Is there any way that sending arms to the Ukrainian military doesn’t escalate regional hostilities?
by Trevor Timm
Foreign Policy’s Stephen Walt explained why, in reality, arming Kiev is a very bad idea:
Arming Ukraine is not likely to convince Putin to cave in and give Washington what it wants. Ukraine is historically linked to Russia, they are right next door to each other, Russian intelligence has long-standing links inside Ukraine’s own security institutions, and Russia is far stronger militarily. Even massive arms shipments from the United States won’t tip the balance in Kiev’s favor, and Moscow can always escalate if the fighting turns against the rebels, as it did last summer.
No one doubts Russia invading parts of Ukraine is disturbing and illegal, or that Putin is a conniving liar, but given that US weapons from its various ill-conceived arming operations have been found in the hands of Isis in Iraq and in Syria – and just recently, that $400 million of military equipment to Yemen seems to have fallen into the hands of rebels the US considers its enemy – maybe just this once we should consider the consequences of sending weapons first and asking questions later. Helping to escalate a military confrontation against the nation with the largest nuclear weapons supply in the world could have some consequences beyond the simple front page photograph of Russian-backed soldiers triumphantly holding up captured American-made weapons.
And if the burgeoning neocon renaissance movement needs a realpolitik reason to grasp why the arming Ukraine plan is idiotic, consider that doing so could be exactly the excuse that Russia – which is universally seen to be on the decline and increasingly desperate – actually wants to be able to justify overtly escalating its military campaign (which Walt also lays out in detail).
The bizarre “give ‘em weapons, it’ll all work out” strategy was inadvertently summed up perfectly by perpetual warmonger Sen. Lindsey Graham, when he said: “I don’t know how this ends if you give Ukraine weapons. But I know this: I will feel better.” (For more on foreign policy prowess from Lindsay Graham, read Michael Cohen’s Lindsay Graham: Wrong on Everything.)
This is all quite similar to the Congressional debate over whether to arm the Syrian rebels, which the Senate blindly voted for without barely discussing that the CIA had been doing so for well over a year prior with no success. Shortly after that vote, the New York Times reported that the CIA conducted a secret internal study that showed arming rebels in foreign conflicts almost never worked in the CIA 67-year history – and more often than not, completely backfired into chaos or tragedy.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/11/anti-war-activist-arms-sales-ukraine-russia-secretary-of-state
= new reply since forum marked as read
My **guess** is that if you sent, for example, one battalion of tanks to Ukraine it would give Putin an excuse to send two battalions of tanks to Ukrainian rebels--much more quickly and much more easily serviced by nearby mechanics, spare parts, railroads, etc. Drones? I don't know but you can probably expect Putin will have them one day if he doesn't already.
Europe would no doubt rather avoid another Cold War arms race and/or hot war if at all possible. I'd advise listening to Merkel, Hollande, and others who have more at stake rather than McCain, Graham, and their gang of remote warmongers, chickenhawks, and defense profiteers who seem to believe they can bully a bully like Putin into submission.
who just started to pay attention to this story for the first time last week and are already 'experts' 
How many more times I gotta say it: Russia is ALREADY escalating, and will continue to escalate regardless of whether or not we give some weapons to the Ukrainians (and we owe them that much, at least...)
