1 The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign ...

Holbrooke was a major player, as was Bob Hunter, our NATO ambassador in Brussels.
They both came to Kyiv for meetings with me and appropriate Ukrainian officials. Of
course, Bill Perry and Strobe Talbott were involved. Where did Ukraine fit in all of this?
The answer was that Ukraine was an important entity formally outside of NATO that
strategically should be inside of NATO but nonetheless was outside, largely because
NATO had to deal with another strategic nation, even more important, Russia. What kind
of a “partner” was Russia? The adjectives used to describe what kind of partner Russia
and Ukraine were the substantive surface of a huge policy fight.
How many strategic partners can you have and still be strategic? How many “partners”
have a “special relationship” and have it still be special? How many countries can be
special? The wordsmiths went from “special” to “unique”. The hunt for appropriate
adjectives, I found, was a bit pathetic and demeaning. The hunt was really an evasion.
Q: Well, was there any thought in thinking about the Russian menace to keeping NATO
together, I've always felt that one of the prime things to NATO was particularly keeping
the French and Germans under the same tent.
MILLER: That was an old issue. That became old stuff.
Q: It may be old stuff, but old stuff becomes quite new stuff. I would think that within the
European context, they would be in a way happy to sort of keep almost the armed forces
under control, so that they didn't start looking over each other's shoulders and saying,
"Gee, they're getting a little bigger than me and all."
MILLER: Well, the French question, from de Gaulle on was the French were not
participants in NATO, even though they were members in NATO, an irony. The whole
issue of whether there should be a European force, without the Americans, this is another
aspect of the debate, but it's out here. The main actions in security took place in the core
NATO context, led by the United States, the Yugoslavian action group determined by us.
How these other countries – for example, Ukraine had views about how to handle the
Yugoslavs, because they had extensive dealings with them in Soviet times. They knew
each other as fellow slaves. Ukraine and the Yugoslavs had extensive trade with each
other, down the Danube. This was a rocky time for Ukrainian-American relations,
because Ukrainian views were not taken into account. The discussions didn't involve
them, and Ukraine didn't like the actions that were taken.
Q: One, were they coming to you and saying, "Make us a player," or were you going to
Washington and saying, "Make them a player?"
MILLER: Well, much of this happened after I left, but yes, they would come to me and
say, "This is contrary to our efforts to become a part of NATO and Europe. It doesn't
help." The most significant effect of the Yugoslav action was that it isolated Kuchma,
who wanted to continue the policy of non-alignment, of straddling, of appearing to be
going Westward gradually, but maintaining good relations with Russia, doing nothing
214