Ukraine needs America’s help

Washington Post ^ | January 29 at 8:12 PM | Steven Pifer and Strobe Talbott

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

"Eight former U.S. national security practitioners — the two of us, plus former U.S. representative to NATO Ivo Daalder, former undersecretary of defense Michèle Flournoy, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst, former deputy undersecretary of defense Jan Lodal, former NATO European commander James Stavridis and former U.S. European Command deputy commander Charles Wald — come together issuing following recommendations for immediate action. (releasing Monday report: “Preserving Ukraine’s Independence, Resisting Russian Aggression: What the United States and NATO Must Do.”)

First, White House and Congress must commit serious money to Ukraine’s defense: $1 billion in military assistance this fiscal year, followed by additional $1 billion each in fiscal year 2016 and 2017. Congress should not only authorize assistance, as it did in the Ukraine Freedom Support Act last year, but also appropriate funds.

Second, U.S. government should alter its policy and begin providing lethal assistance to Ukraine. Most of the above funds would go to nonlethal assistance. For example, the Ukrainian army desperately needs counter-battery radars to pinpoint the source of enemy rocket and artillery fire, which cause about 70 percent of Ukrainian casualties.

But the Ukrainians also need some defensive arms, particularly light anti-armor weapons. The antitank missiles in the Ukrainian inventory are more than 20 years old, and a large proportion of them do not work. U.S. anti-armor weapons could fill a crucial gap.

Third, the U.S. government should approach other NATO member states about assisting Ukraine, particularly those countries that operate former Soviet equipment and weapons systems compatible with Ukraine’s hardware. If the United States moves to provide lethal assistance, we believe that some other NATO countries will do so as well.

Time is urgent. Spring arrives in three months in eastern Ukraine, and fighting could then achieve new intensity. We should help the Ukrainians deter that."

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Russia is not the Soviet Union. Containment was against communism. Containment of or attempted containment of normal great power behavior in a corner of eastern Europe has no , to me, compelling interest component for the US.

You are a very foolish person. Russia is an ally and supports every communist country on the planet. They are also supporters of our greatest enemies in the middle east, Iran and Syria. Russia is a totalitarian kleptocracy, probably the ultimate evolution of communism itself, just pure power and massive theft. To say otherwise marks you out as a fool. And do you not remember Georgia? What did conservatives say would happen then? "Ukraine will be next if the U.S. continues to be weak." That's what happened. Though I will add, that even if Russia was happy to only gobble up Ukraine, I would still call for our help-- because we must aid patriots and good people where ever they are.

Either way, containment is the only answer- or more violence shall rise up. Weakness will only drive them further and further, because they hate us, and want to rule the world.

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

TOTALLY AGREE!

I personally believe Putin has a hand in stirring up ISIS!

[robowombat]

Your response is well strange. It is full of a sort of frenetic hysteria and short on what US vital interests are at stake. Russia may have an unpleasant regime. Many nations do. There are currently what 2 1/2 communist nations, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela a very pale sort of. None represent anything much but third or fourth tier regional actors. The only interest Russia and Putin have in these petty regimes is that they can encourage them to do things to annoy the US. This strategy of trying to deflect regional players grudges towards this country is simply a way of returning the favor for the relentless meddling in the affairs of Russian borderlands the US has been involved in since the Soviet Union collapsed. China has a detente sort of relationship with Russia but the long term interests of those two giants over eastern Siberia are bound to end in friction and possibly conflict.

After the implosion of the Soviet Union the US had a very clear opportunity to develop a working relationship with the Russian Federation. Instead various players in the US intelligence community and cold warriors without employment in the beltway culture persisted in pushing an adversarial approach to Russia and actively encouraged border states such as Moldavia (which had never been a country ) to break away from Russia. The result has created the return of intense enmity in Russia towards this country and for some time ended any chance of developing a real working relationship with Russia. Russia by virtue of its size and resources is a great power and inherently of more consequence than any of the various border states. It is the interest of the US to build a stable relationship with those international players that matter just as it is in the interest of the US to continually maintain massively powerful military forces to instill the proper level of respect for the US.

The problems of the Russian borderlands are not our problems. At most these are the problem of the European Union just as were the problems caused by the collapse of Yugoslavia. There is no more vital US interest in the Russian borderlands other than possibly Poland than there was in the internecine battling between various ethnic factions in what once was Yugoslavia. Who rules in Georgia or even Kiev are at most of very limited interest to this country. The frenetic globalism you push is very much like that which helped launch the current Syrian tragedy. The US does have limited resources and it will be tried enough trying to contain the multi-pronged Chinese offensive aimed at ejecting the US from East Asia without having to try and refight the Cold War in Europe.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

After the implosion of the Soviet Union the US had a very clear opportunity to develop a working relationship with the Russian Federation.

You reveal yourself to be a Soviet apologist. Actually, NATO has indeed been good to Russia. Too good. Rather than drawing down our forces, we should have strangled the Russians while we had the chance. Now the Commies, as seen here, are blaming us for Russian murdering and thieving everywhere they can.

[mac_truck]

After the implosion of the Soviet Union the US had a very clear opportunity to develop a working relationship with the Russian Federation. Instead various players in the US intelligence community and cold warriors without employment in the beltway culture persisted in pushing an adversarial approach to Russia and actively encouraged border states such as Moldavia (which had never been a country ) to break away from Russia. The result has created the return of intense enmity in Russia towards this country and for some time ended any chance of developing a real working relationship with Russia. Russia by virtue of its size and resources is a great power and inherently of more consequence than any of the various border states. It is the interest of the US to build a stable relationship with those international players that matter just as it is in the interest of the US to continually maintain massively powerful military forces to instill the proper level of respect for the US.

The problems of the Russian borderlands are not our problems. At most these are the problem of the European Union just as were the problems caused by the collapse of Yugoslavia. There is no more vital US interest in the Russian borderlands other than possibly Poland than there was in the internecine battling between various ethnic factions in what once was Yugoslavia. Who rules in Georgia or even Kiev are at most of very limited interest to this country. The frenetic globalism you push is very much like that which helped launch the current Syrian tragedy. The US does have limited resources and it will be tried enough trying to contain the multi-pronged Chinese offensive aimed at ejecting the US from East Asia without having to try and refight the Cold War in Europe.

Good analysis...bump

[Cronos]

Dfwgator is right -- Ukraine cannot stand, it's too tied to Russia for gas and loans. What should be done is for Ukraine to tell Russia "you take the land east of the Dnieper as payback for the loans. Then let them go

The Western Ukrainians MAY be pro-West, but they also celebrate Banderas who slaughtered Poles. I personally think they have groups who are dangerous. But let the Russians grab the East and the ire of these Rusyni are directed towards Russia.

[Cronos]

“Hungary” — Fidesz and Viktor Orban are not Nazis — fascistic perhaps, but not Nazi. Jobbik on the other hand, IS.

[Cronos]

over a piece of land that belonged to them for 1000 years.

Sorry, no, that land didn't belong to Muscowy for 1000 years. before the 13th century, this land of Ukraine and Belarus was the heartland of the Kievan Rus -- these were NOT "Russian in the sense Moscow wants you to believe"

These people were the precursors of the Ukrainians, Belarussians and Moscowites, but due to subsequent history, these new people are NOT their cultural or political heirs. The Kievan Rus, specifically the city of Vladimir-Suzdal created a small hunting outpost called Moscow in Finnish-Ugric lands. This was not "historically Russian" either, but wild Taiga

History changed this -- with the Mongols coming, then the Lithuanians taking Belarus and then joining with the Poles

The Moscowites, on the other hand took their political philosophy from the Mongols

And the "land" -- from Mongol times until the 1700s this was part of various Turkic bands or Cossack hordes or belonged to the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth.

The Moscowites only took this from the 1700s onwards.

so, this "belonged to Russia" only for the past 200 to 250 years, not more.

[Cronos]

you are both right and wrong. Yanukowych was freely elected and was tossed out by a people's movement (not a coup) which in strict legal terms, was illegal and not the view of the majority of the electorate

BUT, Y was a symptom of the deep divide in the Ukraine with the east and south consistently voting pro-Russia candidates and the North-west consistently voting others. This matches evenly the linguistic split (Russian-speaking and Ukrainian-speaking)

What we are witnessing is the creation of a nation -- Ukraine, in the west and northern parts of current Ukraine.

There is no real ethnic difference between Russians, Ukrainians or Belarussians. Linguistically also, the languages are more or less comprehensible to each other with nearly everyone there speaking Russia thanks to centuries of Tsarist and soviet rule.

As I described above, Russia is a continuation, in my mind, of the Mongol empire merged with it's own spiritual sense as an heir to the Byzantine Empire. Ukraine and Belarus had no chances to differentiate their sense of nationhood -- they were surrounded by or penetrated by strong cultural entities -- Muscowy, Poland, Germans and Jews. They never stood a chance. Whenever they tried to rise up, either they shot themselves in the foot (see the Cossack pledge to the tsar) or were crushed mercilessly

Western Ukraine can be a real "Ruthenia" but it will be a Ukraine of Banderas, it will be right-wing in the fascist and anti-semitic sense -- why do I say anti-Semitic when they have so few Jews? Because Jews are the eternal bogeyman since Tsarist times.

Western Ukraine will force people to only speak Ukrainian, will cut off it's Church from Moscow and will be stridently (and I hope not, but may be violently) anti-Russian.

Russia is creating the Ukrainian nation by giving them "the other"

[Cronos]

To answer the big question -- "should the US intervene or not" -- my belief is that there should be a move to split Ukraine in return for Russia to get the land in the east and south.

Is it a "good" option -- NO. But it is the only real option. The US can not and will not be involved so close to the Russian heartland. It cannot send in troops, it cannot send in weapons. It can help with money, but Ukraine is so chronically endebted to Russia and so unable to develop itself (it's industries are in the Donbas, in rebel held lands) that it is an utterly lost cause -- AND REMEMBER, these are people without a strong national identity, YET, so these hopeless odds are made more hopeless (this would not be the same if, I don't know, Korea were threatened)

Partition the country as per the election polls in 2010

or in 2004

[Cronos]

"it would be in Ukraine's best interest to side with NATO" -- perhaps for the 52% who like the West (i can't remember the exact number but I think something like 40% to 50% of the Yanukowych Ukraine was pro-Russian) would like it, not all Ukraine

Also, NATO wouldn't take the Ukraine in, not now.

it hasn't taken in Georgia which is ethnically, historically, linguistically and stridently NOT Russia, so why would it take a country that has been so denuded culturally as to be truly made a "little Russia"?

[Cronos]

While I agree with your noble ideas in principle, I believe they are not correct -- for instance you say but the Ukraine people no longer want to be slaves to Pharaoh Putin -- but the facts are that nearly half if not more than half of Ukraine's citizenry WANT to be closer with Russia. I'd say a substantial number want to be slaves to Putin as well (and i'm including the citizens of Crimea in Ukraine for now) -- their new Tsar (with 80% popularity ratings in russia)

[Sawdring]

If you like to listen to Podcasts you might enjoy Russian Rulers History Podcast

I remember your little history lesson from his early podcasts.

[hawkaw]

Exactly. They need to be stopped.

[Cronos]

Why don't the Russians living in Ukraine migrate to Russia? Then the fighting would stop and the Ukrainians can stay in Ukraine.

Because the difference between Russians and Ukrainians is very loose and it becomes non-existent in the east. It's like, somewhat the difference between the French in France and those in Geneva canton

In fact, in the east, they won't call themselves "Russians" but they'll speak Russian only and won't know "Ukrainian" -- which itself is a language continuum rather than a truly defined language (I know, I know you can argue it is a defined, but this is really recent and hasn't "set" in the same way as say Russian or Romanian etc)

"why don't the Russian-speaking Ukrainians migrate to Russia?" well they will say that they are really part of this land. you must understand that most Ukrainians don't have this idea of a nation, more of a sense of "we are from here" -- they've not had the chance to develop the deeper sense of culture

[Cronos]

Tcr, you are wrong to say Western Ukrainians (Hungarians)

There are very few Hungarians who are Ukrainian citizenry, even in the West.

[Cronos]

It's not that simple. Poland had treaties with the UK and France. Take the case today - if Russia invades ANY Baltic state, NATO needs to take action, because of treaties.

Ukraine did not sign up to any treaties. It also wasn't sure about this -- unlike Georgia for instance

Also, due to centuries of Moscow steamrolling over the people of the Ukraine, they have not had a chance to create a sense of nationhood - heck, many just speak Russian

[Cronos]

Cossak -- that's a simplistic and because of that, a wrong statement on post 145 of yours

"Little Russians" is a term used by the Tsars when they tried to crush the budding nation state growing up between the Muscowites and Poland.

'Russians' were not living in those regions -- East Slavic peoples out of which some became Russians were there present

[Cronos]

GPH, while Cossak is wrong to say that "Russians were living in those regions", you are also wrong to say that "Kievan Rus, aka, the Ukrainians, who had been there since ancient times"

The Kievan Rus were the ancestors of Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians. These are sister peoples -- out of which only the Russians have a strong-rooted and highly developed culture. Due to various reasons, the Belarussians and ukrainians were never able to (not the least because they were on battlegrounds and secondly that they were dominated culturally by Poland and Moscowy)

Russians (who I prefer to call Muscowites) are inheritors of the Mongol Empire -- the Grand Dukes set themselves up as tax collectors for the Great Khan for a century or so and inherited those political senses

The Kievan Rus peoples dispersed thanks to the Mongol invasion to Moscow or Novgorod or even further afield to Poland.

Then, with centuries in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, the upper classes became Polish (not that big a jump, all are Slavs). No doubt there were also other peoples who "became Cossacks" -- Jews, Germans, Poles, Romanians etc. -- the Cossack were initially bands of roaming warriors and farmers fighting everyone.

[Cronos]

This is not the same as Russians living in Estonia or Latvia. Those consider themselves "Russians", they were moved there during Soviet days and are a distinct, separate people in those nations.

In the Ukraine, many are really "Russian-speakers" (the Crimea was an exception), are the same as the Ukrainian-speakers and have lived there as long as Ukrainian speakers. Why, many even consider themselves "Ukrainian"