That was then and this is now. Dr. Fiona Hill, who until recently served as President Trump’s advisor on Soviet, Russian and European affairs, testified before the House impeachment inquiry committee on Thursday. She told lawmakers she had feared the delay of U.S. military aid would put Ukraine’s national security at risk. Hill said she’d been “concerned about Ukraine’s security and stability as it defended itself against Russia.”
Which is why Fox News’ Brett Baier found it interesting when he came across an op-ed Hill had co-written in 2015 in which she argued against providing lethal military aid for the country. The op-ed appeared in the Washington Post. She had been working at the super liberal Brookings Institution at the time.
— Bret Baier (@BretBaier) November 21, 2019
Hill’s piece is entitled “How aiding the Ukrainian military could push Putin into a regional war.” She argues:
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.
When confronted with this op-ed, Hill told the committee, “Everybody changes their mind, you know, and kind of learns things. I, you know, was basically persuaded that, you know, this was actually worth doing.”
Yes, we all do change our minds. And many of those who responded to Baier’s tweet have pointed that out.
Still, it appears that Hill is more interested in opposing President Trump than she is about ensuring the safety of the Ukrainian troops.
Hill was hired by General Flynn during his short tenure as National Security Adviser. Her job was to present the President with intelligence and foreign policy options, not to make the decision.
If she is interested in setting U.S. policy, she should run for president.