"Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to defend their country. It’s the right policy and the moral thing to do. Impose more sanctions, tougher ones. Declare NATO’s intention to establish permanent bases in Poland and the Baltics. Do these things quickly with whatever heavy-handed diplomacy is required to drag our reluctant, complaining allies to positions that will safeguard their interests and reputations." - Obama's "Tough Talk" on Russia Grows Tedious: "A policy as incoherent and ineffectual as the administration’s reaction to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine can’t be defended by a reasonable argument. There isn’t one. All one can do is insist things are not as bad as they seem while using language as divorced from reality as the policy itself. It’s almost too ridiculous to bother taking issue with." | House defies Obama veto threat, passes defense policy bill with lethal aid for Ukraine | US authorizes $300mln in lethal defensive aid and training to Ukraine: McCain noted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 also provides equipment supplies and training to Southeast Asian nations to build maritime capabilities. “We authorized providing Ukraine and the defensive lethal assistance that it needs to build combat capability to defend its sovereign territory.” “We authorized 300 million dollars for weapons for Ukraine.” The Senator had said earlier he was "ashamed" of US President Barack Obama for not providing enough help to Ukraine amid the ongoing crisis in the country. McCain had repeatedly called on the Obama administration to deliver weapons to Ukraine as the Kiev government forces carried out a military operation against the self-proclaimed republics of Luhansk and Donetsk in the country's east. Earlier in the day, the draft of the US defense budget for 2016 was approved by the US Senate Armed Services Committee. - 15 May, 2015 | Germany’s G7 Summit and Russia: "The G7 summit in Germany this year will again convene in the shadow of the war in Ukraine—a war in Europe that is intractable and a vexing problem for German leadership, which will undoubtedly be center stage at the summit."
- Get link
- Other Apps
10:01, 15 May, 2015
YEREVAN, MAY 15, ARMENPRESS: The United States authorized providing Ukraine defensive lethal aid and training that the country needs to protect its sovereignty, US Senate Armed Forces Committee Chairman John McCain said in a press conference, Armenpress reports, citing RIA Novosti.
McCain noted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 also provides equipment supplies and training to Southeast Asian nations to build maritime capabilities.
“We authorized providing Ukraine and the defensive lethal assistance that it needs to build combat capability to defend its sovereign territory.”
“We authorized 300 million dollars for weapons for Ukraine.”
The Senator had said earlier he was "ashamed" of US President Barack Obama for not providing enough help to Ukraine amid the ongoing crisis in the country.
McCain noted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 also provides equipment supplies and training to Southeast Asian nations to build maritime capabilities.
“We authorized providing Ukraine and the defensive lethal assistance that it needs to build combat capability to defend its sovereign territory.”
“We authorized 300 million dollars for weapons for Ukraine.”
The Senator had said earlier he was "ashamed" of US President Barack Obama for not providing enough help to Ukraine amid the ongoing crisis in the country.
McCain had repeatedly called on the Obama administration to deliver weapons to Ukraine as the Kiev government forces carried out a military operation against the self-proclaimed republics of Luhansk and Donetsk in the country's east.
Earlier in the day, the draft of the US defense budget for 2016 was approved by the US Senate Armed Services Committee.
The 2016 defense authorization bill, totaling $612 billion, was passed by a 22-4 vote during a closed-door discussion.
It is yet the subject for consideration of the Senate, the upper house of the US Congress.
Washington has also provided training for the Ukrainian servicemen. In particular, a year after the beginning of the armed conflict, the US Army announced that some 300 US paratroopers arrived in the western Ukraine city of Yavoriv to train Ukrainian troops.
In February, the Republican-held US House of Representatives introduced a bill that would authorize $1 billion in funds for training, equipping, and providing lethal defensive military aid to Ukraine through September 2017.
Russia called the legislation provocative, warning that such an approach could escalate violence in Ukraine. The United States has so far refrained from providing Ukraine with lethal weapons.
Photo by AFP
Read the whole story
· · ·
10:33 May. 16, 2015
Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Joint Chiefs ChairmanGen. Martin Dempsey, left, arrive on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, May 6, 2015 (AP photo)
The House passed a nearly USD 612 billion defense policy bill despite President Barack Obama's veto threat
The vote was 269 to 151 for the legislation, a blueprint for next year's spending on military and other national security programs, Associated Press reports.
While Republicans voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 41 Democrats disregarded Obama's objections and joined the GOP lawmakers in passing it. Another 143 Democrats voted against it.
Overall, the House bill authorizes USD 515 billion for national defense and another USD 89.2 billion for the emergency war-fighting fund for a total of USD 604.2 billion. Another USD 7.7 billion is mandatory defense spending that doesn't get authorized by Congress.
That means the bill would provide the entire USD 611.9 billion desired by the president, but Obama and Democratic lawmakers still opposed it.
On Ukraine, the bill calls for arming Ukrainian forces fighting Russian-backed separatists, a move the Obama administration has so far resisted.
The Senate version follows the same approach as the House to funding the military. The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 22-4 on Thursday to authorize USD 523 billion in base funding for the Defense Department and other national security programs and an additional .2 billion for the emergency war-fighting fund.
Read the whole story
· ·
Obama, Stoltenberg Discuss NATO Meeting Highlights
Department of Defense-May 26, 2015
In what Obama called a “challenging and important time for NATO,” the two discussed Ukraine, NATO's role in addressing global challenges, ...
NATO Alliance Stands Firm, Adapts to Challenges
Department of Defense-May 22, 2015
The situation in eastern Ukraine precipitated by Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea continues to concern the military leaders, Bartels said.
US personnel urged to avoid Munich, Garmisch during G-7 Summit
Stars and Stripes-Jun 1, 2015
... of the punishment for alleged Kremlin-supported aggression in Ukraine. ... “DOD family members, sponsored personnel and contractors are ...
Work, Norwegian Counterpart Discuss Range of Issues
Department of Defense-May 27, 2015
In addition, officials said, the two leaders discussed Russia, Ukraine and the security cooperation relationship between the United States and ...
Leaders Discuss U.S.-Greece Security, Defense Issues
OfficialWire-May 21, 2015
... defense issues of mutual concern, according to a DoD news release. ... Russia's aggressive actions in Ukraine, the Balkans, Libya, and the ...
Read the whole story
· ·
Stoltenberg assures Obama that NATO is helping to strengthen ...
Kyiv Post-May 26, 2015
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg(L) during a meeting with US ... Since 1995, the Kyiv Post has been the world's window on Ukraine.
Obama, NATO Chief Denounce Russia's 'Increasingly Aggressive ...
In-Depth-Voice of America-May 26, 2015
In-Depth-Voice of America-May 26, 2015
Explore in depth (188 more articles)
NATO to maintain presence in Afg., support Ukraine
Anadolu Agency-May 13, 2015
Stoltenberg said NATO and its partners will continue to support ... of the conflict in eastern Ukraineby diplomatic means and by dialogue.".
NATO warns Putin 'critical' to implement Ukraine truce
In-Depth-The Daily Star-May 13, 2015
In-Depth-The Daily Star-May 13, 2015
Explore in depth (738 more articles)
Stoltenberg: Large number of ceasefire violations in eastern Ukraine
Kyiv Post-May 12, 2015
NATO is concerned over the large number of ceasefire violations in eastern Ukraine, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has said.
Rob Portman: The US needs to rethink it's failing Ukraine strategy
Kyiv Post-6 hours ago
US President Barack Obama meets with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC, ...
Deutsche Welle: Stoltenberg rebukes Russia, pledges NATO will ...
Kyiv Post-May 28, 2015
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg speaks to reporters after an address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on ...
NATO Secretary general outlines Jacksonville-based fighter wing's ...
Florida Times-Union-May 29, 2015
Florida Times-Union-May 29, 2015
Explore in depth (22 more articles)
Is Russia about to invade Ukraine?
Vox-May 28, 2015
The same day, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told a think tank audience ... Is this the start of another Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Joseph Biden: Ending Ukraine war a key test for U.S., Europe
In-Depth-Washington Times-May 27, 2015
In-Depth-Washington Times-May 27, 2015
Explore in depth (866 more articles)
Stoltenberg: l'Ukraine peut compter sur le soutien de l'Otan
Sputnik France-May 13, 2015
L'Alliance atlantique est prête à apporter son aide à l'Ukraine, mais pas à ... mercredi le secrétaire général de l'Alliance Jens Stoltenberg.
Polish Nato base to double in size
Newsweek-Jun 1, 2015
Russia's aggression in eastern Ukraine has prompted former Eastern ... Nato secretary general JensStoltenberg and Lutz Niemann have both ...
Agence France-Presse: NATO flexes muscles in Baltics, Poland
Kyiv Post-Jun 1, 2015
Kyiv Post-Jun 1, 2015
Explore in depth (45 more articles)
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
I felt some sympathy for State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf the other day as she responded to questions from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about the administration’s Ukraine policy – or lack thereof. As is her style, Harf delivered her talking points with the indifferent persistence of a metronome. But she’s hardly the first government spokesperson to deflect criticism of official policy by boring the listener to death with a droning repetition of platitudes.
What else could she do? A policy as incoherent and ineffectual as the administration’s reaction to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine can’t be defended by a reasonable argument. There isn’t one. All one can do is insist things are not as bad as they seem while using language as divorced from reality as the policy itself. It’s almost too ridiculous to bother taking issue with.
But I’ll try.
On the same day Harf was interviewed, Vice President Biden criticized Vladimir Putin’s “brutal aggression” and allowed that the administration is still considering sending lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine, a move he intimated he endorsed. (He’s not the only official to hint his support for military aid. Defense Secretary Ash Carter has, too. At times, depending on his audience, Secretary of State John Kerry also seems to support it.) President Obama during an Oval Office photo op with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg also called out Russia’s “increasingly aggressive” behavior.
The Biden and Obama statements supplied Harf’s main talking point – “tough talk.”
To all concerns raised about Russian behavior, she referred to the tough talk heard from the White House that day. To questions about whether the administration was at last ready to give Ukraine weapons, she reluctantly allowed that such assistance was still being considered, but she seemed confident tough talk would suffice.
When asked what the administration would do if tough talk didn’t succeed in convincing Putin to cease his transgressions against the sovereignty of a neighboring state, she assured the audience that more tough talk would be forthcoming.
Allowing for the sake of argument that these statements were indeed toughly worded, which is a stretch, I doubt they offered much comfort to the government and people of Ukraine, or to nervous NATO allies that share a border with Russia.
Particularly when it’s clear that whatever Biden’s and Carter’s and Kerry’s views on arming the Ukrainians, other senior officials in the administration remain opposed, and they seem to include in their number the commander-in-chief.
And certainly not when just two weeks earlier, Secretary Kerry traveled to Sochi for a meeting with Putin and his foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, characterized in the secretary’s tweet as a “frank” and productive” exchange of views. Kerry said if Russia remained committed to the peace process, and the shaky ceasefire that is often interrupted by shelling and other non-peaceful activities, the sanctions imposed on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and seizure of Crimea would be rolled back. It appears no mention was made about giving Crimea back.
That “signal of surrender,” as the New York Times described Moscow’s view of Kerry’s visit, informed Putin’s recent decision-making, not the so-called tough talk from the White House. It was interpreted, according to the Times, “as an olive branch from President Obama, and an acknowledgment that Russia and its leader are simply too important to ignore.”
How did Putin react to that concession? He swiftly massed Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, launched yet another “humanitarian convoy” across the border, and apparently encouraged the escalated shelling of Ukrainian Army positions in Eastern Ukraine. Putin has been a busy boy elsewhere as well. He ordered unannounced, massive joint maneuvers in the far northern reaches of Russia while NATO conducted long scheduled and publicly announced Arctic maneuvers. In addition, he, or whoever sees to his especially dirty work, found time to poison another domestic critic. All this followed Putin’s recent blustering about nuclear war.
Putin has taken the West’s measure and found us inferior to his bare-chested machismo. He’s going to press his every advantage until we convince him he will pay a price for it he isn’t prepared to pay. We won’t do that with tough talk, but with tough-minded policies.
Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to defend their country. It’s the right policy and the moral thing to do. Impose more sanctions, tougher ones. Declare NATO’s intention to establish permanent bases in Poland and the Baltics. Do these things quickly with whatever heavy-handed diplomacy is required to drag our reluctant, complaining allies to positions that will safeguard their interests and reputations.
Putin will react badly. He might in the near term increase his aggression in Eastern Ukraine and elsewhere, aggression he would commit anyway. He’ll pay a bigger price for it, if he does. He will certainly huff and puff and threaten all manner of mayhem. He won’t be helpful with Iran or Syria. He doesn’t intend to be anyway. And he will slowly start to realize the West has more in its arsenal than talking points.
Mark Salter is the former chief of staff to Sen. John McCain and was a senior adviser to the McCain for President campaign.
Read the whole story
· · ·
NATO Secretary General Reaffirms Support For Ukraine, But ...
International Business Times-Jan 26, 2015
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg says Georgia is getting closer ... for lethal military aidfrom NATO should the situation in East Ukraine ...
Stoltenberg says Putin allegation on NATO legion in Ukraine is ...
International-Kyiv Post-Jan 26, 2015
International-Kyiv Post-Jan 26, 2015
Explore in depth (3,754 more articles)
Russia wary of lethal weapons provision as US and Nato step up aid ...
International Business Times UK-Feb 5, 2015
... make it easier for the US to supply Ukraine's government with lethal aid. ... Nato boss JensStoltenberg said the measures amounted to "the ...
NATO Completes Plans for 'Spearhead' Force
In-Depth-Wall Street Journal-Feb 5, 2015
In-Depth-Wall Street Journal-Feb 5, 2015
Explore in depth (1,264 more articles)
Wall Street Journal: Stoltenberg warns Ukraine cease-fire is fragile
Kyiv Post-Mar 11, 2015
The cease-fire in Ukraine appears to be holding, but there is clear evidence Russia is still supporting the rebels and the relative calm remains ...
Ukraine Truce Remains 'Fragile' as Weapons Pullback Urged
In-Depth-Bloomberg-Mar 11, 2015
In-Depth-Bloomberg-Mar 11, 2015
Explore in depth (1,421 more articles)
Read the whole story
· ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 2
Biden cracks door to lethal aid to Ukraine
USA TODAY-May 27, 2015
American support to Ukraine, a non-NATO ally, has been limited to training its national guard and "non-lethal" aid, such as Humvees.
VP Biden suggests sending weapons to Ukraine
<a href="http://UPI.com" rel="nofollow">UPI.com</a>-May 28, 2015
<a href="http://UPI.com" rel="nofollow">UPI.com</a>-May 28, 2015
The G7 summit in Germany this year will again convene in the shadow of the war in Ukraine—a war in Europe that is intractable and a vexing problem for German leadership, which will undoubtedly be center stage at the summit. Russia, the country unceremoniously booted from the G8 for its annexation of Crimea, appears undeterred by the West, while Germany’s European neighbors quietly descend into fear. European nations, long accustomed to living in peace, without even the semblance of a territorial threat, have begun to actively plan for such contingencies. They are not doing this under German leadership or NATO leadership, but individually. The G7 is hardly the ideal forum to tackle this problem, but as a spotlight on German leadership in 2015, it will be hard to not notice the one area where it has not produced successful results, in addressing Russia’s war in Ukraine and convincing Europeans to stick together behind a common approach to this conflict.
Increasingly European nations are looking to their own defenses. Countries nearest to Russia have always publicly fretted about Moscow’s intentions, but they did not seriously invest in their forces before. Since the threat has materialized, Baltic States have drastically increased their defense spending, while Finland has issued letters to reservists outlining plans in the event of a national crisis. In Poland paramilitary groups have seen a resurgence of popularity, a home guard of sorts, born from those anxieties after Russian aggression in next-door Ukraine. Europeans are bracing for worst-case scenarios. Confidence in their collective ability to resolve the conflict in Ukraine is visibly absent. More to the point, a passive assessment appears to have taken place of how the West is managing this crisis, and the results lend European nations east of Germany to rethink their defensive capabilities.
Germany too has taken a closer look at the state of its armed forces and found them to be in woeful condition. Ironically, battered Ukraine likely has more tanks in active service, and engaged in combat, than Germany can field today. The German army has withered since the Cold War, barely fielding 225 armored vehicles, a force unprepared for a conventional conflict in Europe. Although the largest economy, and the most powerful political entity in Europe, Germany’s military is undoubtedly its’ weakest and least used arm. As a consequence, German armed forces have announced plans in April to restore 100 mothballed tanks back to active service. A token budgetary victory for the army, but an important sign that even German leaders for the first time are starting to think about backup options and consider worst case alternatives. Simply speaking, a year into this war, Berlin seems uncertain that its own diplomacy will be sufficient to contain the situation.
The reason for this nervous hedging behavior is that few expect the war in Ukraine to freeze this year. Hopes that Minsk II would lead to a ceasefire have largely been dashed. No other path to political settlement is in sight, and the one Minsk II set out is not being followed. Europeans are not afraid of Russian invasion. Most European states, with the exception of those traditionally apprehensive of Moscow, believe that Russian revisionism is limited to the contest over Ukraine. For them the problem is not Russian annexation of Crimea, or its invasion of the Donbas in Eastern Ukraine. They see this as a Ukrainian tragedy, but not a direct military threat to their nations. After all, most European countries are in NATO, and ultimately count on the U.S. for conventional deterrence and protection. The problem as they see it is that even with the political and military support of the U.S., European leaders (read that for Germany) have thus far been unable to resolve this conflict. Wars have a nasty tendency over time to suck in bordering states, followed by regional powers, and often major powers, if left unchecked.
As fighting between the Ukrainian army, Russian-backed separatists, and the Russian army drags on over this summer, European anxieties will only increase. While European leaders may proclaim that this conflict has revived NATO and given European defense a newfound sense of purpose, the reality is that privately they fear that the war in Ukraine could prove to be the death of the alliance. The oft-proclaimed unity screens a series of unfolding self-interested plays. Lithuania is arming the Ukrainian army, in what appears to be a unilateral policy of proxy war. Poland is also providing military support. The two have even formed a joint three-nation brigade with Ukraine, whose international implications are somewhat unclear were it to be used against Russia. Britain and the U.S. have sent military trainers, while other NATO members have provided an assortment of non-lethal military aid. The war in Ukraine is visibly spiraling out, and while NATO as an organization does not appear to have any visible role, outside reassuring its members, many of them are unilaterally “dribbling in” their involvement.
Germany is the country most responsible for keeping Europeans unified in maintaining sanctions against Russia, and behind a common policy designed to isolate Vladimir Putin, but it too is part of a separate block of nations who oppose sending weapons to Ukraine. In this it has American support, for now, but Eastern European states have already ventured ahead with their own policy. German leadership throughout this crisis has been quite forceful, reflective of an increasingly active foreign policy and the personal leadership of Angela Merkel, but it has not been successful. Berlin seems unable to maintain unity on much beyond sanctions, which steadily appear to be a punitive policy without much consequence. More worrisome is that Germany is unable to secure Ukrainian cooperation, despite holding all the leverage in the relationship.
Angela Merkel expended considerable political capital pressuring Ukrainian and Russian leaders to sign the Minsk II agreement, which proved magnitudes more favorable to Moscow than it was to Kiev. The ceasefire was not honored in February, has barely held through March, and is fraying into collapse. Russia prepares only for the resumption of hostilities, and turning the separatists into a more proper fighting force, while Ukraine’s leaders seem solely interested in this deal to rearm for the next battle. In March, the Ukrainian Rada passed laws that effectively rewrite the sequencing of the political settlement component of the Minsk II agreement, in the complete reverse order that was stipulated in the deal Germany brokered. Since the first part fell on Ukraine to implement, Ukrainian leaders chose not to wait for Moscow to break its word, which Vladimir Putin surely would have if given the opportunity. Instead Ukraine reneged on the terms first. Angela Merkel’s efforts in February to halt Russia’s winter offensive, and save Kiev from further loss of territory, appear to have largely been a fool’s errand.
Ukraine looks to Germany this year to save it from bankruptcy. Kiev also needs strong German leadership to suppress the individual policies of countries sympathetic to Russia, including Hungary, the Czech Republic, Austria, and Greece, in order to keep the sanctions regime in place. However, this seemingly existential dependency seems to translate poorly for German influence in Ukraine. Ukraine’s elites continue to hope that they can make the U.S. an active party to the war, and thus press for lethal weapons in Washington, DC, where such policies enjoy substantial support. Between Russian violations of the ceasefire and Ukrainian “rewriting” of the deal the second Minsk agreement has been rendered institutionally meaningless. What was a largely German plan for freezing the war in Ukraine appears to now be derelict, subject to the whims of Russian belligerence, Ukrainian intransigence, and the machinations of other European states.
Later this year, fellow members of the European Union and Ukrainians alike will look to German leadership for a renewed effort to halt the fighting. Ironically, they are all making individual decisions that make German leadership increasingly difficult, and reduce the chances that there can be a sustained common policy. Germany has few good options moving forward. It has convinced Europeans to extend sanctions until December, but unilateral pursuits by fellow Europeans will make sanctions the least relevant policy in the conflict by the end of the year. Berlin has three prospective choices: join those calling for a proxy war with Russia, by sending weapons to Ukraine, pressure Ukraine into accommodating Moscow and its separatist proxies, or steadily walk away from the entire affair, leaving Ukraine to muddle through, and for others to make a mess of it. This is not an exhaustive list of alternatives and scenarios. The only certainty is that Germany’s leadership will be tested throughout 2015. Organizing the G7 summit will prove to be the easiest of the challenges it faces this year.
This article is the Cover Story of Diplomatic Courier’s special print G7 Summit 2015 Edition.
Photo Credit: Pete Souza, the White House.
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
According to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, it is time to consider arming Ukraine in its battle against pro-Moscow separatists.
Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday that Washington "should absolutely consider providing lethal aid,"
Defense One reported,
and that this aid should be provided "in the context of our NATO allies because [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's ultimate objective is to fracture NATO."
The U.S. military estimates that there are approximately 12,000 Russian soldiers aiding pro-Moscow separatists in eastern Ukraine.
According to U.S. Army Europe Commander Ben Hodges,
the Russian forces are comprised of combat troops, weapons operators and military advisers.
Hodges also said some 29,000 Russian troops are in Crimea, which Moscow seized from Ukraine last year and annexed, and that there are another 50,000 Russian soldiers massed on Ukraine's borders who are ready to take action if Kiev deals a major blow to pro-Moscow separatists in the east.
On Monday, the United Nations said an estimated 6,000 people have been killed and at least 1 million displaced since the pro-Moscow insurgency erupted in southeastern Ukraine 11 months ago,
Time reported.
"All aspects of people’s lives are being negatively affected, and the situation is increasingly untenable for the local inhabitants, especially in areas controlled by the armed groups," said U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein.
President Obama has thus far resisted calls to provide lethal aid to Ukraine.
Ukrainian military commanders have requested small arms, anti-tank weapons, and more advanced radar equipment — munitions that U.S. officials say have been provided to the separatists by Moscow.
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland told the House Foreign Affairs Committee Wednesday that Obama has still not decided whether to provide Ukraine with lethal aid, the
Washington Free Beacon reported.
But Hodges said Washington's plans to train three Ukrainian battalions had been put on hold to see if a ceasefire deal agreed to last month would be fully implemented.
Related Stories:
© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read the whole story
· ·
Soldiers from the Ukrainian Armed Forces Airborne Brigade stand in formation in 2012. US Army Photo
“We ought to be providing lethal aid”—anti-tank, anti-armor weapons, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cyber assistance—to the Ukrainian government in its struggle with Russian-backed separatists, retired NATO commander Adm. James Stavridis told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.
Soviet President Vladimir Putin “has demonstrated he is the bully in the neighborhood” by seizing parts of Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine.
As to whether sending lethal aid would cause Russia to send more aid, and even troops, to support the separatists, Stavridis said, in answer to a question, “This is a calculation” that it will not commit its forces, but “when you release ordnance, everything changes.”
The former top officer in European Command added, “If the Ukrainian government cannot hold the line against the separatists [in the eastern region of the country], they will lose politically.” The United States is “trying to stabilize a democracy.”
Stavridis is the chair of the board of the U.S. Naval Institute.
While there is now a lull in fighting on the ground, the Russians have clearly kept the pressure on in its propaganda campaign inside its own borders, Ukraine, Moldova, and the Baltic States.
Ian Brezezinski, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said of the Russian efforts in this area, “They’re crushing us. They spend billions of dollars” on propaganda. “We have nothing in comparison,” as was the case during the Cold War with the United States Information Agency’s program in U.S. embassies, consulates, libraries, and broadcasting.
This sets the stage for military action, he added, particularly when the West is in either a political crisis over how to proceed in Eastern Europe and the rise of nationalist parties, or economic crisis over what to do about issues such as Greek debt.
“I really believe that Putin watches [signs of Western political and/or economic crisis] closely.”
Putin’s “view of Europe is [that] it can’t tie its own shoes,” Steven Sestanovich of the Council of Foreign Relations told the committee. “We have to be smart about strengthening the Ukrainian army.”
But in his view, Putin limited support to the separatists to ensure they would not be defeated when the Ukrainian government launched an offensive against them late last year, “but did not commit large forces” of Russian soldiers to complete the takeover of two eastern provinces and link up with his forces in Crimea.
Sestanovich added that being bogged down in Ukraine limits what Putin and Russia might do on other fronts.
There is clearly a danger that members of the European Union will be willing to cut back on sanctions on Russia as the lull continues, he said. He and the others said sanctions have had some effect on Putin and Russia generally, as has the fall in oil prices.
After calling Russia “a $2 trillion gas station,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that reducing Ukraine and Eastern Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas and petroleum could be an effective means in countering Russian aggression. He cited the success of America exporting of liquefied natural gas and the construction of a southern pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Europe as examples that could be useful in the future sending American crude oil to Europe for refining, breaking their dependence on Russia.
“Energy is a key element” in containing Russian ambitions, McCain said.
The next step in sanctions could be making “clear how high the costs will be” to Putin’s inner circle if the separatists try to expand their present enclaves.
All three witnesses agreed that NATO retains a military edge over Russia in high-tech, number of troops, and aircraft, but the West is unlikely to engage directly in Ukraine. The same cannot be said about the Baltic states. Sestanovich said if the Russian military moves, say, against Estonia, a NATO member, “I do believe the alliance would respond.”
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) said as the hearing was drawing to a close this “cold war is colder than when we had a Cold War.”
Sestanovich added, “This is a real Cold War” and the message to the Russians should be if tougher sanctions are imposed and they can be imposed by the United States acting alone, “you brought this on yourself.” He added, “That’s the test for us, not to crack first.”
Related
Navigating Ukraine’s Civil War
As summer rolls on, Russian-built anti-aircraft missiles continue to down aircraft over eastern Ukraine. While a great deal of ink has been spilled over exactly what kind of missiles are deployed, and who is giving the launch authorizations and actually launching them, one fact is salient: This is an escalation,…
July 28, 2014
In "Budget Industry"
Former NATO Chief Clark Predicts New Offensive in Ukraine
The Russians and Russian-backed forces in Ukraine are poised to launch a new offensive, probably between Orthodox Easter and before V-E Day in early May the former supreme commander of NATO Forces said in a presentation at The Atlantic Council. Speaking Monday in Washington, D.C., retired Gen. Wesley Clark, USA,…
March 31, 2015
In "Foreign Forces"
Russia Watcher: Putin Set to Undermine NATO in Baltics
Vladimir Putin is engaged in “an existential struggle” with the West, not only in Ukraine and other close-by former Soviet states, but particularly to undermine NATO in the Baltic nations, a leading expert on Russia and Eurasia said Tuesday at the Heritage Foundation. Speaking at the Washington think-tank, Eugene Rumer,…
March 10, 2015
In "Education Legislation"
Read the whole story
· · · · · · ·
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment