Terry Atlas
By Terry Atlas
Washington policymakers are caught up in a debate reminiscent of the Cold War era: Should the US send weapons to help an outgunned country resist Russian-backed aggression?
What type of military aid to provide Ukraine’s struggling government is being debated by foreign policy analysts and former diplomats as officials at the Pentagon, State Department and White House consider the risks of action and inaction.
Advocates for sending weapons got an unexpected boost on Wednesday when President Barack Obama’s nominee for defence secretary said he favours it.
“I’m very much inclined in that direction,” Ashton Carter said at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, a comment that drew a rebuff from the White House.
The issue is perplexing for Obama, known to ask aides “then what?” when presented with recommendations about military measures, as he did before calling off plans to attack Syria for using chemical weapons.
Moving beyond the current policy — imposing economic sanctions on Russia and providing economic aid and non- lethal military equipment to Ukraine — raises questions hard to answer with any certainty.
Efforts at crisis negotiations escalated amid gains by Russian-backed separatists. Secretary of State John Kerry met officials in Kiev yesterday. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande were to stop there to discuss a new initiative before going to Moscow today to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The Obama administration has played down the possibility of sending weapons, a move that could ratchet up tensions with Putin as fighting intensifies. It also risks undercutting criticism of Putin by the US and allies for arming the rebels.
“Providing additional military assistance could and is likely to have the effect of increasing the bloodshed,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in response to a report that Obama’s aides were giving the question a fresh look.
Carter’s statement the next day drew a curt response. “A decision like this will be made by the commander-in-chief,” Earnest said. “The president will certainly take that advice into account.”
Ukraine has asked the US, Britain, France and Germany for military training and equipment, including munitions, armoured vehicles, access to surveillance drones, radars to warn of artillery attacks, and financial aid.
“We’re asking the world, ‘Can you help us with weapons?’” Deputy Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said in an interview in Washington on January 29. “We don’t want the conflict to be escalated, but we have to remind them we are fighting on our own territory, we’re not crossing the border.”
The US has supplied Ukraine with lightweight counter-mortar radar systems, night-vision gear, body armour and vehicles. US Vice-President Joe Biden plans to meet Merkel and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to discuss the need to impose additional costs on Russia and boost Ukraine’s economy, according to a White House phone briefing for reporters. Merkel has rejected calls to send weapons.
The US is re-evaluating its security assistance in light of the escalation in fighting and Russia’s re-supply of weapons to the separatists. The administration’s goal is to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict because a military one isn’t in the offing.
While Ukraine, the US and their Nato and EU allies say there’s evidence that Russia is providing military equipment and troops to the separatists, Putin’s government denies it.
The case for lethal aid was pressed by a group of former US diplomats and national security officials, including former ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer.
In Congress, a group of 15 senators sent Obama a letter saying that Russia aggression in Ukraine “must not be allowed to succeed. We believe it is time to increase military assistance to Ukraine and urge the US and Nato to move quickly.” They called for sending “defensive” military equipment to “thwart Putin’s naked aggression.”
It’s not clear that Putin would draw distinctions about what qualifies as defensive weapons.
Sending lethal aid risks an arms race that Ukraine couldn’t win, said Sean Kay, a professor of politics and international studies at Ohio Wesleyan University.
“There is every reason to believe that Russia would respond not with negotiation, but perhaps with more, and even deadlier, war.”
Obama is unconvinced that providing anything more than non-lethal aid or limited and defensive weapons is wise, said an administration official.
Some officials argue that sending arms to Ukraine would destroy rather than promote attempts to devise a political solution. The administration’s public line is an attempt to mollify both camps by weighing some increased aid without defining what’s being considered.
Any dramatic, public step to arm the Ukrainians would risk fracturing the fragile unity between the US and its Nato and EU allies at a time when unity is essential to maintaining or tightening economic sanctions on Russia.
Sanctions, whose impact is multiplied by falling crude oil prices, are starting to exact a heavy toll on Russia’s economy and to separate Putin from some of his longtime allies. WP-BLOOMBERG
By Terry Atlas
Washington policymakers are caught up in a debate reminiscent of the Cold War era: Should the US send weapons to help an outgunned country resist Russian-backed aggression?
What type of military aid to provide Ukraine’s struggling government is being debated by foreign policy analysts and former diplomats as officials at the Pentagon, State Department and White House consider the risks of action and inaction.
Advocates for sending weapons got an unexpected boost on Wednesday when President Barack Obama’s nominee for defence secretary said he favours it.
“I’m very much inclined in that direction,” Ashton Carter said at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, a comment that drew a rebuff from the White House.
The issue is perplexing for Obama, known to ask aides “then what?” when presented with recommendations about military measures, as he did before calling off plans to attack Syria for using chemical weapons.
Moving beyond the current policy — imposing economic sanctions on Russia and providing economic aid and non- lethal military equipment to Ukraine — raises questions hard to answer with any certainty.
Efforts at crisis negotiations escalated amid gains by Russian-backed separatists. Secretary of State John Kerry met officials in Kiev yesterday. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande were to stop there to discuss a new initiative before going to Moscow today to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The Obama administration has played down the possibility of sending weapons, a move that could ratchet up tensions with Putin as fighting intensifies. It also risks undercutting criticism of Putin by the US and allies for arming the rebels.
“Providing additional military assistance could and is likely to have the effect of increasing the bloodshed,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in response to a report that Obama’s aides were giving the question a fresh look.
Carter’s statement the next day drew a curt response. “A decision like this will be made by the commander-in-chief,” Earnest said. “The president will certainly take that advice into account.”
Ukraine has asked the US, Britain, France and Germany for military training and equipment, including munitions, armoured vehicles, access to surveillance drones, radars to warn of artillery attacks, and financial aid.
“We’re asking the world, ‘Can you help us with weapons?’” Deputy Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said in an interview in Washington on January 29. “We don’t want the conflict to be escalated, but we have to remind them we are fighting on our own territory, we’re not crossing the border.”
The US has supplied Ukraine with lightweight counter-mortar radar systems, night-vision gear, body armour and vehicles. US Vice-President Joe Biden plans to meet Merkel and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to discuss the need to impose additional costs on Russia and boost Ukraine’s economy, according to a White House phone briefing for reporters. Merkel has rejected calls to send weapons.
The US is re-evaluating its security assistance in light of the escalation in fighting and Russia’s re-supply of weapons to the separatists. The administration’s goal is to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict because a military one isn’t in the offing.
While Ukraine, the US and their Nato and EU allies say there’s evidence that Russia is providing military equipment and troops to the separatists, Putin’s government denies it.
The case for lethal aid was pressed by a group of former US diplomats and national security officials, including former ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer.
In Congress, a group of 15 senators sent Obama a letter saying that Russia aggression in Ukraine “must not be allowed to succeed. We believe it is time to increase military assistance to Ukraine and urge the US and Nato to move quickly.” They called for sending “defensive” military equipment to “thwart Putin’s naked aggression.”
It’s not clear that Putin would draw distinctions about what qualifies as defensive weapons.
Sending lethal aid risks an arms race that Ukraine couldn’t win, said Sean Kay, a professor of politics and international studies at Ohio Wesleyan University.
“There is every reason to believe that Russia would respond not with negotiation, but perhaps with more, and even deadlier, war.”
Obama is unconvinced that providing anything more than non-lethal aid or limited and defensive weapons is wise, said an administration official.
Some officials argue that sending arms to Ukraine would destroy rather than promote attempts to devise a political solution. The administration’s public line is an attempt to mollify both camps by weighing some increased aid without defining what’s being considered.
Any dramatic, public step to arm the Ukrainians would risk fracturing the fragile unity between the US and its Nato and EU allies at a time when unity is essential to maintaining or tightening economic sanctions on Russia.
Sanctions, whose impact is multiplied by falling crude oil prices, are starting to exact a heavy toll on Russia’s economy and to separate Putin from some of his longtime allies. WP-BLOOMBERG
