To understand why Ukraine's top spy is grateful for U.S. support, some context is needed. When Russian special operators infiltrated Crimea and later parts of eastern Ukraine in 2014, the administration of President Barack Obama was caught flat-footed. Senior officials told their Ukrainian counterparts not to fight back.
Obama rallied European allies to impose tough sanctions on senior Russians and some sectors of the Russian economy, but he refrained from sending defensive weapons to Ukraine's military and largely kept Ukraine's intelligence services at arms length.
After nearly a year in office, Trump reversed Obama's policy, approving not only a shipment of sniper rifles but also the sale of Javelin anti-tank missiles. That's part of the reason Hrystak gives Trump high marks.
The other reason is on the intelligence side. U.S. and Ukrainian officials tell me that on a few high-level investigations, the Central Intelligence Agency and Hrystak's service have been cooperating more closely than in the Obama years, when the White House was reluctant to get directly involved in Russia's proxy war with the Ukrainians.
That's all good. Ukraine might be wavering in their determination to be a free democratic country but they have a right to be a free independent country with all their territory regardless of their status in pursuing rule of law.
Although even with more American help, without democracy and rule of law, Ukraine is probably doomed to defeat.
But Good Lord, when Russia invaded Crimea in February 2014 the Obama administration told the Ukrainians not to fight back?
Let me re-read that: "President Barack Obama was caught flat-footed. Senior officials told their Ukrainian counterparts not to fight back."
Yes, I read that right.
I'd been writing for years prior to the invasions that Russia might try to take Crimea and eastern Ukraine. There was no excuse for our government not to know what Russia might try to do even if the actual decision to invade was a surprise.
And I called the Russian invasion very early, yet media reports that my lying eyes were wrong and that Russia wasn't doing anything caused me to doubt that what clearly looked like Russian special forces without insignia were in the early stages of an invasion. Those media reports were probably based on sources in the Obama administration that was caught "flatfooted" and preferred to deny reality than correct their error rapidly.
I've been saying that the idea that Crimea is a model for so-called "hybrid" warfare is ridiculous in large part because Ukraine in the midst of a revolution was unable to send in the relatively small number of trained and equipped troops that could have slaughtered the "little green men" early before Russia could airlift troops into Sevastopol base and cross the Kerch Strait. Those Russian special forces aren't actually infantry equipped or intended to hold ground and endure casualties to do so.
But we told the Ukrainians not to defend their country? That doesn't necessarily mean that Ukraine could have issued the order to attack. But my judgment of their inability was based on the post-conquest search for a reason why on Earth didn't Ukraine order their troops to scatter the Russian special forces thin on the ground.
Still, even if Ukraine was unable to send in troops regardless of what our government said to Ukraine, that Obama communication might have influenced the failure of any of the mostly rear echelon Ukrainian troops in Crimea to simply defend their bases and make the Russians fight to take Crimea.
Well, thank God the Obama administration didn't collude with Putin to give Russia what it wanted. That's the good news.
Of course, the Obama team instinctively wanted to let Putin get what he wanted without getting anything in return. So there's that.
But that passivity is over. Which is good.
