by Dick Virden
America’s Solemn Promise…
On July 7, 1994, I watched from the gallery of the Polish Parliament as US President Bill Clinton assured anxious Poles, who had only recently seen the final departure of occupying Russian military forces from their country, that they would have a say in decisions about their own security, that there would be “nothing about you without you.”
America kept that solemn promise. Over time, Poland and other nations of Central Europe who asked to join the NATO alliance — and made the required political reforms – gained membership and with it protection against any possible future Russian efforts to reimpose its control of the region. These countries, no longer “satellites” of Moscow, have thrived in the decades since their liberation.
Is Not Being Kept in Ukraine
This history is worth recalling in the ongoing debate about ending the war in Ukraine. This time it is Ukrainians asserting that there must be “nothing about us without us,” an enduring principle strongly endorsed today by other European leaders, but no longer by the United States. On the contrary, the United States in late 2025 put forward a “peace plan” that adopted most of Russia’s war aims and perspectives without any indication that Ukraine’s concerns were even considered, much less taken seriously. What’s more, our president warned Ukraine’s leaders to accept the plan within a few days or else be left to fight on alone.
In the weeks and months that have followed, Ukraine has managed to make its voice heard, backed up with forceful support from allies such as France, the United Kingdom, and Germany. In response, the United States agreed to some changes in its original 28-point plan, but it continued to insist that Ukraine should give up land and make other concessions to appease its bigger neighbor.
Negotiations continue, sporadically, but peace has not come. Meanwhile, US assistance to Ukraine becomes more limited and begrudging. We now demand that any arms and other materiel we provide be paid for by our allies, a transactional approach that makes a mockery of John F. Kennedy’s pledge to, “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to ensure the survival and success of liberty.”
The Principles Behind American Leadership
We have come a very long way indeed from JFK’s soaring words and Bill Clinton’s 1994 speech in Warsaw offering hope to people across Central Europe that their new freedom to decide their own fate would endure. Clinton told his Polish listeners that “Poland should never again have its fate decided by others. No democracy in this region should ever be consigned to a gray area, or a buffer zone, and no country should have the right to veto, compromise or threaten Poland’s or any other democracy’s integration into Western institutions, including those that ensure security.”
And so, the door to NATO membership was opened—and Moscow put on notice that it would not be allowed to frustrate such aspirations. Three years later, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic received invitations; others in the region would soon follow.
America was able to lead in restoring freedom and independence in Central Europe because of our military, economic, and especially moral power. For half a century, we fought a Cold War to promote the cause of liberty and democracy. If we were an “exceptional” nation, it was because we were founded on enduring ideals: no taxation without representation; all men are created equal; government of, by and for the people.
Of course, our record in abiding by those standards has been far from spotless. The list of our foreign policy errors and misadventures is long, painful, and growing. At home, too, we have often fallen well short of our lofty goals. Yet, until now, we have not abandoned our pursuit of “a more perfect union” for our country and democracy for all.
A Tarnished Legacy
Today, our economic and military strength still make us the big kid on the block. But we are no longer the “shining city on a hill,” whose ideals attracted so much admiration and respect. Rather, we might more aptly be described now as the Mafia boss who insists on his way or the highway.
Lincoln said we were the last best hope of Earth, but no one would seriously make that claim in these times. Not when we drop out of the existential battle against climate change; abandon human rights and embrace friendly tyrants; impose draconian tariffs for blatantly political reasons having nothing to do with economics; deploy a vast armada to destroy tiny fishing boats alleged—though not proven—to be carrying illicit drugs.
Countries acting out of a “decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” as we asserted in our Declaration of Independence, do not kidnap the leader of a sovereign country, lay dubious claim to its oil wealth, and declare that until further notice we plan to run the place.
Nor do they try to bully Ukraine, the victim of an unprovoked, illegal invasion, to surrender to an invading power because it “holds better cards.” What cards? Not the law—cross border invasions are among the clearest violations of international law. Not justice either; Moscow has no legitimate claim to Ukrainian territory, nor any right to dictate how that sovereign country should be governed or defended.
No, the only real Trump card Russia holds in the Ukraine game is military strength. Russia has more guns, missiles, soldiers, drones, and nuclear weapons. Might makes right is another ancient doctrine, though one long since discredited. The world rejected it in the 1940s when it went to war to defeat the Fascist powers.
After that resounding victory, the US helped establish a new world order based on the rule of law and democratic standards enshrined in the UN Charter. The changes ushered in an era of unparalleled freedom and prosperity for most of the world, most especially including us.
President Trump—together with zealous acolytes like Steven Miller and a tiny band of likeminded autocrats elsewhere—would like to ignore the lessons of history and turn back the clock to a gone and unlamented era of power politics. So, Greenland belongs to us because we need it. Same for Venezuela and its oil. Panama, too, because we want to control the canal. Canada should be part of the United States because we say so, never mind what Canadians want.
The America that fought and won the Cold War would recognize that such positions contradict our stated reasons for waging that half century, world-wide contest. When Ronald Reagan challenged Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!” he was not engaged in narrow self-interest, but a nobler cause represented in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
As a Foreign Service Officer serving behind the Iron Curtain (Poland, 1977-1980), it was clear to me that at its core the Cold War was about the right of people—Poles and others—to live freely, under governments of their own choosing, not subject to domination by others.
When we now proclaim baldly our adherence to spheres of influence, to the right of big powers to dictate to smaller ones, we are putting the lie to all we said we believed in and fought for. It is not too much to say, as some now do, that America has switched sides. As George Orwell wrote in his dystopian novel, 1984, up is down, black is white, war is peace.
Applying our Principles to Ukraine
Which takes us back to Ukraine. Americans who believe we are a special nation guided by universal ideals would recognize that our real interests are with the heroic Ukrainian people, not the KGB-trained tsar in Moscow. We would give them what they need to continue their brave fight. And we would lean heavily on Russia, not Ukraine, to back off from unreasonable demands.
In sum, to be true to ourselves, we would insist not only that Ukraine be a full partner in peace negotiations—“nothing about them without them”—but also that any peace settlement result in a free and independent Ukraine with secure borders.
Accepting anything less would be a modern-day Munich, a sellout of free people—and American honor—to appease an authoritarian dictator. A country aspiring to greatness makes no such deals.
Dick Virden is a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer. His assignments abroad included tours as country public affairs officer in Poland, Romania, and Portugal as well as deputy chief of mission in Brazil. He is a graduate of St. John’s University (Minn.) and the National War College.