Ex-ambassador, Texas congressman agree: U.S. too slow to help Ukraine

Former Ambassador Roman Popadiuk, left, and U.S. Rep. Roger Williams discuss Ukraine at the Fort Worth Club. (Photo by Heather Olivia Shannon).

As the war in Ukraine shifts into a third month, Roman Popadiuk is frequently asked to prognosticate on how much longer it might last and how it will end.

It is a valid question for a former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, who has the distinction of being the first person to have the diplomatic role after Ukraine achieved sovereignty following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Popadiuk doesn’t have a crystal ball but he predicted that the war will eventually reach a stalemate. Diplomatic negotiations will follow but “Russia is not going to want to give back any territory and Ukraine will want it back.”

As a result, “we may just see a pause…”

Popadiuk joined Republican U.S. Rep. Roger Williams in a discussion about Ukraine at the Fort Worth Club on Monday. Williams represents Texas Congressional District 25, which stretches from Fort Worth to the Austin area.

Moderator was Kasey Pipes, who served as a policy advisor to President George W. Bush and was author of the 2004 national Republican Party platform. Pipes is currently a partner and co-founder of High Water Strategies, which has offices in Fort Worth and Washington, D.C.

Popadiuk and Williams discussed a variety of topics, including the leadership of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky; U.S. military aid to Ukraine; the U.S. response to the invasion; expanded NATO involvement; and the potentially disastrous but unlikely use of nuclear weapons in the war.

The son of Ukrainian parents, Popadiuk was born in a displaced persons camp in Austria and emigrated with his family to the United States. He expressed a harsh view of Putin, calling him “a killer” who is bent on “destroying America” based on observations of others. Popadiuk has never met Putin.

Williams told a story that he said aptly described Putin’s ruthless nature.

Although Williams has not met Putin, he said Bob Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots, told him of an encounter with the Russian president during which Putin admired Kraft’s Super Bowl ring.  According to the story, Kraft told Putin that the ring came from winning a championship football game. Putin asked to see the ring; Kraft took it off and handed it to Putin.

“Putin put it in his pocket and never gave it back,” Williams said. “Putin is walking around with a Super Bowl ring. That tells you everything you need to know about Putin.”

Both Popadiuk and Williams were complimentary of Zelensky’s leadership, determination and tenacity.

Popadiuk said Zelensky’s background as a television comedian helped him win global support.

“He plays well to an audience, Popadiuk said. “He knows how to galvanize people and has great support throughout Europe” and elsewhere.

Williams said he attended a congressional video conference with Zelensky and said he was struck by his commitment to continue fighting.

“He talked about how he will never give up,” Williams said.

Regarding U.S. involvement, Popadiuk said, “we were too late.

“History will show, if we knew all that we did know, why didn’t we get there sooner?” Popadiuk said.

Williams agreed that the U.S. was late responding to Russia’s threat against Ukraine.

“If America is the most powerful nation in the world then we need to be on time and not late,” Williams said.

However, Williams expressed reservations about the amount of money that is being spent to support Ukraine in the war as well as depletion of the U.S. weapons stockpile.

“It will take 10 years to rebuild our inventory,” Williams said. “Now Taiwan needs our help against China.”

Williams acknowledged that he voted against the two aid packages, worth $54 billion, that were put to a vote in Congress.

“We need to help Ukraine but we don’t know what the money is going for,” said Williams, who has served in Congress since 2012.

Williams, an auto dealership owner and former Texas Secretary of State, blamed the war on the Biden administration’s display of weakness in its messy withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as political divisiveness in this country.

“Putin saw all this and thought America wouldn’t fight back,” Williams said. “Putin is afraid of (former President Donald) Trump” and likely would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump was still president.”

Popadiuk, who sidestepped political commentary, said he is amazed, but not surprised, that Ukraine won’t give up. That speaks to Ukraine’s dedication to its independence.

But he predicted that the $54 billion in aid the U.S. has given Ukraine is only the beginning of what the country will need.

“The rebuilding process in Ukraine, rebuilding all that infrastructure, will be enormous,” Popadiuk said. “Hopefully, the world takes some of Russia’s frozen assets and applies them to that. “

Far left, Kasey Pipes co-founder of High Water Strategies, Former Ambassador Roman Popadiuk, left, and U.S. Rep. Roger Williams discuss Ukraine at the Fort Worth Club. (Photo by Heather Olivia Shannon).

Besides serving as a U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Popadiuk served on the National Security Councils of former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

After retiring from from a career in the Foreign Service, he served as executive director of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation at Texas A&M University. He is currently president of the Diplomacy Center Foundation, a private-public partnership with the U.S. Department of State to design and build the National Museum of American Diplomacy in Washington, D.C.

Diplomat: Russia-Ukraine War Likely Will End in a Stalemate

Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine speaks at Fort Worth Luncheon

Roman Popadiuk, left, and U.S. Rep. Roger Williams field questions on the conflict in Ukraine.

Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has largely failed to achieve any modicum of success largely because an underdog Ukrainian military has overachieved through Western adaptations, training and supplies, as well as a nationalistic vim and vigor that has blown Russian forces off their feet.

“The Ukrainians are very motivated, fighting for their own territory,” said Roman Popadiuk, the United States’ first ambassador to Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and guest of the Fort Worth Club on Monday.

“They are also fighting against an historic enemy, one that over the centuries has tried to destroy their language and culture and ruled them for centuries. They have a cause to fight for. The Russians don’t have a cause. Their troops don’t know why they’re in this conflict at all. You have motivation, skill on the Ukrainian part. On the Russian side, they don’t have that.”

Popadiuk, today president of the Diplomacy Center Foundation in Washington, D.C., and U.S. Rep. Roger Williams, a Republican and Fort Worth native whose district stretches from Austin north to the very southern reaches of Greater Fort Worth, took part in a midday conversation during a luncheon put on by High Water Strategies. Kasey Pipes of High Water Strategies was the moderator.

Yet, the conflict likely can't last much longer and in all probability will end in a stalemate that will see Ukraine give up some territory, Popadiuk said.

To fully understand the conflict requires a lesson in history.

Most Ukrainian ethnographic territory was absorbed by the czarist Russian empire in the late 18th century after generations of Muscovite pressure. After the collapse of Czar Nicholas II in the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, Ukraine achieved a period of independence, but it was short-lived. Ukrainians lived a brutal existence under the Soviet hand, including two forced famines in 1921-22 and Stalin’s collectivization program in 1932-33. Between them, at least eight million Ukrainians died. During WWII, German and Soviet armies were responsible for the deaths of up to eight million more.

Since 1991, the new Russia under Putin has continually tried to undermine Ukraine’s right to self-determination, its efforts in democracy and an economic shift to the West, including aspirations to join the NATO alliance, as a number of former Soviet republics have done.

Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, 14 former republics or others under the shadow of Soviet domination in Eastern Europe have joined NATO, including the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia.

Talk of Ukraine joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was intolerable to Putin, who has never conceded that Ukraine has ever been an independent country from Mother Russia, that it was historically part of the culture and territory of Russia.

He used NATO expansion as a pretext to the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 as well as this year’s invasion, though he is also psychologically clearly Russian, whose leaders have always desired geographic buffers against invasion and the paranoia of invasions and survival of state over the centuries. It is seen in Victory Day, a commemoration of the end of WWII held annually in May. It is like a civic religion, according to Greg Carleton, a professor of Russian studies at Tufts. "It's a way to never let the Second World War go. But even more than that, it's almost that the war itself is never seen as being over."

“NATO was not a threat to Russia,” Popadiuk said. “Putin knows NATO was not a threat.”

NATO expansion and its Article 5 war guarantees — that is, an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all — has been widely debated in the U.S. among pundits, policy makers, and academia.

It is clear why, say, Montenegro, would want the U.S. to fight on its behalf, but why would the U.S. risk a collision, possibly a nuclear collision, with Russia where a vital U.S. interest is not at stake?

“We can’t live in isolation,” Popadiuk said. “We are a global power. We have global interests, and our economy depends on the free flow of markets and open trade. We all benefit from the regional stability and the stabilizing factor that a [democratic] Ukraine can be in that part of the world.”

Popadiuk believes Putin’s Plan B war aims include sealing off Ukraine from ports in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azoz, which would have a dramatic impact on exports in grain and steel. Even cause in the well-documented baby formula shortage can be partly found in the war and interruptions in trade, he said.

Patrick Sly, president of global nutrition at Reckitt, which produces Enfamil, told CBS News recently that production has been hindered because of an interruption of sunflower oil from Ukraine.

Popadiuk also cautioned that China and Russia are out to change the pillars of international order as it concerns human rights, democracy, the free market economy, and the will of international law.

As it concerns Putin’s immediate future, Popadiuk threw cold water on the widespread expectation (hope?) that the despot might be ripe for coup, another element in Russian history that has been deployed a number of times. (The speculation about his health is anybody’s guess.)

Putin’s two sources of power are the oligarchs, who owe an allegiance to him because of the wealth he generated for them, and the general population, which, through Putin’s control of the media, has accepted his narrative that the fight is a reliving of World War II with the Nazis of Ukraine, despite it having a democratically elected Jewish president. Furthermore, the invasion is a fight against an encroaching West, which seeks to destroy Russia.

“He seems to be in a fairly good position right now,” said Popadiuk. “The only way that could change is if the cost-benefit analysis [money and casualties versus actual benefit] changes.”

Or, if the threats of the use of nuclear arms, which he issues metaphorically, become more than saber rattling, the Russian president could be in trouble with his own.  

“If Putin were to use a tactical nuclear weapon it would happen in one of two ways,” Popadiuk said. “He would detonate something in a very low yield in an isolated area just to show his strength. If he were to use a tactical nuclear weapon in a [highly populated] city, I think the inner circles around Putin would say, ‘Timeout. You can be Slim Pickens riding that missile down in “Dr. Strangelove.” But I’ve got news for you, Vlad: We want to live, we want our children to live, we want our grandchildren to live. We’re not going to escalate this into a nuclear catastrophe with Russia being the one who started it.’”

Listen: Former Ukrainian ambassador expects conflict to last 2-3 months longer

Kasey Pipes of HighWater Strategies moderated a forum about the impact of the crisis in Ukraine with former Ambassador to Ukraine Roman Popadiuk and Rep. Roger Williams, R-Fort Worth. (Photo courtesy of HighWater Strategies)

In the latest installment of our occasional conversations with newsmakers, we talk to Roman Popadiuk, who served as the first U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine from 1992-1993, just as the old Soviet Union was breaking apart and the Cold War was nearing its end.

Popadiuk was born in Austria to displaced Ukrainian parents who then immigrated to the U.S. A retired member of the career Senior Foreign Service, Papadiuk served on the National Security Councils of presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. He also served 13 years as executive director for the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation at Texas A&M University. He is currently president of the Diplomacy Center Foundation, an organization working to build the National Museum of American Diplomacy in Washington, D.C.

On Monday, May 23, Papadiuk spoke to a luncheon at the Fort Worth Club with Rep. Roger Williams, R-Fort Worth. The event was moderated by HighWater Strategies’ partner and co-founder Kasey S. Pipes.

Fort Worth Report business editor Bob Francis spoke with Popadiuk following the event.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. For the unabridged version, please listen to the audio file attached to this article.

Bob Francis: Please tell us about your background.

Roman Popadiuk: My name’s Roman Popadiuk. I serve as the president of the Diplomacy Center Foundation. We are a private 501c (3) nonprofit. We’re in a public private partnership with the United States Department of State to build a museum of American Diplomacy at the State Department.

I was ambassador to Ukraine, first U.S. ambassador to Ukraine years 1992-93, appointed by President George H. W. Bush. I continue to maintain ties to the country, and I’m working on humanitarian relief efforts now.

Francis: Were you surprised by the fact that Ukraine fought back so effectively?

Popadiuk: No, I was surprised by the Russians, but not surprised by Ukraine. Surprised by the Russians because I bought into the notion that experts were telling us that the Russians are a very strong military machine, and that’s proven false. I wasn’t surprised by the Ukrainians because I’ve spoken to the troops, our troops, that have been training them. I saw the training that was taking place, the amount of training they were getting and I realized that they had reorganized their whole structure since 2014.

So it never surprised me. I also know the history of the situation and the relationship. The Ukrainians were fighting for their survival, and they’re fighting for their land. When you’re on the defense, like this, it’s a lot easier to fight than when you’re on the offense. And so I wasn’t surprised at all by the Ukrainian response or the Ukrainian abilities, vis a vis the Russian.

Francis: Can you see an end point in time to this, to this conflict?

Popadiuk: It’s very difficult to give a timeframe, but two to three months possibly. Will be a situation where the conflict would have to reach some kind of resolution, in terms of a stalemate or standoff and some kind of a diplomatic discussion. But I think, within two to three months we may see some kind of standoff and kind of moving toward a frozen conflict. And diplomacy’s not going to be able to resolve those issues because once the Russians have the territory, they’re going to want to hold onto it. And, of course, the Ukrainians aren’t going to want to give in on anything unless they get some territory back.

Francis: I think one of the things that surprised some people was how much this conflict impacted the economy in a lot of different ways, not only the Russian oil, but also the things that Ukraine provides. I wonder if you might talk a little bit about that.

Popadiuk: People don’t realize that it’s not a cliche that it’s a global economy or that we are tied to the international arena. You see that in gas prices, not only in our country, but overseas, with the blockade or the embargo against Russian oil. That’s affecting not only the price of gasoline, but also products that use gasoline, et cetera. That has an impact. Then you have the example of gasoline prices rising, therefore delivery prices rise. If delivery prices rise, your product prices rise. There’s a whole daisy chain of effects on this.

Then there are, of course, the issues of individual products like the necessary baby formula ingredients or the wheat, the export of grain products from Ukraine to feed the hungry of the world where a lot of impoverished countries are going to be facing famine because the grain can’t get to them. So, there’s a whole daisy chain here that has an impact. Then, of course, the failure to export wheat will eventually have a price impact in terms of food products, everything from bread to anything that uses wheat or to make flour, et cetera, et cetera.

Francis: Are you impressed with the leader of the Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy?

Popadiuk: I saw him deliver a speech. He’s articulate. He’s very comfortable in his own skin and his own role. He has a sense of humor and he’s able to address an audience in a very comfortable and confident manner. And that’s what you want in a president. He seems and appears very confident and is very confident. I see him in all the broadcasts and given his acting background – he’s a comedian by training – he is able to utilize that training to be able to portray himself to the outside world to the Ukrainian people.

He knows how to use the media, whether it’s Facebook or videos, et cetera. And you see this by the countless videos that he’s done to world leaders and to our Congress, for example, in terms of delivering the message. So, he understands the importance of the message and he understands how to deliver that message, and that’s key to a very successful leader and he’s proven this.

Bob Francis is business editor for the Fort Worth Report. Contact him at bob.francis@fortworthreport.org. At the Fort Worth Report, news decisions are made independently of our board members and financial supporters. Read more about our editorial independence policy here.

Ex-U.S. diplomat to Ukraine sees Russian war ending in stalemate; Putin will claim win

Roman Popadiuk served as the U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine from 1992 to ’93. The former executive director of the George Bush Library and Museum in College Station, he currently serves on the board of directors of the Diplomacy Center Foundation in Washington. He will be speaking at the Fort Worth Club on Monday afternoon. Diplomacy Center Foundation

His native language is Ukrainian, he was the first U.S. ambassador to the infant nation, and Roman Popadiuk cannot say he saw this coming.

He is also not surprised that Russia invaded.

“What I saw (back then) was a lot of concern over the potential pressure from Russia, and that was in the uppermost minds of Ukrainians,” Popadiuk said. “When (Ukraine’s first president, Leonid Kravchuk) visited the White House in 1992, one of the main topics he raised was fears of Russia and its pressure to unbalance Ukraine’s independence.

“In terms of a massive war, I did not foresee that for a variety of reasons.”

It’s 30 years later, and Russia is involved in a massive war with Ukraine.

On Monday afternoon at the Fort Worth Club, Popadiuk will join U.S. Rep. Roger Williams, R-Austin, for a Q&A with Kasey Pipes of the local consulting firm, Highwater Strategies.

Pipes, who worked in D.C. for years and served as a communications and policy advisor under President George W. Bush, will act as the event’s moderator.

Williams is expected to address the two Ukraine-related aid packages that were passed by Congress this spring; the first was for $14 billion, and this most recent is for $40 billion.

Popadiuk will speak on the situation in the Ukraine, which is now into its third month.

On Friday, he spoke to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram about his thoughts on the war.

Star-Telegram: Do you think world leaders are scared of Russian President Vladimir Putin?

Roman Popadiuk: I wouldn’t say they are scared of him. You hear, or read, Putin is sick. He’s deranged. Or he has imperial ambitions. My own feeling is that Russia has a strong authoritarian tradition, and whether it’s Putin in there or not, you’d have an authoritarian system.

Russians see themselves as a messianic type of a country, and they are the protectors of the orthodox faith.

The more territory they held, the safer they felt. I see them as a pendulum. You have the era of Peter the Great, and it was open, and then it goes back and forth. (Former Soviet premier) Gorbachev was the beginning of a new era, and then it’s Putin.

Eventually it will wind up in the middle, but we’re not there yet.

S-T: How do you see this war with the Ukraine ending?

RP: What I foresee happening is Ukraine putting up a good fight, and they will fight to a stalemate. Once the cost-benefit analysis hurts, and Putin can’t move in further, then he will declare victory and it will be a frozen conflict.

Now, what are the ramifications for the ruling circle there? He could get to a point where he might not be able to survive that.

But he will want to claim that he achieved some of his goals of reuniting lost territory to Russia.

S-T: The history of Russian leadership says this will not end well for Putin; do you think this will end well for him?

RP: He has a few things going against him, starting with his age. He’s nearing his 70s. Irrespective of if he declares victory, I think the isolation from the rest of the world will continue to work against Russia, and the punishment will be that he has to be replaced.

This is very hypothetical; the inner circle might let him declare victory, and he will be replaced. I think, politically, they won’t be able to sustain with him in office. It’s how the world treats Russia, and businesses, and if they return; quite frankly I don’t think sanctions will be lifted, and that will be his problem.

S-T: For people who are too young to remember the Great Wars, or even the Cold War, were we seduced into thinking that with all technology, access to travel and information, that these types of wars were relics of the past?

RP: I am a realist when it comes to international politics. If anything we got blinded by the development of trade across international lines, the spread of democracy, and technology.

When communism fell, the view of Russia was it had turned the corner and that this was the chance for reform. And we had to deal with Russia and help her out because, if it worked, it would help the rest of the region.

So we dealt with them to strengthen all of the countries around Russia, so if Russia should not stay on the democratic path the surrounding region would be stable and able to stand on its own.

S-T: Did you ever meet Putin?

RP: No, I never did.

S-T: According to people familiar with him, his rise to his current position caught everyone off guard; that leaders familiar with him didn’t think much of him. Is that a fair assessment?

RP: Well, I have dealt with a lot of KGB guys and he fits the classic mold. As a KGB operative, you don’t want to stand out. You want to be effective but don’t leave fingerprints. That’s the rationale of a spy operative, and that’s what he did.

S-T: It would appear that the initial anger over this invasion has faded, and we have “moved on” so to speak. Do you think that was a part of Putin’s strategy?

RP: As an authoritarian state, and a KGB operative, he knows people’s patience fails over time. He can wait people out. I don’t know if that was deliberate, and he will wait these guys out. Time is on his side; in the West, you can turn on any news channel, and the amount of coverage has diminished. It’s still there, but not like it was.

S-T: There is a prevailing thought that one of the reasons why Russians have dealt with Putin for so long is they remember life like before him; that life, in Russia, with Putin as the leader is better, so he stays.

RP: That’s true on two levels. The oligarchs are better off with him than not. He helped make them.

In Russia, he garnered control of the political system, and then he could manipulate the economic system. He was smart; he could control the oligarchs so they owe a lot of success to him, which is why they are willing to wait this out with him.

And, if you ask most Russians in general, they would say they had a better lifestyle than the previously.