Both Houses of Congress have adopted the bill that will make it possible to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine. There is a lot more said in the bill, but the only part that really matters is lethal weaponry. Everything else is just empty verbiage aimed at concealing this crucial nugget: this is a bill to provide weapons to Ukraine. At this point, Ukrainians have nothing to protect them from the massive tanks and armored vehicles of the invaders. They have been begging for the US to give them weapons but, until now, nothing was happening in that direction.
In case anybody has forgotten, the reason why Ukraine’s weaponry is no match for Russia’s and why Ukraine is directing these pleas to the US and not to anybody else is that exactly 20 years ago, Ukraine, Russia and the US signed an agreement, according to which Ukraine disarmed in pursuit of world peace. In exchange, Russia and the US promised to defend Ukraine’s borders form invaders. We have all been observing how well that promise was carried out.
Now, the US Congress has finally developed a conscience and adopted a helpful bill.
News sources inform us that (emphasis is mine):
Obama Undecided Over Signing of Bill to Ramp Up Sanctions: White House.US President Barack Obama has not yet made a decision to sign legislation, passed yesterday by the US Senate, that would impose harsher sanctions on Russia and provide lethal assistance to Ukraine, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Friday.
“We are looking at it right now. We still need to take a look at this piece of legislation before we are going to articulate a specific position on it,” Earnest said.
It’s no shock he’s “undecided” but I really hope that the President doesn’t choose to go against the Congress on this issue. For the next 2 years, he will be working with two antagonistic houses of congress. What sense does it make for him to seek confrontation over an issue he neither understands nor cares about?
Clarissa's Blog 
In the Budapest Memorandum Ukraine agreed to disarm itself of the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Russia, Great Britain and the US agreed to the established Ukraine borders — including the Crimea — and to Ukraine’s status as a sovereign nation. They further agreed to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine if Ukraine should become victim of an act of aggression.
As of last August there have been over 20 meetings of the Security Council in regard to the crisis. Nothing advanced in the face of Russia’s ability to veto any Security Council resolution. Ukraine is asking for conventional weapons from the US. I presume they mean more advance weapons than rifles and machine guns. Such advance weapons aren’t just the old point and shoot models. They are quite complicated and do require training for effective use. Just “sending weapons” doesn’t necessarily “equip” Ukraine to oppose the Russian invasion. Use of advanced Russian weaponry by the invaders has been identified by the west. That goes hand in hand with all the “off duty” Russian soldiers strongly rumored to be part of the invaders.
Ukraine’s conventional weapons are not part of the memorandum in any way. If they haven’t been improved over the last 20 years, it’s a result of Ukraine’s inaction. Weapons obtained from the US or the EU would never be a panacea. For every new piece we might supply, Russia could counter much more easily and quickly with weaponry that might well be on par (or better) with that of the west. And that could likely expand combat at the time we are attempting to stop it. A few days ago, President Poroshenko of Ukraine said: “We are prepared for a scenario of total war… We don’t want war, we want peace and we are fighting for European values. But Russia does not respect any agreement.” While he is correct about Russia, is he really to be trusted to engage in a “total war” with them? (He might hope to have some very well armed partners in that expanded war.)
The Ukraine Freedom Support Act seems to be posturing by congress. After months of inertia they have come up with something which might work well on the campaign trail but leaves much to be desired as effective legislation. Supply of conventional weapons to Ukraine is the only really new thing it offers. (It is clever enough to understand that such weapons also require significant training.) It also mandates further sanctions which may or may not be in accord with the EU or the rest of the west. Once again congress wants to “High Noon” our way into an international fray. The US should do nothing unilaterally in this crisis. The EU is automatically more heavily invested in Russia’s invasion and concomitant political and economic instability caused by the invasion. To a large degree the EU and the US have acted properly. Putin brought bullets to his invasion of a sovereign nation. The west made it an economic war. Russia can’t hope to win an that war with the west.
(NOTE: I saw a quote from a Facebook blog posting “Chronicles of Russian Crimea” by Illona Dorochenko. I don’t bother with fb. But I thought you might be interested.)
LikeLike
“A few days ago, President Poroshenko of Ukraine said: “We are prepared for a scenario of total war… We don’t want war, we want peace and we are fighting for European values. But Russia does not respect any agreement.” While he is correct about Russia, is he really to be trusted to engage in a “total war” with them? ”
– Trusted by whom? People are defending their country from fascist invaders. And they are winning. Everybody else can stick their trust where the sun don’t shine.
“Supply of conventional weapons to Ukraine is the only really new thing it offers.”
– Which is exactly what I said.
“To a large degree the EU and the US have acted properly. ”
– Does my blog really seem like a great place for this Putinoid propaganda?
LikeLike
I have no idea what can possibly motivate such a comment. What is it to you if Ukrainians manage to get a tiny little bit of help that maybe allows them to make it through the winter? Nobody is asking you for anything. Why so much hatred towards people you have never even met? And why is that hatred so strong that you have to come here and beat me over the head with it?
LikeLike
While I was in the US recently, I heard an Orwellian turn of phrase I hadn’t heard before …
“Lethal aid”
It sounds like “legal aid”, doesn’t it, except that I strongly suspect it isn’t.
LikeLike
Also, it was called “lethal aid” when it was directed toward Syria in the ouvertures against the so-called Islamic State …
Is “Islamic State” supposed to be the new “Holy Roman Empire”, in that it’s neither Islamic nor a State?
LikeLike
I’m still voting for, “Please deplane the aircraft” as the ugliest neologism ever.
LikeLike