Why Arming the Ukrainians is a Bad Idea

[Chef Ramsay]

Steve Pifer is a good friend and a treasured colleague. And Strobe Talbott is my boss—so it goes without saying that I greatly admire his work. But as important as friendship and job security are to me, I still can only conclude that their proposal to arm Ukrainians will lead only to further violence and instability, and possibly a dangerous confrontation with Russia.

Steve and Strobe’s article (and the supporting report with several other prominent authors) rings with fury at Russian actions. And Russian actions are indeed outrageous. But moral indignation, no matter how righteous and satisfying, is not a strategy. A strategy needs to describe just how provision of American arms would make the situation better.

Rather than such a description, the article suggests that a just cause and the Ukrainian need and desire for weapons are enough to justify their provision. But it is hardly surprising that the Ukrainians want American arms in their war against Russia and Russian-backed separatists—they face the possibility of territorial dismemberment and would run any risk to preserve their state intact.

The Ukrainian calculus is one of immediate desperation. But the United States needs to think for the longer-term. And if U.S.-provided weapons fail to induce a Russian retreat in Ukraine and instead cause an escalation of the war, the net result will not be peace and compromise. There has recently been much escalation in Ukraine, but it could go much further. As horrible as it is, the Ukrainian civil war still looks rather tame by the standards of Bosnia, Chechnya or Syria. Further escalation will mean much more violence, suffering and death in Ukraine.

The report authors counter that if the United States does not stand up to Russia in Ukraine, the Putin regime will be emboldened to make similar mischief all over Europe and beyond. This is the familiar credibility argument that gave us the war in Vietnam, among other misadventures. In fact, U.S. credibility is not enhanced by making bluffs that we will not ultimately fulfill or by embarking on wasting wars that we do not need.

In any case, Ukraine is a unique situation, both for the Russians and for the United States. It is culturally and geographically supremely important to the Russians and yet for the United States it has no intrinsic geopolitical importance and is not a treaty ally. The Russians would be foolish to judge U.S. credibility in responding to provocations in areas of greater importance to the United States on the basis of its non-military response to Ukraine. And there is no evidence that they are that foolish.
...

More...http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2015/02/03-why-arming-ukrainians-is-a-bad-idea-shapiro

[Chef Ramsay]

Arming Ukraine Is Still a Terrible Idea

A new report from The Brookings Institution, The Atlantic Council, and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs urges the administration to be reckless and arm Ukraine.
...
The argument for arming Ukraine is just as awful as it was last year. It is the result of insisting that Western governments must “do something” about the conflict in Ukraine and then overestimating the ability of Western governments to do something that will hasten the end of the conflict. Providing weapons to the weaker side in a lopsided conflict certainly is inconsistent with the search for a peaceful solution, since it encourages the weaker side to continue fighting when it has no chance of prevailing.
...
Notice that the authors of the report fail to acknowledge of the potential costs of this course of action to Ukraine or to the governments that are expected to provide the military aid, nor do they take seriously the possibility it could spur Russia to more aggressive action. If Western governments help to fuel the conflict with arms shipments, they are guaranteeing that Ukraine will be exposed to a longer war that will inflict even more damage on the country.
...
If it is not the worst foreign policy idea of the last decade, it is certainly in the top three.
...

More...http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/arming-ukraine-is-still-a-terrible-idea/

[Chef Ramsay]

Ukraine Needs Peace, Not Weapons

Among Cold War presidents, from Truman to Bush I, there was an unwritten rule: Do not challenge Moscow in its Central and Eastern Europe sphere of influence.
...
That Cold War caution and prudence may be at an end.

For President Obama is being goaded by Congress and the liberal interventionists in his party to send lethal weaponry to Kiev in its civil war with pro-Russian rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk. That war has already cost 5,000 lives—soldiers, rebels, civilians. September’s cease-fire in Minsk has broken down.
...
Late last year, Congress sent Obama a bill authorizing lethal aid to Kiev. He signed it. Now the New York Times reports that NATO Commander Gen. Philip Breedlove favors military aid to Ukraine, as does Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. John Kerry and Gen. Martin Dempsey of the joint chiefs are said to be open to the idea.

A panel of eight former national security officials, chaired by Michele Flournoy, a potential Defense Secretary in a Hillary Clinton administration, has called for the U.S. to provide $3 billion in military aid to Ukraine, including anti-tank missiles, reconnaissance drones, Humvees, and radar to locate the sources of artillery and missile fire. Such an arms package would guarantee an escalation of the war, put the United States squarely in the middle, and force Vladimir Putin’s hand.

...But if U.S. cargo planes start arriving in Kiev with Javelin anti-tank missiles, Putin would face several choices.

He could back down, abandon the rebels, and be seen as a bully who, despite his bluster, does not stand up for Russians everywhere. More in character, he could take U.S. intervention as a challenge and send in armor and artillery to enable the rebels to consolidate their gains, then warn Kiev that, rather than see the rebels routed, Moscow will intervene militarily. Or Putin could order in the Russian army before U.S. weapons arrive, capture Mariupol, establish a land bridge to Crimea, and then tell Kiev he is ready to negotiate.

What would we do then? Send U.S. advisers to fight alongside the Ukrainians, as the war escalates and the casualties mount? Send U.S. warships into the Black Sea? Have we thought this through, as we did not think through what would happen if we brought down Saddam, Gadhafi, and Mubarak?

America has never had a vital interest in Crimea or the Donbass worth risking a military clash with Russia. And we do not have the military ability to intervene and drive out the Russian army, unless we are prepared for a larger war and the potential devastation of the Ukraine.

What would Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon or Reagan think of an American president willing to risk military conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia over two provinces in southeastern Ukraine that Moscow had ruled from the time of Catherine the Great?

What is happening in Ukraine is a tragedy and a disaster. And we are in part responsible, having egged on the Maidan coup that overthrew the elected pro-Russian government.
...
Rather than becoming a co-belligerent in this civil war that is not our war, why not have the United States assume the role of the honest broker who brings it to an end. Isn’t that how real peace prizes are won?
...

More...http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/ukraine-needs-peace-not-weapons/

[bryant.coleman]

If the Americans arm the Kiev junta, it will just encourage the Russians to pour in more and more advanced weapons to the militia. The war will never end and the civilians will suffer terribly.

[BitMos]

If the Americans arm the Kiev junta, it will just encourage the Russians to pour in more and more advanced weapons to the militia. The war will never end and the civilians will suffer terribly.

personally, I except that at one point the Russian will move to outright terrorism... (like they supported in Syria, from the regime aircraft and the growth of the various group to get support), so if you think that Charlie trashpapers or 9.11 for the matter are big, you have never seen Russian combat groups in action... with the end of the Motherland at stakes. be aware, it will be tough.

that's were FIRST STRIKES enter the arena. brutal meet brutaler... until both are exhausted.

to avoid the annihilation of the Russian landmass, both camp have to lose big, one way is to let out gaz from Russian tool box, we let gmo and unclean fracking out. peace, or Russian wants to fuck the world with what ever come next, The Empire find counter solutions, become feed up with the negative aspect, the cost and risk of annihilating Russia are lesser, let's roll. and that's what Russian leadership doesn't want to understand... they want to game and win. they may have already played, now it may time to lose.

[bryant.coleman]

personally, I except that at one point the Russian will move to outright terrorism... (like they supported in Syria, from the regime aircraft and the growth of the various group to get support)

Wow... In Syria, the Russians are supporting the secular Assad regime, while the Americans and their Wahabist allies are arming the ultra-fanatic Al Nusra and ISIS. Who is the real terrorist here? 

[BitMos]

fuck off, this is lies you know it. the bashar Baathist experienced as failed. they should have been all together, Syrians first... the truth as soon as the people of the Sunnah started to ask for a little freedom and power and wealth and prosperity from their allawites masters they receive sinpers round, children arrest, women jailed and finally tnt from the air backed by the Russian who have love affairs with Syrian girls from ussr, and want to stop pipeline from wahabit land... who care iran will get nuked, moskow will get nuked, then we will be able to move to peace.

p.s. and you are not an emperor but a slave. always have always be. Only God is the Greatest.

and that tell anything I need to learn about those that pretend to be pious... aka IRAN I know what you did... will see what the USMIIC will give you, I vote for... ahaha.

[saddampbuh]

let's not start ww3 over a quarrel between far away peoples of which we know nothing, didn't we learn the last time

[Nemo1024]

let's not start ww3 over a quarrel between far away peoples of which we know nothing, didn't we learn the last time

Unless the aim of fomenting that quarrel over the last 25+ years by use of various American "democracy-promoting" grants, was exactly to start a WW3... In which case I can see US going in full monty, as they are are doing now.


The following bit of the OP article is still conformant to the mainstream Western propaganda line:

Steve and Strobe’s article (and the supporting report with several other prominent authors) rings with fury at Russian actions. And Russian actions are indeed outrageous. But moral indignation, no matter how righteous and satisfying, is not a strategy. A strategy needs to describe just how provision of American arms would make the situation better.

Rather than such a description, the article suggests that a just cause and the Ukrainian need and desire for weapons are enough to justify their provision. But it is hardly surprising that the Ukrainians want American arms in their war against Russia and Russian-backed separatists—they face the possibility of territorial dismemberment and would run any risk to preserve their state intact.

The Ukrainian calculus is one of immediate desperation. But the United States needs to think for the longer-term. And if U.S.-provided weapons fail to induce a Russian retreat in Ukraine and instead cause an escalation of the war, the net result will not be peace and compromise.

The real intellectual break-through in the West will be when they realise that Russia is not present in Ukraine and is not at war with Ukraine. Rather Ukraine is in an imaginary war with Russia. So there is no Russia to retreat in the first place.

What we have in Donbass, are people, who have lived there for centuries, and who have nowhere to go. Yes, they are Russian by ethnicity, so yes, what Kiev-nazis do with US support is in effect an ethnic cleansing. But the people of Donbass are fighting back for their own land and for their right to live, not for Russia.

The "outrageous" actions by Russia so far include: peace brokerage, several hundred thousand tonnes of humanitarian aide, split over 13 convoys, being host to close to a million refugees from the war-zone, and now taking in thousands of young men from Ukraine of conscript age, who don't want to die in a war, imposed on them by Western-backed Nazis.

[bitcats]

War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

[Ingatqhvq]

I think Ukraine should immediately give Lwow back to Poland. Hasn't Poland suffered enough, between Hitler's nazi goons and Stalin's bolshevik goons?- that it has to suffer from Hitler's progeny in Kiev now?

Ukraine has no claim over Lwow. Give it back, you abortion of a nation of Demjanjuks!

Western Ukraine to Poland, Eastern Ukraine to Russia! Leave a little concentration camp somewhere in the center, herd them all into it and set it ablaze! Justice will finally be done.

[runningfree]

"And Russian actions are indeed outrageous"

What are you talking about? The US removed the democratically elected President of Ukraine by way of a Military coup de tat!
Next, that new government embraced Fascism and decided to kill the Russian speaking Ukrainian citizens in Eastern Ukraine!
Russia's actions have always been defensive. They protected the citizens of Crimea who by the way all speak Russian like in Eastern Ukraine. If Crimea hadn't become part of Russia Kiev would be bombing them too right now!

Russia's actions! Russia's actions! What about Kiev's actions! What about America's actions?

NO BODY EVER MENTIONS THAT THE US CAUSED THIS ENTIRE MESS!!

[Snail2]

I think Ukraine should immediately give Lwow back to Poland. Hasn't Poland suffered enough, between Hitler's nazi goons and Stalin's bolshevik goons?- that it has to suffer from Hitler's progeny in Kiev now?

Ukraine has no claim over Lwow. Give it back, you abortion of a nation of Demjanjuks!

Western Ukraine to Poland, Eastern Ukraine to Russia! Leave a little concentration camp somewhere in the center, herd them all into it and set it ablaze! Justice will finally be done.

Ooops! Transcarpathia is ancient Hungarian land ! (...and I'm pretty sure Romanians will also discover some evidence of ancient daco-romanian settlements around Kiev.)

[crypto97]

I always thought that Kiev was born out of Kievan RUS. 500 AD Are you saying that Romanian settlements around Kiev are older than this?

[Snail2]

I always thought that Kiev was born out of Kievan RUS. 500 AD Are you saying that Romanian settlements around Kiev are older than this?

Well, romanians used to say such things about neighbouring countries when they see an opportunity for a landgrab (e.g. in the case of Transylvania) .

[Balthazar]

I always thought that Kiev was born out of Kievan RUS. 500 AD Are you saying that Romanian settlements around Kiev are older than this?

1) "Kievan Rus" isn't a name of state, it's a name for historical period since 882 until 1240 A.D.
2) Originally Kiev was a part of Khazar Khaganate. In 882 it was annexed by Oleg of Novgorod and then he declared this city as the capital of Rus.

 

[Snail2]

I always thought that Kiev was born out of Kievan RUS. 500 AD Are you saying that Romanian settlements around Kiev are older than this?

Actually Kiev was a small remote slavic settlement between the 5th and mid-9th century, usually a tributary of the nearest khaganate (huns, avars, gokturks, kahazars, whoever was the boss on the steppes in a given time). In the mid-9th century a viking guy called Oleg got really drunk, wandered quite far with his buddies and woke up in a pub f*ckin far from home with a bunch of killed khazar herdsman and pretty blondes around. That place was Kiev. After realizing where they really are they tought that's actually a good place for establishing a trading post as it's about on the half way between the Black Sea ports and the land of the Novgorod rus. ...and this is the story how Kiev been built .

[Nemo1024]

The pedant in me wants to make only one quite small correction to the very amusing rendition of Kievan history by Snail2

Not "a viking guy", but "a varjag guy".

[BitMos]

War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

thank you, some will need to learn it the hard way, including the following poster :

In which case I can see US going in full monty, as they are are doing now. (you don't have the accreditation necessary to understand yet what full monty means. I don't know what you will tell your loved ones when you will discover it, however I am not sure you will the time to share this new knowledge with said people)
...

What we have in Donbass Syria, are people, who have lived there for centuries, and who have nowhere to go. Yes, they are Russian Semites by ethnicity, so yes, what KievDamascus-nazis do with US Russian support is in effect an ethnic cleansing. But the people of DonbassSyria are fighting back for their own land and for their right to live, not for Russia the Empire.

so for this simple mistake, you or people like you nemo will have to explain war the American way to your children and loved one. you may not have the time to prepare them, may you chose the way of the sleep like former manipulator or execution, so I advise you to seriously think about it now, before learning what was done those last 25+ years and the 200 before btw . r.i.p.r., for the obstination of one man. Everyone is too afraid to say to him to stop? you don't want to understand that the cost of facing the murders of the north is getting less costly every day than not facing him, and I don't speak in BTC terms.

and because you are of the ilk that love to lie to exploit, and for me :

What we have in Donbass Iran, are people, who have lived there for centuries, and who have nowhere to go. Yes, they are Russian Persians by ethnicity, so yes, what KievMollah-nazis do with USRUSSIAN support is in effect an ethnic cleansing lack of freedom and oppression. But the people of Donbass Iran are fighting back for their own land and for their right to live, not for Russia America.

I now they are not ethnic Russian as such they can die, or be refugees, or be bombarded or what ever... Russian Military doctrine exposed 101.

Ohh and nemo btw you seems smart, you must get a lot in (expected) returns... What are you after? Puttin succession?

[manselr]

Arming uninformed, pissed off people is always a bad idea regardless nationality.