COL. VINDMAN’S DIVIDED LOYALTIES—.

VINDMAN WELL-MEANING BUT CONFLICTED IMMIGRANT, PLACES CONCERNS FOR UKRAINE’S BIPARTISAN SUPPORT OVER THOSE OF USA POLICY

‘ I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a US citizen, and I was worried about the implications for US government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Biden and Burisma , it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtably result in Ukraine losing  bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”    From Alexander Vindman’s prepared text to the House Impeachment Inquiry Committee. Tuesday October 29, 2019.

Four year-old Alexander Vindman and his twin brother fled the Ukraine in 1979 as Jewish refugees for a better life in the US.  They were spirited out of their native land  by their father and  grandmother  with only a suitcase and the clothes on their backs.  The family wound up in the Brighton Beach neighborhood of Brooklyn where the boys grew up in an immigrant community known as Little Odessa—for its large complement of recent refugees from the former Soviet Union, Russia and the Ukraine. They prospered there while maintaining their language and cultural ties to the Ukraine. 

Since that time, Alexander  Vindman has lived an odyssey that  could only occur in America and that we must all admire.  According to the NYT (“Who is Alexander Vindman? “ S.G.  Stolberg, Oct 29, 2019)  He “has become a scholar diplomat, decorated lieutenant colonel in the US Army , and Harvard-educated Ukraine expert” who came to have the unbelievable honor of a seat on the White House National Security Council.

Today at the House Impeachment “pre-inquiry” Vindman  will add to his illustrious immigrant story by becoming  an infamous political partisan as the first sitting White House official to testify in the Democrat impeachment inquiry into the July 2019 telephone conversation President Trump had with recently elected Ukrainian President Zelensky.

The Democrats are using Vindman in an attempt to support their allegation  that President Trump “broke the law” by simply urging President Zelensky to look into the activities of former Vice President Joe Biden who acted as ‘point man” for the Obama Administration in Ukraine in 2014.   Former VP Biden has admitted that he held up the release of a billion dollar USA grant to Ukraine until that government fired the Ukrainian national prosecutor who was then conducting a corruption investigating into a gas company known as Burisma Holdings.   Biden claims he and his son did nothing wrong, But at the time of the investigation,  Hunter Biden, the VP’s son, was employed at Burisma Holdings as a no-show, no meetings required, no knowledge or language skills required member of the  board of directors. That position  earned young Hunter about $60,000 per month, and over the years until he was forced to resign in 2019–a cool $3 million dollars. 

After reading Col Vindman’s prepared statement (see excerpt above) it is perfectly clear that Mr. Vindman is an honest, well intentioned person, but one who holds views and strong opinions  which have been molded by his Ukrainian background and personal experiences as an immigrant from the Ukraine.  His formal introductory piece states:  “I was worried about the implications for US government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into Biden and Burisma , it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtably result in Ukraine losing  bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”

It is patently clear that Vindman’s overriding partisan, personal concern is that Ukraine would lose its bipartisanship support in the USA as a result of the President’s call.    His concerns center around the  POLICY differences this advisor has with the elected administration. Vindman sees these policy positions as counter to Ukrainian interests, His concern for  the best interests of the USA are unstated or come as a secondary matter,  Although he does give lip service to US  “national security” as if the security of the USA was in some way intimately  tied to that of the relatively obscure and insignificant Russian satellite state of Ukraine.  

What right has Vindman or other unelected officials who just happen to have positions which give them proximity but no authority to the  levers of power in government and while in that position  attempt to control or set  policy?  None.  This is another classic example of Deep State unelected advisory officials attempting to making decisions that should only be relegated to ELECTED OFFICIALS.  

I resent Vindman’s attempts at controlling USA’s Ukraine policy simply because he happens to be close to the action.  His interests and actions  may undermine or counter those that I —a citizen voter—may have made at the election booth.  To have an unelected  bureaucrat who has an agenda of his own, in a position to override the will of the people  is not how a representative democracy works.  

Perhaps Vindman never learned about that in the public schools of Little Odessa in Brooklyn NY.  That may be the result of another problem.  That of excessive immigration with the result that new immigrants find difficulty in actually acculturating to the language, culture, political traditions of their adopted land. But that is for another article.  

  It is not difficult  to understand that Vindman  had great sympathies for his native land, the land of his culture and his native language,  No not at all.  Mr. Alexander Vindman has a completely understandable affinity for Ukraine.  I am sure he also appreciates the benefits his adopted country has showered on him.  He is an exemplar of what recent immigrants can achieve. But we must view his perspectives on foreign policy with circumspection when it  raises Ukraine’s best interests above those of the USA .   

It is clear that this “whistleblower” has acted not because he has observed some illegal act—but because he has  a policy disagreement with the President. He favors policies which best support the Ukraine.  The President’s job is to support the USA.   

Interestingly the Vindman  deposition supports the contention of the President that there was no “quid pro quo” and he also posits that  the transcript the President released is a valid representation of what transpired during the call.  These all support the President’s position.