Europeans warn Washington: arming Kiev will backfire.

[another_liberal]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - European defense officials warned on Friday that arming Ukraine in its fight against pro-Russian separatists would only inflame the conflict, but were told by NATO's top soldier, an American general, that the West should consider using "all tools" if diplomacy with Moscow wasn't working. The debate at the Munich Security Conference highlighted an emerging rift between Europe and Washington over how to confront Russian President Vladmir Putin as Moscow-backed rebels make territorial gains in eastern Ukraine. President Barack Obama is under pressure from some in Congress to provide Kiev with lethal weapons.

German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen voiced Europe's misgivings about this strategy: "Are we sure we would be improving the situation for the people in Ukraine by delivering weapons? Are we really sure that Ukraine can win against the Russian military machine? And would this not be an excuse for Russia to intervene openly in the conflict?" asked the German minister.

Britain also fears that sending weapons could "escalate the conflict", her British counterpart Michael Fallon told the conference. As they spoke, Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande held talks in Moscow with Putin to try to end the conflict in Ukraine that has killed more than 5,000 people and driven Russia's relations with the West to new lows. Their initiative was partly prompted by the debate about arming Kiev.

(snip)

Germany's von der Leyen questioned the strategic sense of providing weapons to Kiev when the separatists were so well-supplied by the Russians. "The support with arms from Russia to the separatists is potentially unlimited," she said. "And do we really count on being able to provide as many arms to the Ukrainian army that they could potential conquer the other side?"


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/06/us-ukraine-crisis-germany-minister-idUSKBN0LA1S420150206

---

If we take this step we will be setting course for a confrontation with the World's number two major nuclear power. This is not a game of chicken with Iran or North Korea. All of our lives could easily be at risk if this terrifyingly ill-advised plan to arm the Ukrainians is allowed to proceed. Is everyone really in that much of a damn hurry to die? Are you really?

[Fred Sanders]

1. Obama will never arm Kiev, the same geopolitical forces that sent him to Saudi to pay respects to

a deceased King and dictatorial regime he detests, the same forces force him and
America to posture and pretend a lot of things about the Kiev regime that is on the verge of collapse.

No wonder Merkel and Hollande went alone to Moscow, they are also opposed to the American posturing.

[another_liberal]

2. I hope you are right . . .

The fact is that it doesn't matter to me much at all why we don't send Kiev weapons to escalate that war, just as long as we don't!

[Fred Sanders]

5. Obama summed it up best in his amazing CNN International interview in New Delhi...he is not a totally free man.

Everything you want to know about how Obama thinks on all topical issues is in that very fair and revealing interview.

[another_liberal]

10. Few Presidents have ever been free to make policy as they would truly like . . .

And that was before the NSA was eavesdropping on anyone they want to.

I do admire President Obama's efforts to get control over our empire-builders at the Pentagon (not to mention those at the Brookings Institution). I hope he can save us from a catastrophe.

[Fred Sanders]

14. Obama knows what is up and what he is doing with .Ukraine and Saudi.....and the GOP.

“Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.”

― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

[another_liberal]

24. The greatest victory of all . . .

Is to win without fighting a single battle.

[Fred Sanders]

26. Almost exactly as Obama has said it many times, in different ways. And delivered each time.

[Brigid]

27. Ah . . .

Someone's been reading their Sun Tzu.

[Igel]

3. There are problems that cannot be solved.

When a man has a knife to a woman's throat and is going to rape her, she has two options, both bad.

Few argue that she should just enjoy it or at least put up with it. Ultimately, the choice is hers--and whether to help her resist is something she should decide, for good or for bad.

Fewer yet find any high moral ground in rooting for the guy because she is his wife and properly "in his sphere of influence" when she wants to leave him and move in with somebody else.

[another_liberal]

4. Nuclear war . . .

Do you comprehend what that means?

[Adrahil]

31. I oppose direct offensive arms to Kiev, but....

The Russians cannot be allowed to use the threat of nuclear war to do whatever they will. And frankly, I don't think it would ever come to that... Not even Putin is that stupid.

[another_liberal]

37. If no one ever acted stupidly . . .

Not very many wars would have ever started.

[Adrahil]

52. So you answer is let Putin have whatever he wants? n/t

[MattSh]

45. Of course Putin is not that stupid...

the neo-cons that actually run foreign policy? Well, they are.

Oh, that's the neo-cons in the USA.

[Adrahil]

53. They are pretty stupid, but I doubt they will ever hold

The Button again. National demographics will make it hard for a Republican to win the Whitehouse again, and it will only get worse over time.

I don't want to underplay the threat of a nuclear exchange, but such a threat cannot justify never ending appeasement in the face of bald aggression of the type Putin has been displaying.

[MattSh]

56. Well I guess you get your news this way...

If there's so much "bald aggression", then why are 60% of Kievans against the war? Why are 80% of Odessans against the war? Why are 70% of West Ukrainians against the war? Ever thought they might know something you don't know?

Me thinks a lot of people in the USA are like Sarah Palin. They can see Russia from their house.



[Fred Sanders]

6. No offence, but I do not see the analogy...not at all.

[cprise]

21. And the onlooker is himself a rapist who prefers Latin or Arab women...

and who also stands to be killed by said attacker anyway.

The analogy doesn't really make sense unless you live in a world of tabloid sensationalism... from 100 years ago.

[cprise]

15. You're right, and I think Obama himself only tolerates so much

The statement he makes (@ 1:05) about the US brokering a transition of power before Yanukovich fled shows Obama at least likes his Koolaid diluted...

[Fred Sanders]

17. He takes sips of offered Koolaide, impolite to insult his Koolaide loving "allies", but spits it out unnoticed.

[EEO]

7. If America starts to arm Ukranians we are arming the enemies of Russia.

That is how Russia will see it.

We should not be directly arming anyone, especially a territory that is right next to Russia.

The USSR may be gone, and Russia may not be a super power any more, but she still has teeth.

[another_liberal]

8. Adding lethal weapons to a civil war which is taking place on Russia's border is highly reckless.

It's equivalent to playing with an angry rattlesnake while drunk. Our friends are all trying to tell us to stop before we fuck-up bad.

[FSogol]

9. Is it reckless for Russia to add lethal weapons or is that ok.

Maybe we should ask everyone on MH17?

[another_liberal]

11. No one adding arms is "OK." . . .

However, we live five thousand miles from the fighting. Ukrainian artillery shells have landed on Russia soil, causing property damage and civilian casualties.

See the difference?

[FSogol]

12. The difference is called intellectual dishonesty.

[Adrahil]

34. Are you justifying Russian intervention? Sounds like it. n/t

[another_liberal]

36. No, of course not. I'm not even sure such a thing is happening in Ukraine . . .

Our intervention there, on the other hand, is clearly visible and growing.

[EEO]

13. And what is your solution? Start a war with Russia by openly arming Ukraine?

That's a hell of an idea considering when the USSR was around we NEVER openly armed its enemies. We knew better.

[Fred Sanders]

16. Some folks simply think vomiting on any situation solves it.

[daleo]

23. Nice reposte

[cosmicone]

18. MH17 again?

MH 17 was sent into harms way by Kyiv air traffic controllers so as to use as a civilian shield for Ukrainian fighter jets.

With all your vomiting you'll probably need a bigger toilet/sink/both.

[MattSh]

47. And you would think that if they had actual proof...

that Russia or the separatists shot that plane down that the US government and the US media wouldn't have been so quiet about it the last six months.

[OverseaVisitor]

51. I am a Malaysian

After the initial finger pointing that a missile done it.

Now there is total silent.

[bemildred]

54. It has been a source of amazement to me how thoroughly that story has been buried.

And the investigation is being slow-walked too.

[OverseaVisitor]

55. We also cannot explain

MH 370

And now we have Air Asia crash also

I am just digging around to understand.

So please excused my fixation with Ukraine.

The fact remain a plane went down.

It is a scary thought if it is a false flag.

We are dealing with a very evil regime.

[cprise]

19. How did Latin America fare with US armaments?

America has a virtual monopoly now on armaments sold to third world countries. We arm the conflicts in all the poorest parts of the world.

As for the issue that drew crowds to the Maidan in the first place, joining the EU, here is the US state dept.'s reaction to EU's attempt to groom their own choice for Yanukovich's replacement:

"F*CK THE EU!!!"
(That's a direct quote.)


It was always primarily about getting Ukraine into the military empire -- NATO -- and secondarily about controlling the flow of oil and gas.

[MattSh]

46. Russia will not allow people who are hell bent on genocide...

to exist on the Russian border, or who want to kill ethnic Russians just on the other side of the border to do what they want. And when a former Ukraine Prime Minister states they should nuke ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine, one should not consider it an idle thought by some random idiot on the street. Likewise when a "journalist" from Hromadske TV in Ukraine, financed by the US and Dutch governments, suggests that there are 1.5 million excess people in the east of Ukraine, I would suggest that he not be ignored either.

But hey, I've never been a fan of genocide. Maybe that's just me.

[840high]

38. ....

[EEO]

40. Profound.

[840high]

43. Why thank you.

[cosmicone]

20. I think arming Ukraine was part of psy-ops

to give Merkel/Hollande some leverage in their meeting.

a) We are not stupid enough to arm Ukraine against Russia and
b) Putin is not afraid of us. He will go nuclear in a heartbeat.

I think we should abandon our ill-advised and ill-fated Ukraine adventure and go back to Yanukovytch and a neutral, non-EU Ukraine.

[another_liberal]

22. A neutral Ukraine would be an excellent idea . . .

Right now, though, I would be extremely relieved if there were just a lasting ceasefire.

On the other hand, I'm not so sure we aren't "stupid enough" to arm Ukraine. Victoria Nuland and her "New American Century" pals are clearly stupid enough, and eager.

[Panich52]

32. Sure. Sending all those arms to Afghans when they were trying to oust Russia turned out so well...

And don't forget the fabulously successful Iran-Contra deals...

[lovuian]

25. Russia isn't messing around folks

and I'm not surprised Germany and Hollande went to talk ...their worried and should be

The Ukraine was a "buffer zone" as was Iraq
but this isn't Saddam we are talking about

Economic Sanctions and dropping oil prices are all aimed at Russia .....as punishment

Now we are going to have to face the consequences of warlike actions

hang onto your hats folks

[another_liberal]

29. If it happens, if we actually war with Russia . . .

It will be because we give Kiev arms, and that doesn't work to defeat the Separatists. Next we will have to get directly involved, with our air power hitting Separatist strongholds. That will lead to a corresponding, direct intervention on Russia's part. Soon we would be shooting at each other, and our technical and quantitative superiority would likely force Russia to choose to either beg for terms or use its tactical nuclear weapons to cancel our conventional advantage.

Who is ready to throw the dice in a situation like that? How many millions could die if Russia chooses to go down fighting?

[MattSh]

49. But the USA might actually want a major land war in Europe.

Think about it. I major land war in Europe will create major capital flight. Equivalent to a couple trillion dollars, at least. Where is a lot of that likely to end up? The USA. Of course. This type of capital will go a long way toward solving internal problems in the USA, while at the same time weakening Europe, forcing the breakup of Russia into a number of small parts (a neo-con dream for decades), while extending the American Century for at least another 50 years. The neocons in the State Department will settle for nothing less than the USA remaining the unchallenged world power, even if they have to destroy Europe to accomplish that.

[another_liberal]

58. That would be an enormous payday for the greedheads . . .

But they would also be taking a horrifying risk with their own lives, and with the very future of humanity.

[Brigid]

28. Listen to the Europeans, Mr. President.

They know whereof they speak.

[another_liberal]

33. It is their continent, after all . . .

What gives us the right to assume command of everything in Europe. Have our leaders really bought into that "American Exceptionalism" crap or what?

[840high]

39. ...^ that

[Rosa Luxemburg]

30. Since Europe depends on the Ukraine let them figure it out

[another_liberal]

35. If our best idea is just to add more guns and tanks so as to increase the fighting . . .

Then someone else definitely needs to take over leadership in the negotiations.

[luke102938]

41. The U.S. Should provide air support with drone strikes.

If Russia is denying being there. I dont see how Russia can say anything about the U.S. helping Ukraine with its "criminal" problem.
The drones would put no Americans at risk and would be authorized to fly at Ukraines discretion.

[another_liberal]

42. Now we are going to give Ukraine weaponized drones . . .

Nothing could possibly go wrong with that, right?


(sigh)

[DeSwiss]

44. Yes, let's kill some babies. FA! n/t :-|

[PaulaFarrell]

50. Oh well, as long as no Americams are at risk

That's all that really matters, isn't it?

[DeSwiss]

48. K&R

Mr. Obama seems not have been much of a student of history in all his studies and eleventy-dimensional logic development, not to recall the fate of two previous rulers who sought to push the Rus around. Not only did they fail spectacularly, but they and their countries were weakened so much they were both later defeated, humiliated and their empire, reconstituted. It is no mistake that France and Germany are talking to Putin.

- They remembered their studies and history better than others......

[another_liberal]

57. Great quote!

I think we may have been seeing evidence of a little of that very "cognitive dissonance" at work around here.

[cosmicone]

59. Yes, but the 81st chairborne on DU wants a war!! n/t