, generated exas- partner. Lastly, it seems implausible that Ukraine would peration and even ill will among those in the West have been ignored were it not for the nuclear issue. It charged with negotiating with Kiev on the nuclear is- is one of the largest states in Europe; it is rich in re- sue. It has called into question Ukraine’s reliability as sources and potentially wealthy; it occupies a strategi- a negotiating partner. It has complicated Ukraine’s re- cally important geographic position; and Ukraine’s fate lations with Western capitols and institutions.6 It has and its relations with Russia are widely understood to given the United States and Russia a powerful common be major factors determining the security order in the interest (in Ukraine’s denuclearization) and provided former Soviet Union--and hence, in Europe. Even with- Moscow with a lever that it has not been shy about out nuclear weapons, Ukraine would command atten- using against Kiev. And it has caused Ukraine to be tion. In short, using nuclear diplomacy to gain atten- defined as a potential nuclear proliferation trouble spot, tion seems a dubious policy: it is neither necessary (be- joining an unattractive club that includes North Korea, cause Ukraine is in any case too important to ignore) Iraq, and Iran.7 All told, Ukraine’s relations with the nor desirable (because there is little profit in attracting West have been less good, its isolation has been greater, negative attention). its coffers have been poorer, and its international politi- cal position vis-a-vis Russia has been weaker, as a re- Warheads for Dollars? sult of Kiev’s nuclear policy. This is the price that Ukraine has paid for its bargaining chip strategy. Ukraine’s nuclear diplomacy also seems to have been On the other side of the ledger, Ukraine has pur- motivated by a desire to maximize the financial benefit sued three main benefits: attention, money, and secu- derived from the elimination of the nuclear weapons on rity guarantees. The decisive issue in assessing Ukraine’s its territory. This, it is often suggested, is a perfectly bargaining chip strategy is whether it has gained suffi- natural desire, especially given Ukraine’s widely adver- ciently in these three areas to warrant the price it has tised and severe economic difficulties; it has a desper- paid. Close examination suggests that Ukraine’s nuclear ate need for Western financial help. Thus, by adopting diplomacy has not paid great dividends. a bargaining chip strategy, Kiev hopes to drive up the 48 The Nonproliferation Review/Spring-Summer 1994 Steven E. Miller financial price that outside powers will pay for denucle- cated early on and have not increased substantially as a arization. consequence of Ukraine’s delaying tactics. Certainly, this is a defensible line of policy. But the A parallel situation exists with respect to economic key issue in not whether the policy makes sense in the assistance. Any realistic assessment of the ability and abstract, but whether it has paid off in practice. Here willingness of the West to provide such assistance would again, a negative verdict seems warranted. Nearly three have led to the conclusion that the sums likely to be years of bargaining chip diplomacy have not produced available under any circumstances would be modest.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • REPORT 2D Session HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES 104–582 "!
    104TH CONGRESS REPORT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 104±582 "! PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3144, THE DEFEND AMERICA ACT OF 1996 MAY 16, 1996.ÐReferred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. Res. 438] The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House Resolution 438, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION The rule provides for consideration in the House with two hours of debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking mi- nority member of the Committee on National Security. The rule waives all points or order against the bill and against its consider- ation. The rule also makes in order without intervention of any point of order one minority amendment in the nature of a substitute to be offered by Mr. Spratt or his designee and which is printed in this report. The rule provides that the substitute shall be debatable separately for one hour divided equally between the proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. THE AMENDMENT TO BE OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE SPRATT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, OR A DESIGNEE, DEBATABLE FOR 1 HOUR Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1996''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: 29±008 2 (1) Short-range theater ballistic missiles threaten United States Armed Forces wherever engaged abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • Kazakhstan Missile Chronology
    Kazakhstan Missile Chronology Last update: May 2010 As of May 2010, this chronology is no longer being updated. For current developments, please see the Kazakhstan Missile Overview. This annotated chronology is based on the data sources that follow each entry. Public sources often provide conflicting information on classified military programs. In some cases we are unable to resolve these discrepancies, in others we have deliberately refrained from doing so to highlight the potential influence of false or misleading information as it appeared over time. In many cases, we are unable to independently verify claims. Hence in reviewing this chronology, readers should take into account the credibility of the sources employed here. Inclusion in this chronology does not necessarily indicate that a particular development is of direct or indirect proliferation significance. Some entries provide international or domestic context for technological development and national policymaking. Moreover, some entries may refer to developments with positive consequences for nonproliferation. 2009-1947 March 2009 On 4 March 2009, Kazakhstan signed a contract to purchase S-300 air defense missile systems from Russia. According to Ministry of Defense officials, Kazakhstan plans to purchase 10 batteries of S-300PS by 2011. Kazakhstan's Air Defense Commander Aleksandr Sorokin mentioned, however, that the 10 batteries would still not be enough to shield all the most vital" facilities designated earlier by a presidential decree. The export version of S- 300PS (NATO designation SA-10C Grumble) has a maximum range of 75 km and can hit targets moving at up to 1200 m/s at a minimum altitude of 25 meters.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ukrainian Weekly 1993, No.23
    www.ukrweekly.com INSIDE: • Ukraine's search for security by Dr. Roman Solchanyk — page 2. • Chornobyl victim needs bone marrow transplant ~ page 4 • Teaching English in Ukraine program is under way - page 1 1 Publishfd by the Ukrainian National Association inc., a fraternal non-prof it association rainianWee Vol. LXI No. 23 THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, JUNE 6, 1993 50 cents New York commemorates Tensions mount over Black Sea Fleet by Marta Kolomayets Sea Fleet until 1995. 60th anniversary of Famine Kyyiv Press Bureau More than half the fleet — 203 ships — has raised the ensign of St. Andrew, by Andrij Wynnyckyj inaccurate reports carried in the press," KYYIV — Ukrainian President the flag of the Russian Imperial Navy. ranging from those of New York Times Leonid Kravchuk has asked for a summit NEW YORK — On June 1, the New None of the fleet's Warships, however, reporter Walter Duranty written in the meeting with Russian leader Boris have raised the ensign. On Friday, May York area's Ukrainian Americans com­ 1930s, to recent Soviet denials and Yeltsin to try to resolve mounting ten­ memorated the 60th anniversary of the Western attempts to smear famine sions surrounding control of the Black (Continued on page 13) tragic Soviet-induced famine of І932- researchers. Sea Fleet. 1933 with a "Day of Remembrance," "Now the facts are on the table," Mr. In response, Russian Foreign Minister consisting of an afternoon symposium Oilman said. "The archives have been Andrei Kozyrev is scheduled to arrive in Parliament begins held at the Ukrainian Institute of opened in Moscow and in Kyyiv, and the Ukraine on Friday morning, June 4, to America, and an evening requiem for the Ukrainian Holocaust has been revealed arrange the meeting between the two debate on START victims held at St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Agenda for Arms Control Negotiations After the Moscow Treaty
    The Agenda for Arms Control Negotiations After the Moscow Treaty PONARS Policy Memo 278 Nikolai Sokov Monterey Institute of International Studies October 2002 Ratification of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT, or the Moscow Treaty), signed by Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush on May 24, 2002, is all but certain. Critics in both capitals have apparently been proven wrong—it turned out to be possible to break with three decades of arms control experience and traditions and to sign a treaty that almost completely lacks substantive provisions; even those that are included into the treaty cannot be efficiently verified. In contrast, this treaty exemplifies the Bush administration’s assertion that the United States and Russia no longer need complicated treaties that impose many restrictions on the maintenance, operation, and modernization of the two countries’ nuclear arsenals. Optimism about near unlimited flexibility, which the new treaty grants both sides, seems misguided, however. Although traditional concerns about a “bolt out of the blue” first strike have no place in the existing environment, both sides still need the reassurance and mutual trust that only a robust transparency regime could provide. Both sides have already proclaimed their intention to pursue further negotiations: the United States appears to favor the exchange of data whereas Russia seems more interested in measures that would limit the uploading capability of the United States. Either way, at issue is the predictability of the U.S.-Russia strategic relationship. The stable cooperative relations between the United States and Russia offer an opportunity that should not be missed. The two sides feel reasonably safe vis-à-vis one another and can afford approaching transparency negotiations without undue haste.
    [Show full text]
  • HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES EDITOR Lubomyr Hajda, Harvard University
    HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES EDITOR Lubomyr Hajda, Harvard University EDITORIAL BOARD Michael S. Flier, George G. Grabowicz, Edward L. Keenan, and Roman Szporluk, Harvard University; Frank E. Sysyn, University of Alberta FOUNDING EDITORS Omeljan Pritsak and Ihor Sevcenko, Harvard University BOOK REVIEW EDITOR Larry Wolff EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Daría Yurchuk DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS Robert A. DeLossa ADVISORY BOARD Zvi Ankori, Tel Aviv University—John A. Armstrong, University of Wisconsin—Yaroslav Bilinsky, University of Delaware—Bohdan R. Bociurkiw, Carleton University, Ottawa—Axinia Djurova, University of Sofia—Olexa Horbatsch, University of Frankfurt—Halil inalcık, University of Chi- cago—Jaroslav D. Isajevych, Institute of Ukrainian Studies, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, L'viv— Edward Kasinec, New York Public Library—Magdalena László-Kujiuk, University of Bucharest— Walter Leitsch, University of Vienna—L. R. Lewitter, Cambridge University—G. Luciani, University of Bordeaux—George S. N. Luckyj, University of Toronto—M. Łesiów, Marie Curie-Sktodowska University, Lublin—Paul R. Magocsi, University of Toronto—Dimitri Obolensky, Oxford Univer- sity—RiccardoPicchio, Yale University—MarcRaeff, Columbia University—HansRothe, University of Bonn—Bohdan Rubchak, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle—Władysław A. Serczyk, University of Warsaw at Białystok—George Y. Shevelov, Columbia University—Günther Stökl, University of Cologne—A. de Vincenz, University of Göttingen—Vaclav Żidlicky, Charles Univer- sity, Prague. COMMITTEE ON UKRAINIAN STUDIES, Harvard University Stanisław Barańczak Patricia Chaput Timothy Colton Michael S. Flier George G. Grabowicz Edward L. Keenan Jeffrey D. Sachs Roman Szporluk (Chairman) Subscription rates per volume (two double issues) are $28.00 U.S. in the United States and Canada, $32.00 in other countries. The price of one double issue is $ 18.00 ($20.00 overseas).
    [Show full text]
  • The Breach: Ukraine's Territorial Integrity and the Budapest Memorandum
    Issue Brief #3 Nuclear Proliferation International History Project The Breach: Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity and the Budapest Memorandum Mariana Budjeryn Russia’s annexation of Crimea and covert invasion of eastern Ukraine places an uncomfortable focus on the worth of the security assurances pledged to Ukraine by the nuclear powers in exchange for its denuclearization. In 1994, the three depository states of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)—Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom—extended positive and negative security assurances to Ukraine. The depository states underlined their commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by signing the so-called “Budapest Memorandum.”1 Using new archival records, this examination of Ukraine’s search for security guarantees in the early 1990s reveals that, ironically, the threat of border revisionism by Russia was the single gravest concern of Ukraine’s leadership when surrendering the nuclear arsenal. The failure of the Budapest Memorandum to deter one of Ukraine’s security guarantors from military aggression has important implications both for Ukraine’s long-term security and for the value of security assurances for future international nonproliferation and disarmament efforts. Russia’s breach of the Memorandum invites strong scrutiny of other security commitments and opens an enormous rhetorical opportunity for proliferators to lobby for a nuclear deterrent. UKRAINE’S NUCLEAR PREDICAMENT In 1991, Ukraine inherited the world’s third largest more cautious approach to its nuclear inheritance, nuclear arsenal as a result of the collapse of the concerned that Russia’s monopoly on nuclear arms Soviet Union.2 By mid-1996, all nuclear munitions in the post-Soviet space would be conducive to its had been transferred from Ukraine to Russia resurgence as a dominating force in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Detente Or Razryadka? the Kissinger-Dobrynin Telephone Transcripts and Relaxing American-Soviet Tensions, 1969-1977
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CGU Theses & Dissertations CGU Student Scholarship 2013 Detente or Razryadka? The Kissinger-Dobrynin Telephone Transcripts and Relaxing American- Soviet Tensions, 1969-1977. Daniel S. Stackhouse Jr. Claremont Graduate University Recommended Citation Stackhouse, Daniel S. Jr.. (2013). Detente or Razryadka? The Kissinger-Dobrynin Telephone Transcripts and Relaxing American-Soviet Tensions, 1969-1977.. CGU Theses & Dissertations, 86. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgu_etd/86. doi: 10.5642/cguetd/86 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the CGU Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in CGU Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Détente or Razryadka? The Kissinger-Dobrynin Telephone Transcripts and Relaxing American-Soviet Tensions, 1969-1977 by Daniel S. Stackhouse, Jr. A final project submitted to the Faculty of Claremont Graduate University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History. Claremont Graduate University 2013 Copyright Daniel S. Stackhouse, Jr., 2013 All rights reserved. APPROVAL OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE This dissertation has been duly read, reviewed, and critiqued by the Committee listed below, which hereby approves the manuscript of Daniel S. Stackhouse, Jr. as fulfilling the scope and quality requirements for meriting the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Janet Farrell Brodie, Chair Claremont Graduate University Professor of History William Jones Claremont Graduate University Professor of History Joshua Goode Claremont Graduate University Professor of History ABSTRACT Détente or Razryadka? The Kissinger-Dobrynin Telephone Transcripts and Relaxing American-Soviet Tensions, 1969-1977 by Daniel S.
    [Show full text]
  • Iranian Influence in the South Caucasus and the Surrounding Region
    IRANIAN INFLUENCE IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS AND THE SURROUNDING REGION HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND EURASIA OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION DECEMBER 5, 2012 Serial No. 112–192 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 77–164PDF WASHINGTON : 2012 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:38 Jan 03, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 F:\WORK\EE\120512\77164 HFA PsN: SHIRL COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York STEVE CHABOT, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RON PAUL, Texas RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia CONNIE MACK, Florida THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York TED POE, Texas ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio FREDERICA WILSON, Florida BILL JOHNSON, Ohio KAREN BASS, California DAVID RIVERA, Florida WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina ROBERT TURNER, New York YLEEM D.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Gundersen, Was Born in 1915, in Revesand, a Small Fishing Village on the Southeast Coast of Norway
    The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Department JON GUNDERSEN Interviewed by: Charles Stuart Kennedy Initial interview date: April 17, 2012 Copyright 2013 A ST TABLE OF CONTENTS Background Born and raised in New ork George Washington University% Stanford University% University of Oslo International School US Army, (ietnam )196,-1969. Comments on (ietnam War Work in Norway 0uantico, (irginia 1969-1911 Sky 2arshal 3rogram Operations Foreign Travel Entered the Foreign Service 1913 E6amination State Department7 8iaison Officer, Soviet E6change Group 1913 Soviet outh E6hibit Operations Accompanying Soviet tour groups Oslo, Norway7 Consular Officer 1913-1915 Ambassador Tom Byrne Ambassador William Anders Communist 3arty members (isas Relations with Soviets Relations Soviet submarines Sweden Germany Nansen Environment 1 8ocal staff 8abor movement Anti-US elements Economy State Department7 Watch Officer, Operations Center 1915-191, Jerry Bremer Operations Environment Stanford University7 Soviet studies/Arms Control 191,-1919 Studies Environment Hoover Institute 3rofessor Barton Bernstein Soviet Union future Soviet ethnic and nationality groups State Department7 Foreign Service Institute )FSI.% Russian 1919-19,0 language training 2oscow, Soviet Union7 3ress and 3ublications Officer 19,0-19,1 2urray Feshbach Narodnoe Khozyaistva (3eoples Almanac) Operations Surveillance and entrapment Environment Ethnicity Embassy reporting Dissidents Ambassador 2alcolm Toon Ambassador Jack 2atlock Ambassador Tom Watson
    [Show full text]
  • The Intervention in Afghanistan · and the Fall of Detente
    I I I Nobel Symposium 95 I I The Intervention in I Afghanistan I · and the Fall of Detente I I Lysebu September 17-20, 1995 I --·····-- I Transcribed by Svetlana Savranskaya I Edited by David A. Welch and I Odd Arne Westad i --·····-- i The Norwegian Nobel Institute Oslo 1996 I "" I I I I Nobel Symposium 95 I I The Intervention in I Afghanistan I and the Fall of Detente I I Lysebu September 17-20, 1995 I ..•.. I Transcribed by Svetlana Savranskaya I Edited by David A. Welch and I Odd Arne W estad I ..... I The Norwegian Nobel Institute Oslo 1996 I I I ~ I I INTRODUCTION This is the full transcript ofthe Nobel Symposium held at Lysebu from 17 to 19 September 1995. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the reasons for the collapse of the period of I detente in US-Soviet relations in the late 1970s, and especially the causes and effects of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979. The participants at the symposium were former I political, diplomatic, and military leaders from Russia and the United States, and a small group of American, Russian, and European·,, scholars with special knowledge of this period. I The symposium was the final meeting in a series of conferences on this topic organized by the Center for Foreign Policy Development of the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. In addition to looking more closely at the deterioration ofUS-Soviet I relations from 1977 to 1980, this project aimed at investigating some of the comparative aspects of processes of decline in great power cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ukrainian Weekly 1993
    lished by the Ufcrainian National Association Inc., a fraternal non-profit association j гаІИН V Vol. LXi mNo. 13 THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, MARCH 28, 1993 50 cents Khasbulatov arrives in Kyyiv; Ukraine reacts to crisis in Russia by Marta Kolomayets "Events currently taking place in the visit's motives are questioned Kyyiv Press Bureau Russian Federation generate serious by Marta Kolomayets Other deputies who support demo­ uneasiness among the leadership of Kyyiv Press Bureau cratic reforms agreed that Mr. Khasbu- KYYIV — Despite destabilizing Ukraine. Analyzing this new turn in the latov's trip was politically propelled as events in Moscow over the weekend of poUtical battle taking place in Russia, KYYIV — The Friday, March 19, he monitored Ukraine's reaction to March 20-21, all remained quiet in U- we conclude that the conflicts between visit of Russian Parliament Chairman recent events in Moscow and weighed kraine, as the majority of democratical­ the various state powers should not halt Ruslan Khasbulatov to Kyyiv provoked the support he has among the deputies ly oriented parties and coalitions voiced the course of democratic reforms and the interests of numerous Ukrainian in the Ukrainian Parliament. their support for Russian President should not result in dramatic consequen­ Boris Yeltsin. parliamentarians who speculated as to Even Oleksander Moroz, the leader ces," the press release said. why this controversial figure had ar­ of the SociaUst Party of Ukraine, was In an official statement issued by his Mr. Kravchuk called for economic rived in Ukraine for an official visit just wary in offering his wholehearted cooperation between Ukraine and days after the conclusion of a volatile office on Sunday afternoon, March 21, support to Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Multilateral Relations (1989-2001)
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2001-03 Ukraine and NATO: the development of multilateral relations (1989-2001). Lymarenko, Igor I. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/10829 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California THESIS UKRAINE AND NATO: THE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTILATERAL RELATIONS (1989—2001) by Igor I. Lymarenko March 2001 Thesis Advisor: Donald Abenheim Second Reader: Thomas C. Bruneau Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 20010521 165 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704- 0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED March 2001 Master's Thesis \. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Ukraine and NATO: The Development of Multilateral Relations (1989— 2001) 6. AUTHOR(S) Igor I. Lymarenko 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME (S) AND ADDRESS (ES) 8. PERFORMING Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION REPORT Monterey, CA 93943-5000 VUMBER 9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME (S) AND ADDRESS 10. SPONSORING / MONITORING (ES) AGENCY REPORT NUMBER N/A 11.
    [Show full text]