‘Political’

Fiona Hill: Obama Denied Weapons To Ukraine For ‘Political’ Reasons

(Breitbart) – Former National Security Council official Dr. Fiona Hill testified on Thursday that President Barack Obama had ignored the “interagency consensus” on sending weapons to Ukraine for “political” reasons.

Under questioning from Republicans, Hill admitted that she herself had been against giving weapons to Ukraine to help it fight Russian invasion, and that she had written an op-ed in the Washington Post expressing those views.

She also said that the “interagency consensus” had actually been in favor of arming the Ukrainians; she herself was not in government service at the time, but working at the liberal Brookings Institution think tank.

Hill noted that President Obama had ignored the “interagency consensus” for what she called “political” reasons. She explained that Obama was concerned that arming the Ukrainians could provoke the Russians.

On Tuesday, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who worked for Hill and remains at the National Security Council, testified that President Donald Trump’s decision to withhold aid from Ukraine temporarily went against the “interagency consensus” on Ukraine, though he also acknowledged that Trump had armed Ukraine while Obama had not.

Democrats say that Trump hurt U.S. national security by jeopardizing American support for Ukraine, and ignoring the “interagency consensus,” for what they claim are political reasons.

Fiona Hill Penned Washington Post Op-Ed Against Giving Ukraine Weapons In 2015

Dr. Fiona Hill told the impeachment inquiry Thursday that she was concerned that a hold on aid might endanger Ukraine’s security. But in a 2015 Washington Post op-ed, Hill argued against giving Ukraine any lethal weapons.

Hill was testifying in the seventh public hearing in the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment inquiry. As she had in her closed-door deposition last month, Hill said she was concerned about Ukraine’s security and stability as it defended itself against Russia. In that context, she — and others — were worried about a hold on security.

But Hill also had to admit that she co-authored an op-ed in 2015, when she was working at the left-wing Brookings Institution think tank, in which she opposed sending weapons to help Ukraine.

In her article, titled “How aiding the Ukrainian military could push Putin into a regional war,” Hill argued:

The logic of sending weapons to Ukraine seems straightforward and is the same as the logic for economic sanctions: to change Vladi­mir Putin’s “calculus.” Increasing the Ukrainian army’s fighting capacity, the thinking goes, would allow it to kill more rebels and Russian soldiers, generating a backlash in Russia and ultimately forcing the Russian president to the negotiating table.

We strongly disagree…

It is hard to find effective alternatives to the current sanctions policy, but if we plunge headlong into sending weapons, we may lose our allies, and we may never have the opportunity to get things right.

Hill explained that once she entered the Trump administration in April 2017, she saw that there was a proper “plan” in place for military assistance. “[E]verybody changes their mind, you know, and kind of learns things. I, you know, was basically persuaded that, you know, this was actualty worth doing,” she told the committee in her deposition.

All of the witnesses have admitted that President Trump’s policy of sending weapons to Ukraine has worked and is more effective than President Barack Obama’s policy, which denied lethal defensive assistance to the Ukrainians.

Video: Rep. Devin Nunes’ full questioning of Fiona Hill

breitbart.com/national-security/2019/11/21/fiona-hill-obama-denied-weapons-to-ukraine-for-political-reasons/