US Commander: Arming Ukraine Would Boost Pressure on Putin

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESSMARCH 3, 2015, 2:40 P.M. E.S.T.

BERLIN — The commander of U.S. Army Europe says there's no expectation Ukraine could defeat Russia militarily if given American weapons, but that they would add "muscle" to diplomatic efforts.

Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges said Tuesday in Berlin that helping Ukraine with weapons would increase the stakes for Russian President Vladimir Putin at home. He added that "when mothers start seeing sons come home dead, when that price goes up, then that domestic support begins to shrink." He said Ukraine wants "is intelligence, counter-fire capability and something that can stop a Russian tank."

The White House still hasn't decided whether to send arms to Ukraine, and Hodges reiterated the U.S. was looking for a diplomatic solution.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/03/03/world/europe/ap-eu-us-ukraine-military-aid.html?_r=0

[freebrew]

1. It worked so well in Syria, eh?

Dumbass!

[Igel]

7. No, in fact, it didn't.

Because the amount of aid to the rebels in Syria from the US has been miniscule. Mostly humanitarian--the kind of stuff we've provided to the Ukrainians.

After all, it's worked so well in Syria.

Dombas!

[jakeXT]

9. Damn outsourcing, they were even forced to buy Russian stuff.. possibly from Ukraine

WASHINGTON — With reports indicating that forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad are gaining ground in that country’s brutal civil war, moderate Syrian rebels have told a visiting journalist that the United States is arranging their training in Qatar.

In a documentary to be aired Tuesday night, the rebels describe their clandestine journey from the Syrian battlefield to meet with their American handlers in Turkey and then travel on to Qatar, where they say they received training in the use of sophisticated weapons and fighting techniques, including, one rebel said, “how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush.”

The interviews are the latest evidence that after more than three years of warfare, the United States has stepped up the provision of lethal aid to the rebels. In recent months, at least five rebel units have posted videos showing their members firing U.S.-made TOW anti-tank missiles at Syrian positions. The weapons are believed to have come from Saudi Arabia, but experts on international arms transfers have told McClatchy that they could not have been given to the rebels without the approval of the Obama administration.

The documentary, produced by FRONTLINE for airing on PBS stations, features journalist Muhammad Ali, who has been following the Syrian civil war for the program. It shows Ali meeting up with a seemingly moderate faction of the rebels, though the faction itself is not identified — apparently for fear of angering its American contacts.

Ali is shown riding with a rebel supply officer as he traveled to the Turkish border to reportedly pick up American-supplied Russian weapons and ammunition, but he is not allowed to accompany the fighters to the actual meeting. When the rebels return to pick him up, they display bullets and a mortar, which are shown in the film, and tell him they have received TOW missiles; the missiles are not shown, however.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/syria-arming-the-rebels/syrian-rebels-describe-u-s-backed-training-in-qatar/

[freebrew]

12. That was sarcasm...

I know it didn't work.

Stupidity, even here?

[groundloop]

2. Such a typical mindset.... fix everything with more weapons

[cstanleytech]

6. Different situation but I do agree providing offensive weapons likely wont help.

I would keep up with the economic sanctions and if need be the sanctions should be applied to China as well if they want to keep providing assistance to Russia at bypassing the sanctions.

[FBaggins]

3. Note what's implied here...

... there's no question re: whether Russian soldiers are involved in the conflict.

[Bugenhagen]

4. That is the kind of thinking you always get from US Commanders

The MIC needs more money.

[Maedhros]

5. How happy would we be if Texas seceded from the Union

and Russia began supplying arms and advisors to the Texas Independence Front, which included in its ranks a number of KKK cells? Would that prompt us to consider military action against Russia? I think that it would.

Likewise, arming and training Ukrainian military and paramilitary groups would almost certainly provoke an escalation by Russia. Why light a fuse under that kind of a powder keg?

[elias49]

8. Hear, hear. nt

[NuclearDem]

10. Ukraine is not a part of Russia.

Your analogy is more accurate if the US were arming Chechen rebels.

[Demeter]

11. Nonsense! We just move the Anti-immigrant Wall Back a Bit

Lock the gate and throw away the key. Oh! A moat with crocodiles would be a nice landscaping touch...

[bemildred]

13. Clapper Calls for Arming Ukrainian Forces: Who Would That Actually Empower?

It’s easy to forget that just two years ago, President Obama was determined to bomb Syria and remove the Assad regime, and U.S. establishment institutions were working to lay the groundwork for that campaign. NPR began dutifully publishing reports from anonymous U.S. officials that Syria had stockpiled large amounts of chemical weapons; the NYT was reporting that Obama was “increasing aid to the rebels and redoubling efforts to rally a coalition of like-minded countries to forcibly bring down” Assad; Secretary of State John Kerry pronounced that forced removal of Assad was “a matter of national security” and “a matter of the credibility of the United States of America.”

Those opposed to the anti-Assad “regime change” bombing campaign argued that while some of the rebellion was composed of ordinary Syrians, the “rebels” the U.S. would arm and empower (i.e., the only effective anti-Assad fighters) were actually violent extremists and even terrorists aligned with Al Qaeda and worse. The people arguing that were invariably smeared as Assad apologists because this happened to be the same argument Assad was making: that the most effective fighters against him were jihadis and terrorists.

But that argument in D.C. was quickly converted from taboo into conventional wisdom the moment it was needed to justify U.S. involvement in Syria. The U.S. is now bombing Syria, of course, but rather than fighting against Assad, the Syrian dictator is (once again) America’s ally and partner. The rationale for the U.S. bombing campaign is the same one Assad long invoked: that those fighting against him are worse than he is because they are aligned with Al Qeada and ISIS (even though the U.S. funded and armed those factions for years and their closest allies in the region continue to do so).

A similar dynamic is at play in Russia and Ukraine. Yesterday, Obama’s top national security official, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, told a Senate Committee “that he supports arming Ukrainian forces against Russian-backed separatists,” as the Washington Post put it. The U.S. has already provided “non-lethal” aid to Ukrainian forces, and Obama has said he is now considering arming them. Who, exactly, would that empower?

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/27/clapper-calls-arming-ukrainian-forces-actually-empower/