Should the US (and NATO) Arm Ukraine?

[Sebastian]

In the event diplomacy fails at the Minsk peace talks, should the US begin to arm Ukraine against the Russian-backed rebels (and thousands of Russian regulars) with high-tech defensive weapons?*

Will the increased costs of aggression finally convince Putin to pull back? Or will the conflict only widen?

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...ncrease-russian-deaths-turning-public-opinion

*The weapons in question are thought to be limited to anti-tank missiles, radar jammers, surveillance drones and AA missiles.

 

[gourimoko]

Can't see a reason to do so; Ukraine is Russia's neighbor and clearly in their sphere of influence.

If this were a nation further West, or if Ukraine had joined NATO earlier, then this would be a different matter.

I'm conflicted on the issue - because I support the Ukrainians, but having discussed the complexity of the topic with guys like Surmac, it just seems like it might be best to not get involved in providing weapons.

This position, I think, is made more clear when we consider the fact that Ukraine will not likely be able to militarily bring a resolution to this conflict with or without our support.

 

[OptimusPrime]

No.

 

[FiveThous]

No.

This was so beautifully put, couldn't agree more.

 

[Sebastian]

Can't see a reason to do so; Ukraine is Russia's neighbor and clearly in their sphere of influence.

If this were a nation further West, or if Ukraine had joined NATO earlier, then this would be a different matter.

I'm conflicted on the issue - because I support the Ukrainians, but having discussed the complexity of the topic with guys like Surmac, it just seems like it might be best to not get involved in providing weapons.

This position, I think, is made more clear when we consider the fact that Ukraine will not likely be able to militarily bring a resolution to this conflict with or without our support.

Fair enough. Your point on the military solution I think may be hinged on the notion that Ukraine could defeat the Russians. However, isn't the prospect of a much higher cost in men and material a deterrent in itself? Putin has gained much popular support within Russia by indulging in the fiction that Russian troops are not engaged in battle. But, if the body-bags start rolling back home, it may be difficult to fool the Russian populace into continued support of this enterprise.

Do you feel that Russia must be deterred from further aggression? Does Ukraine not have the right to defend itself with whatever weapons it can purchase? Will the fall of Ukraine signal further aggression against former Soviet states?

I am interested in whatever insights @Sumac13 may have as well since you mentioned him.

 

[OptimusPrime]

If Putin wanted to invade and annex all of Ukraine he would and they couldn't stop him.

The people in Crimea are ethnic Russians and want to be a part of Russia anyway.

The people of Ukraine are refusing their forced conscription orders in droves. They don't want to fight and die for people that don't want to be there. Many will sooner fight against Kiev than Moscow.

Europe wants no part of the U.S. meddling over there.

And not to mention, I fail to see how any of this is a threat to the United States. Stay the fuck out of it.

 

[Sebastian]

If Putin wanted to invade and annex all of Ukraine he would and they couldn't stop him.

The people in Crimea are ethnic Russians and want to be a part of Russia anyway.

The people of Ukraine are refusing their forced conscription orders in droves. They don't want to fight and die for people that don't want to be there. Many will sooner fight against Kiev than Moscow.

Europe wants no part of the U.S. meddling over there.

And not to mention, I fail to see how any of this is a threat to the United States. Stay the fuck out of it.

Would you have a problem with Russia also attacking and annexing Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?

 

[OptimusPrime]

Would you have a problem with Russia also attacking and annexing Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?

I would have a problem with them attacking anyone. Of course they haven't attacked those countries and they aren't clamoring to be a part of Russia. I sure as hell wouldn't approve of going to war unless they attacked the United States.

 

[Sebastian]

I would have a problem with them attacking anyone. I sure as hell wouldn't approve of going to war unless they attacked the United States.

So, you would not have the United States fulfill its NATO obligations in the event that Russia decided to pull a Sudetenland on Estonia which has a 45% ethnic Russian population (because Stalin put them there after deporting 100,000s of ethnic Estonians to the gulag)?

I'm curious, do you feel that the Soviet Union was a legitimate threat to the US during the Cold War?

 

[Sumac13]

If Putin wanted to invade and annex all of Ukraine he would and they couldn't stop him.

Irrelevant. Extremely unlikely that this option is in Putin & co's playbook. Moreover, if Putin & co. decided to do so, it would be waging war on more than just Ukraine. Countries around Ukraine are not going to idly stand by.

The people in Crimea are ethnic Russians and want to be a part of Russia anyway.

Irrelevant, again. The area under armed conflict is not Crimea. So moot point. You really need to look at a map. Please do so. Educate yourself.

The people of Ukraine are refusing their forced conscription orders in droves. They don't want to fight and die for people that don't want to be there. Many will sooner fight against Kiev than Moscow.

Some truth here. Some lack of understanding. Some blatantly made up bullshit. Yes, a large number of Ukrainians are refusing their conscription orders. As for lack of understanding--the reason for not wanting to fight isn't due to not wanting to fight and die for people that do not want to be there. Rather it is due to a sense of fatalism. They don't see winning as being tenable, the risk of dying is credible, and nobody seeming to care is disheartening. If Ukraine were properly armed and could repel the rebels properly, the issue with conscription would likely vanish. As for people rather wanting to fight against Kiev than Moscow, you are just making shit up in an attempt to support your stance. That you would even make such a statement proves either you know nothing about Ukrainian society or you are just willing to lie to "prove" a point.

Europe wants no part of the U.S. meddling over there.

You are treating Europe as a unified whole. It isn't. Many voices exists on the subject. (I don't believe that you really believe it, but are just throwing it out there as a way (albeit, lame way) to justify your argument. People here are going to call you on it, so why even bother with such a claim. Begin by examining Lithuania's stance on the matter.

And by meddling, what do you mean? Sanctions? Arming Ukraine (and what does that entail). The U.S. is already providing military support, but not arms. As pointed out in the article linked to in the OP: "As a statement from the American embassy in Kiev noted, the United States has already pledged nearly $240 million in military support in 2014-15, with further military training programs due next month. The United States has been backing Ukraine’s forces for months. This talking point already exists. This claim is already firmly entrenched in the Kremlin’s playbook."

And not to mention, I fail to see how any of this is a threat to the United States. Stay the fuck out of it.

Immediate & direct threat? Perhaps not. But, it is foolish to think that Russia's aggression in the region will not have far reaching and latent consequences. At this point, it is a matter of calculation and deciding if potential consequences constitute a reason to ramp up military support. I am not saying that it is, but I certainly am not willing to state that what Russia is doing in Ukraine will not have any impact on the U.S. or its relations in the region.

If you are going to make an argument for why the U.S. should not get involved, check out your facts first and use them honestly. Making shit up doesn't make them true; moreover, it undermines your credibility to speak on the subject matter.

If you stance is the U.S. should not intervene because you don't feel it is an immediate threat, just stick with that as your point of reasoning. Right or wrong, at least it isn't made up.

 

[Sumac13]

I am interested in whatever insights @Sumac13 may have as well since you mentioned him.

@Kng Stannis @gourimoko

A brief comment (I will respond more tomorrow), several of us (gourimoko and others) had a healthy discussion on the topic of Ukraine last year about this time. A lot has changed in Ukraine since that time. A lot hasn't. There isn't a easy answer to the question of whether U.S. should arm Ukraine. I am pro-Ukraine 100%, but I am hesitant to give a quick and definitive 'yes' to that question. Clearly, a lot needs to be taken into consideration.

For one, what does it mean to arm Ukraine. Arm exactly with what? Just what Ukraine cannot manufacture themselves? I highly suggest reading an article by Nicolai Holmov from Odessa Talk. Ukraine can manufacture some serious arms for themselves, but it is a question of how quickly and a matter of dealing with corruption. Months and months will pass before it will be enough. But, what about what they cannot manufacture? How quickly can it be delivered? Will it be too late? Too late in what sense?

One of my biggest qualms is: is Ukraine willing and able to rid itself of corruption? Definite steps have been taken in that direction, but it is a matter of whether the end goal will come to fruition. Perhaps it shouldn't be a factor. If not, then the U.S. needs to be honest about its intent--it isn't so much about protecting Ukraine as it is about trying to thwart Russia's aggression, which in itself is disconcerting at a very minimum.

Another issue to consider, would another round of sanctions be a better option for the time being. The sanctions (as with the drop in the price of oil) are clearly hurting Russia.

My take on the matter is that Russia is not intent on annexing Ukraine. However, It is hell bent on controlling how Ukraine is ruled. The more land in Ukraine it can bring under its sphere of influence (rule by proxy), the greater the ability it believes it can determine what happens in Kiev. At this point, much of Ukraine is of the opinion of telling Russia to fuck off, for once and all. I don't think Ukraine is ever going to be willing to allow Russia to dictate its affairs, not to the extent that the country will turn to Russia. Ukraine is looking to the West. That is not going to change.

Doing nothing isn't an option, or shouldn't be one. Blindly dumping money into the country comes with its own risks in that it may disappear.

I know that was a bit disjointed. But the subject is convoluted.

 

[Stark]

Chernobyl and Pripyat are in the Ukraine, and there have been cool video games and a documentaries on them.

I say give them what they want.

 

[Sebastian]

@Kng Stannis @gourimoko

A brief comment (I will respond more tomorrow), several of us (gourimoko and others) had a healthy discussion on the topic of Ukraine last year about this time. A lot has changed in Ukraine since that time. A lot hasn't. There isn't a easy answer to the question of whether U.S. should arm Ukraine. I am pro-Ukraine 100%, but I am hesitant to give a quick and definitive 'yes' to that question. Clearly, a lot needs to be taken into consideration.

For one, what does it mean to arm Ukraine. Arm exactly with what? Just what Ukraine cannot manufacture themselves? I highly suggest reading an article by Nicolai Holmov from Odessa Talk. Ukraine can manufacture some serious arms for themselves, but it is a question of how quickly and a matter of dealing with corruption. Months and months will pass before it will be enough. But, what about what they cannot manufacture? How quickly can it be delivered? Will it be too late? Too late in what sense?

One of my biggest qualms is: is Ukraine willing and able to rid itself of corruption? Definite steps have been taken in that direction, but it is a matter of whether the end goal will come to fruition. Perhaps it shouldn't be a factor. If not, then the U.S. needs to be honest about its intent--it isn't so much about protecting Ukraine as it is about trying to thwart Russia's aggression, which in itself is disconcerting at a very minimum.

Another issue to consider, would another round of sanctions be a better option for the time being. The sanctions (as with the drop in the price of oil) are clearly hurting Russia.

My take on the matter is that Russia is not intent on annexing Ukraine. However, It is hell bent on controlling how Ukraine is ruled. The more land in Ukraine it can bring under its sphere of influence (rule by proxy), the greater the ability it believes it can determine what happens in Kiev. At this point, much of Ukraine is of the opinion of telling Russia to fuck off, for once and all. I don't think Ukraine is ever going to be willing to allow Russia to dictate its affairs, not to the extent that the country will turn to Russia. Ukraine is looking to the West. That is not going to change.

Doing nothing isn't an option, or shouldn't be one. Blindly dumping money into the country comes with its own risks in that it may disappear.

I know that was a bit disjointed. But the subject is convoluted.

I appreciate your insight. I can agree with your point on corruption. It is endemic and is the primary reason why the Ukrainian Army's preparedness for Russian aggression was rock-bottom. Despite what the military budget was, and what equipment the Army was supposed to have, the reality was that little of budgeted funds ever found its way to the military. Russia has this same issue x100. Every year Russia announces a new weapons development program that is never heard from again.

For one, what does it mean to arm Ukraine. Arm exactly with what? Just what Ukraine cannot manufacture themselves?

As for the weapons in question, they are anti-tank missiles, AA missiles, radar, radar jammers and surveillance drones. More or less advanced US and European equipment that the Ukrainian arms industry is having issues manufacturing at present for a variety of reasons. Clearly, the intent is to allow the Ukrainian Army to defend itself from the Russian-equipped rebels where the UA is most vulnerable: Armor defense and potential Russian air superiority. The Administration projects weapons can be delivered soon and training could be quickly facilitated by the extant US and NATO personnel in Ukraine. As your article points out, it may be academic if things go poorly on the ground in the next couple months, but it may also be the stop-gap measure that proves useful on the battlefield, that in turn gives Ukraine more diplomatic weapons.

The question, then, is can these weapons give the Russians and their lackeys enough of a bloody nose for them to consider a proper peace? Is the very act of arming Ukraine enough of a demonstration of a will to resist Putin? How much longer can Putin portray the war as a jolly boys weekend fighting Nazi thugs if the body-bags start rolling back into Russia?

If not, then the U.S. needs to be honest about its intent--it isn't so much about protecting Ukraine as it is about trying to thwart Russia's aggression, which in itself is disconcerting at a very minimum.

I guess the counter-question is if one believes Putin is now so aggressive that deterrence on behalf of Ukraine is necessary to prevent the Russians from opening frozen conflicts with the Baltic states and the Central Asian periphery. If one does believe that, then the distinction may be moot.

 

[brownindian]

Afghan 2.0? No.

 

[OptimusPrime]

So, you would not have the United States fulfill its NATO obligations in the event that Russia decided to pull a Sudetenland on Estonia which has a 45% ethnic Russian population (because Stalin put them there after deporting 100,000s of ethnic Estonians to the gulag)?

I'm curious, do you feel that the Soviet Union was a legitimate threat to the US during the Cold War?

NATO means absolutely zero to me. They can go fuck themselves. And sure the Soviet Union was a threat, but you notice we never went to war with them.