What's new

U.S. shifts stance on military aid to Ukraine

Hindustani78

BANNED
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
40,471
Reaction score
-47
Country
India
Location
India
U.S. shifts stance on military aid to Ukraine - CNN.com
By Barbara Starr and Laura Koran, CNN

Updated 1916 GMT (0316 HKT) February 2, 2015

(CNN)The United States is now considering sending lethal aid to help the Ukrainian government fend off attacks from pro-Russian rebels in the eastern part of Ukraine.

This assistance would come in the form of so-called "defensive lethal aid," which could include anti-tank, anti-air and anti-mortar systems.

The New York Times first reported the possible change in policy, saying NATO commander Gen. Phil Breedlove, is in support of the new lethal assistance, and that Secretary of State John Kerry, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey and National Security Adviser Susan Rice are all open to considering the idea.

A U.S. official now tells CNN that military leadership supports defensive lethal aid being part of the discussion, but the administration is still trying to assess what reaction it could illicit from the Russian government, which the U.S. maintains is backing rebels in eastern Ukraine.

In an interview last week with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, President Barack Obama alluded to concern in the international community that President Vladimir Putin is further isolating Russia, and bypassing opportunities to de-escalate the conflict.

"What is absolutely true is that if you have a leader who continually drives past the off ramps that we've provided, given the size of the Russian military, given the fact that Ukraine is not a NATO country and so as a consequence there are clear limits in terms of what we would do militarily, you know, Mr. Putin has not been stopped so far," Obama said.

The U.S. official who spoke with CNN said the arms option came back to the forefront following Russian advances and weapons shipments into Ukraine in recent weeks.

But the U.S. military leadership feels any arms shipments to Ukraine must be part of a broader package of options.

In his CNN interview, Obama hedged away from the possibility of lethal aid, calling instead for a continuation of economic sanctions.

"To those who would suggest that we need to do more, what I've said to them is that we can exact higher and higher costs, and that's exactly what we're doing and we can bring diplomatic pressure to bear," Obama said, adding, "I don¹t think that it would be wise for the United States or the world to see an actual military conflict between the United States and Russia."

But in a press conference in India, the President seemed to leave the door open to some kinds of defensive lethal aid, saying, "I will look at all additional options that are available to us short of a military confrontation in trying to address this issue."

On Monday, a group of former U.S. and NATO officials released a report in which they called on the Obama administration to provide further support to the Ukrainian government, warning that failure to stop incursions in Ukraine could embolden Russia.

"If the United States and NATO do not adequately support Ukraine, Moscow may well conclude that the kinds of tactics it has employed over the past year can be applied elsewhere," the authors said, specifically highlighting concerns for regional NATO allies Estonia and Latvia.

The report specifically calls on the U.S. to provide light anti-armor missiles, as well as non-lethal equipment such as armored Humvees and UAVs.

"Some in the West are concerned that provision of military assistance, particularly of lethal arms, would cause Russia to escalate the crisis," the report concedes. "We vehemently disagree."

The authors cite actions the Russian government has already taken to escalate the crisis, including the seizure of Crimea, and their arming of rebel groups.

"Enhanced military assistance would increase Kyiv's capability to deter further Russian escalation," they add.

Among the report's authors are Michele Flournoy, a former Undersecretary of Defense in the Obama administration, and Ivo Daalder, a former foreign policy adviser to the president and U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/w...on=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article

The current stock of Ukrainian anti-armor missiles, the report notes, is at least two decades old, and most of them are out of commission. So the report recommends that the United States provide the Ukrainian military with light anti-armor missiles, which might include Javelin antitank missiles.

”Providing the Ukrainians with something that can stop an armored assault and that puts at risk Russian or Russian-backed forces that are in armored vehicles, I think, is the most important aspect of this,” she added.

The Obama administration has provided radars that can locate the source of mortars. But the report urges the United States to also provide radars that can pinpoint the location of longer-range rocket and artillery fire. Enemy rocket and artillery attacks account for 70 percent of the Ukrainian military’s casualties, the report says.

Ukraine, the report notes, also needs reconnaissance drones, especially since the Ukrainian military has stopped all flights over eastern Ukraine because of the separatists’ use of antiaircraft missiles supplied by Russia.

The report also urged the United States to provide military communications equipment that cannot be intercepted by Russian intelligence.

Poland, the Baltic States, Canada and Britain, the report says, might also provide defensive weapons if the United States takes the lead.
 
Finally US decides to supply Ukraine weapons to fight nearly 10,000 Russian troops and Special Ops are wearing rebel uniforms and occupying the Ukrainian territory and are fighting the Ukrainian army. US should declare the Ukrainian rebels as terrorists.
 
Finally US decides to supply Ukraine weapons to fight nearly 10,000 Russian troops and Special Ops are wearing rebel uniforms and occupying the Ukrainian territory and are fighting the Ukrainian army. US should declare the Ukrainian rebels as terrorists.


The US cannot out supply Russia. Russia arms are also better than US arms.
 
American arms for Ukraine on agenda ahead of John Kerry visit - watch on - uatoday.tv
Feb. 4, 2015

Ukraine hopes to receive US anti-tank weapons for fight against Russian-backed militants



Will the US send weapons to Ukraine? A recent report from the New York times said top officials in Washington are open to discussions about providing lethal assistance.

A bipartisan group of 15 senators just sent a letter to Obama urging the president to send defensive weapons to Ukraine. But will the US do it? On Today's Press Review for Ukraine Today, we take a look at what the international press is writing about the US sending lethal aid to Ukraine.

We start first with Reuters they take a bit of a cautious tone, writing: "Sending arms to Kyiv would be a big gamble for the US."

Although an injection of military arms would help the Ukrainian army significantly, according to Timothy Heritage and Richard Balmforth writing for Reuters, some believe that Washington will fan the flames of war if it sends lethal aid.

Timothy Heritage and Richard Balmforth write, "Sending arms to Kiev might not even have much effect on the conflict, critics say, and could encourage a full-scale Russian onslaught on Ukraine's army that might increase the possibility of direct Western intervention."

US secretary of State John Kerry is in Kyiv on Thursday where he is likely to talk about potential lethal aid to Ukraine. As Russia continues to support militants with weapons, calls have increased for the west to send Ukraine defensive weapons.

And a line of thinking may be developing in the West that Putin may only respect force and will only blink if his bluff is called. By that token, he may change tack if Ukraine is provided with defensive means to turn the conflict into a prolonged struggle which Russia may regret.

Now we turn to a piece put out by the Christian Science Monitor, they notice that more and more analysts believe arming Ukraine is the only way to pressure Russia.

Multiple peace talks have failed to produce any results and efforts at diplomacy have nearly been exhausted. Russia, in turn, has become increasingly aggressive and more people in Washington see the current path of sanctions as ineffective.

Anna Mulrine for the Monitor writes:"The only way to "impose costs" on Russian President Vladimir Putin and force him to the negotiating table is through an influx of arms, some say. But others worry that such a move could backfire and instead only intensify the conflict and a new cold war."

So as more US politicians consider the path of lethal aid, they also have to weigh the consequences of upsetting Russian that that may cause. Will Washington send defensive weapons to Ukraine, we'll probably find out more information when John Kerry visits Ukrainian leaders on Thursday. That's all from us here in Kyiv, join us again tomorrow from the Ukraine Today newsroom for another press review.

The US cannot out supply Russia. Russia arms are also better than US arms.
Russian Federation can supply easily because of the open borders with the Eastern Ukrainian Seperatists.
 
Russian Federation can supply easily because of the open borders with the Eastern Ukrainian Seperatists.


They are rebels, but they are not separatists. Because they want all of Ukraine, which they have renamed New Russia.
 
Back
Top Bottom