Let Eastern Ukraine Go

[W!nston]

This sounds like Pro-Putin propaganda at first read. That's why I read it twice. I have to agree with this author's reasoning. Let the Pro-Russian separatists have an autonomous enclave in Eastern Ukraine. There is a chance the people of that new enclave would decide to re-join the rest of Ukraine once reality sets in for them. This concession by Kiev would allow Russia to save face, the West to save face and Kiev to be seen as the rational party in this conflict. The Ukrainian people can try to rebuild and put their lives back together. The civilian deaths would stop. I think this is the best solution.

Let Eastern Ukraine Go
HUFFINGTON POST | By Blake Fleetwood
Posted: 07/29/2014 5:20 pm EDT | Updated: 07/29/2014 5:59 pm EDT

It doesn't matter. It's a small, totally irrelevant piece of land.

Give the separatists a measure of autonomy.

Russia has already lost most of Eastern Europe, and in the last six months, they lost the loyalty of most of the Ukraine. There are few pockets and slivers on the Russian boarder that are still loyal to Russia. Give these small bits of land a decentralized status. No doubt, within a few years, they will rethink the wisdom of their decision.

To Vladimir Putin's dismay, most of the rest of Eastern Europe wants to be allied with the European Union and the West. In the last two decades, they have seen the Baltics, Poland and East Germany thrive economically, while Ukraine has stagnated.

Helping Ukraine's central government subdue the rebels is not worth a war of world involvement. The pro-Russian rebels want to be free of Ukrainian heavy handedness; they don't want Kiev to appoint their governors and mayors; they don't want to pay taxes without proper representation; and they want to be able to speak the Russian language, which they have spoken for many decades, although the central government recently tried to ban it.

Defusing the crisis situation is simple. If we let it, the solution will evolve slowly. Something like the Canadian autonomy of Quebec or the semi-autonomous, Russian-populated regions in Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which are peopled with Georgian citizens who have Russian passports -- but are still technically residing in the country of Georgia. It's working well enough.

Indeed, the current continued violence against civilians in the Ukraine is completely attributed to the Kiev government. Western Ukrainians are the ones invading the east, sending troops, fighters jets, unguided Grad rockets and bombers over Eastern Ukraine's populated areas and cities, killing innocent civilians, according to Human Rights Watch.

Ukraine is being supported and encouraged by the U.S. policy and the Western media, which have led to the violent war conditions that led to the unfortunate shoot-down of a commercial jetliner with 298 lives lost

Ironically, Putin and the separatists have been calling for an immediate cease fire, talks and negotiations.

The Ukrainian central government has been resisting. It wants to crush the rebels and has killed some 1,200 civilians. Little of this has been much reported in the Western media, which has been fanning the flames for NATO intervention and possible war.

Of late, the Republicans and much of the American media, including The New York Times and the Washington Post have been beating the drums of war for increased U.S. involvement.

See articles by Roger Cohen and Bernard Henri-Levy in The New York Times.

America seemed panicked by the idea of repeating Neville Chamberlain's pre-World War II mistakes with the creation of many mini Russian Sudetenlands.

If the saber-rattling continues, things might not turn out the way we want them. The long-term repercussions are unknowable and scary.

Ukrainian rebels want peace. They want to be left alone right now. They want new balance -- a large degree of autonomy. They want to be able to speak Russian. They want to trade with Russia, but, ironically, they don't want to join Russia.

This conflict developed, of course, because the U.S helped engineer a coup against a democratically elected, albeit, corrupt government -- after the former elected president rejected a trade pact with the EU and negotiated an economic alliance with Russia. The U.S. helped the Western, pro-EU faction install a puppet regime rule with elections that were boycotted by much of the country.

It's not that Putin hasn't meddled also -- with Russian soldiers and weapons. He's been growing increasingly upset, and somewhat desperate, because NATO, a U.S. military alliance historically directed against Russia, is closing in on his borders.

The West and NATO actively courted and lured away 12 former Warsaw Pact nations and republics, pro-Russian countries that formerly buffered the Soviet Union: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

Russia has its own version of the Monroe Doctrine and is not going to give up hegemony over any more neighboring Russian ethnic groups.

The U.S. would certainly not tolerate a hostile country on our borders. Witness what happened to Cuba when it formed an alliance with the Soviet Union.

The CIA tried to poison Fidel Castro many times, supported an invasion and instituted a 56-year boycott to destabilize the country. CIA spies and paid agents encouraged and funded terrorism, bombings, floods and even seeded clouds to destabilize the county's agriculture.

The crash of MH17 was a tragedy. Nobody thinks it was anything other than a horrible mistake. It is unfortunate that the U.S. is trying to use these tragic deaths for political purposes, which may lead to more violence and more civilian deaths.

In 1988, when the U.S. Navy blew up civilian airliner flight 655 in a war zone, killing 290 innocent people, only the Iranians tried to politicize the situation.

At first, U.S. officials told various lies to cover up the reality. A government review, released eight weeks after the accident, cast blame on the pilot of the commercial airliner. But the U.S. never apologized for the atrocity, and the captain of the ship that launched the missiles, The Vincennes, was given a medal: the Legion of Merit.

Eight years later, after being sued in a World Court, the U.S. government did compensate the victims' families and even then expressed "deep regret," but didn't offer an apology.

In October of 2001, the Ukrainian military fired a missile during a training episode into Siberian Airlines flight 1812 bound from Tel Aviv with many Israeli youths aboard, killing all 78.

After initial denials, Ukraine admitted their mistake and banned the testing of Buk, S-300 and similar missile systems for a period of seven years following this incident.

If Putin knows who was responsible for the crash, he should say so immediately, but, for now, he is acting like most other countries that have shot down civilian airliners by mistake. It's not like this has never happened before.

But, the U.S. government and media have been trying to exploit this cloudy, obvious tragedy, and needless deaths, for selfish political purposes -- using it as an excuse to demand stronger trade sanctions on Russia.

Most of the Europeans see the plane crash for what it is: a tragedy. And they have been reluctant about increased sanctions.

The key question now is: how important is Ukraine's regional crisis -- a civil war -- to the U.S. worldwide geopolitical interests?

The answer is: not very.

We should look carefully at what is at stake from a global perspective. The U.S. and the West need Russia's cooperation on a number of large-scale macro issues, including Islamic terrorism, nuclear disarmament, containing Chinese expansionism and the war in Syria.

The world today is a dangerous tinderbox.

With the political and economic advances the EU and the West have already made on the Russian sphere of influence, Russia feels it is being slowly put into a cage -- and humiliated. Putin doesn't like it and has the support of his people with a 68 percent favorable rating. Barack Obama's leadership is only supported by 43 percent of Americans.

"The long-term [Western] goal -- though no one talks about it -- is political change inside Russia, regime change, if you will," said Fyodor Lukyanov, head of a Kremlin foreign-policy advisory panel, on Monday.

"Expecting Putin to back off, or his close friends to persuade him to change tack or else the 'oligarchs' to pressure the Kremlin into beating a retreat betrays a lack of understanding of the gravity of the situation," Dmitry Trenin, director of the Moscow Carnegie Center, wrote Monday.

"It is no longer the struggle for Ukraine but a battle for Russia."

It's a perilous path. Do we really want Obama to put all our geopolitical marbles on what is essentially a regional conflict?

How does this help, or profit, the American people?

 

[ihno]

The leaders of the East Ukrainian Separatists are not East Ukrainian Separatists they are Great Russian Fighters. They come from Russia, have Russian passports, have fought in Serbia, Chechenia and other places. They are not interested in a compromise.

Of course nobody notices in the West because the focus is on the war but there is a new constitution in the making and cultural and political autonomy for the different regions is a part of that.

The Great Russian Fighters are also not interested in the lifes of the civil people. If they declare there will be a "second Stalingrad" they are calculating with heavy losses on civil life - which again produces many youtube clips for "russia today".

 

[W!nston]

I take that to mean the best solution is for the Ukrainian army to bombard the cities remaining in rebel control to the ground then sweep those cities door to door to root out any lingering resistance and kill them or arrest them. All the while hoping the Russian army doesn't launch an invasion. I'm pretty sure the Russian army would defeat the Ukrainian army in short order. Then what?

 

[ihno]

I will answer in two parts.
At first a little analysis of the article.
At first the article is full of clichees and at some parts also full of historical misinformation and errors.

I will take only one sentence as an example - believe me, the rest is not much better.

The West and NATO actively courted and lured away 12 former Warsaw Pact nations and republics, pro-Russian countries that formerly buffered the Soviet Union: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

It is interesting that this journalist didn't mention the GDR. East-Germany "buffered" the USSR too. But the people from East Germany didn't want to join West-Germany because they were "lured". They wanted to become part of West-Germany because they wanted freedom and because life in West-Germany was simply better in comparison. They build a wall in 1961 in East Germany to keep their people in.

Now to the error part in detail: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
1. Yugoslawia never joined the Warzaw Pact, so Slovenia and Croatia have nothing to do in the list.
2. Albania has left the Warzaw Pact already in 1968.
3. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania never joined the USSR freely as well. They became part of the USSR after Stalin had their countries occupied after the Hitler-Stalin Pact in 1939.
edit: 4. The Czech Republik and Slowakia were one state till 1993, not two. This is a little picky, I admit but I only edit it here only because they are an example how a state can fall apart peacefully without giving one shot - by elections under watchful international eyes.
There are more errors but I think this will suffice to show just see how sloppy the huffington post do their homework.

But It gets hilariously when I come to the manipulating part.
Hungary was lured away from the Warsaw Pact?
One must be either a liar or have no idea of history if one dares to say that.

Ever heard of the Hungarian Uprising in 1956? It was the Warzaw Pakt and the USSR who sent their tanks to suppress the people there: http://anonym.to/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
Same in the CSSR in 1968 and those are only the major ones.

There were several uprises in those states between 1945 and 1991 - all had one thing in common: to get freedom: 1953 GDR, 1956 Hungary, 1968 CSSR - the Solidarnosc movement in the 70s in Poland etc. pp. The last one was 1991 in Lithuania (Bloddy Sunday of Vilnius).

So the Czech Republic and Poland and others were not "lured" to become part of the EU and the NATO, it was their own free will. And they did because of the aggressive policy of the USSR. As said, the last times Soviet tanks rolled was in 1991 in Lithuania.

 

[ihno]

I take that to mean the best solution is for the Ukrainian army to bombard the cities remaining in rebel control to the ground then sweep those cities door to door to root out any lingering resistance and kill them or arrest them. All the while hoping the Russian army doesn't launch an invasion. I'm pretty sure the Russian army would defeat the Ukrainian army in short order. Then what?

I hope that the game gets too expensive for Putin at some point and he stops sending weapons.

I don’t have a suggestion for the Ukraine government. If the separatists make their threat about a “second Stalingrad” true, it will be a catastrophe but the Ukraine is a sovereign state and have to decide itself how it deals when Russia violates it territorial integrity (which it did already with the Crimea).

As shown in the post above the writer of the article has no real knowledge about history or tries to manipulate his audience.

Secondly I also think this is a nice example for the US-arrogance – which again is a reason why the US have such a bad reputation world-wide today. The US snoop in emails, open prison camps, torture, violate basic human rights and then just give a shit about it. And all because of 9/11. It is an irony of history that the US answer to that attack with exactly the same thing, that led to the attack in the first place. Mr. Bush is painting ugly pictures nowerdays, is he not?

The whole article reeks of selfish arrogance and shows an attitude where states are nothing but little playballs for the majors ones in the world, just like Roosevelt/Truman, Churchill and Stalin did it in 1945 in Yalta and Berlin. But it is not Poland’s role or destiny to be a “buffer” – they can decide themselves, what they want and where they go. As can the Ukraine.

If East-Ukraine wants to leave the Ukraine, there are ways. I’ve mentioned that more than once: They should do it like the CSSR did it in 1993 and like the UK do it in six weeks. But they did/do it peacefully. There are international organizations for that. To make sure there are not armed people behind the voters.

 

[ihno]

This looks like it is about a province of a nation which is considered unimportant, but in fact it is strategic warfare on a political level. Just giving away territory won't solve the problem but just move it further west and in the end it will sacrifice many more lives.

Yes, I fully agree.

Following the logic of the Huffing Post Russia would only correct a historical "injustice" if they'd move their border till it ends in East-Berlin again.

It's not about some province the peaceful future is at stake here - if we live in a world, where the borders are fixed and can only be changed by peaceful and free elections within the international law or if we live again in the world of the 19th century, where only the power matters and aggression can break states apart.

 

[gorgik9]

I sincerely want to thank ihno for this acute and harsh answer to the HuffPost article it dearly deserves.

The article as such borders on the despiccable, but maybe the only real value is, that it made very clear what is the only important thing in american media perspective: "- The US and the West need Russia's cooperation on a number of large scale macro issues". The only thing is, Herr Putin should be nice and chummy with the US of the fuckin' A. But if some 20% percent of a totally silly and un-important nation as the Ukraine, or Lithuania, or Finland, or why not the northern parts of Sweden should get violently chopped of by herr Putin and his evil minions - well who cares? We, the Godfearing americans don't. And Herr Putin is almost as Godfearing as US.

 

[ihno]

Why do you write "Herr" Putin?

Yes, reading stuff like that is a real pain. Naive and oversimplifying. That's why I only wrote about one sentence or else I would write 80 pages. The rest is as bad or even worse.

The Huffington post has lost a lot of reputation with me today.

 

[W!nston]

In my original post I started with the statement "This sounds like Pro-Putin propaganda at first read" and it does.

I do think the article is full of bullshit. The idea I agree with is only that we, the West including Europe and America, should consider the long term consequences of forcing Russia into a corner. The West has it's 'interests' as does Russia. The 2 sides need to find common ground soon. Look, I don't agree with everything in the article but a negotiated settlement is preferable to continued fighting especially in populated urban areas where civilians are caught in the crossfire... IMO.

Does anyone believe sanctions will be successful? How many months or years will that take? How many more civilian deaths will that result in? Do you think the rabid throngs of Russians who blindly support Putin will allow him to retreat at this point?

It's easy for all of us to be 'armchair generals' as the slaughter continues in Ukraine. I just want the deaths of civilians and combatants alike to stop. The rebels are still human as are the Ukrainian soldiers. There must be a way to bring the conflict to a close sooner rather than later.

Maybe NATO should preemptively invade and occupy Ukraine so the West is ready for the inevitable. Maybe EU should start conscription of all able bodied citizens in preparation for the inevitable global war. Maybe America should begin stockpiling more weapons along the frontlines in Eastern Europe while there is still time. Maybe we should try to make chums with China and get them to sign a mutual defense treaty to counter the Russian threat. Let's all get ready for WWIII.

I'm just sayin'...

edit: besides, it seems like everyone is taking the same side of the discussion here. i thought this article, it's inconsistencies and errors not withstanding, put forth a counter argument for a solution other than continued fighting so that adds to the discussion rather than jumping on to ideas already floated. plus i detect a hint of America bashing from the EU faction - let's not cast stones unless we have not sinned ourselves... m'kay? lol

 

[ihno]

I care for a reasonable argument that is based on reality. This article lacks in every aspect: there is no reason, only poor and historically invalid arguments and it lacks of reality.

I have shown it to my ukrainian friend and the first thing he said was: "'The rebels want peace', hahahaha".

Gorgik has quoted another revealing sentence: "- The US and the West need Russia's cooperation on a number of large scale macro issues"

And I'll add a third unmasking one: "How does this help, or profit, the American people?"

 

[ihno]

IIt's easy for all of us to be 'armchair generals'...

And just for the record. Call yourself "armchair general" if you like. I am not an "armchair general" and I don't play the "know better" or have an joy in war-spectatorship. I have clearly written:

I don’t have a suggestion for the Ukraine government.

I look at this matter with sincerity. Thanks for noticing.

 

[W!nston]

You are always right on the money, ihno. Of course I'm the only one who can be called an 'armchair general'. Guilty as charged, sir.

As an 'armchair general' I want the death to stop. Is that so wrong?

 

[gorgik9]

Why do you write "Herr" Putin?

Yes, reading stuff like that is a real pain. Naive and oversimplifying. That's why I only wrote about one sentence or else I would write 80 pages. The rest is as bad or even worse.

The Huffington post has lost a lot of reputation with me today.

Hrrrmmm...maybe I should call him "Miss Putin"? Or "Mrs Putin, the wife of the real Mr Putin"? :rofl:

No, seriously ihno, I really don't know...but sometimes I feel the need to get a distance between myself and all this scary, violent and sad happenings in the Ukraine and all the filthy articles that just makes everything even worse, and one technique I sometimes use is to use different kinds of ironic/satirical or downright silly names or titles.

As when Torgny Segerstedt - legendary publisher, writer, journalist and editor-in-chief of the daily morningpaper Göteborgs Handels- och Sjöfarts Tidning and maybe the most fierce anti-nazi there was in Sweden during all the bad 12 years of the Third Reich - wrote in his editorial just a few days after the Machtübernahme : "- Herr Hitler, ni är en förolämpning!" ("Mr Hitler, you're an insult!") Just Herr Hitler, not any of the august titles like Reichskansler.

And the HuffPost lost very much of it's former reputation with me today, so I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[W!nston]

After the condemnations of Huffpost in this thread I did a Google search to find some online articles critical of the Huffpost article but I didn't find any.

I thought there would be some negative reaction from other news media or academic sources.

If ihno or gorgik could help me find some of those negative reactions I would like to read them.

I do not support the Pro-Russian rebels, the Kremlin or Putin. I've made that clear with other posts in other threads here on GH. I hope everyone realizes that. I hope no one thinks I'm for 'rewarding' aggression. What I'm for is an end to the death and destruction in Ukraine. No matter who is responsible for MH17 or the deaths of some many innocent men, women and children I don't want to see more carnage. I don't want to see more Ukrainian soldiers killed. I don't want to see more Pro-Russian fighters bodies torn apart either. Not to mention the growing risk of expanded military conflict between Russia and the West.

I was only posting an article with a suggestion that should be discussed. And boy howdy - is it being discussed. Just don't clump me in with the Pro-Russian faction. Please.

 

[ihno]

I thought there would be some negative reaction from other news media or academic sources.

If ihno or gorgik could help me find some of those negative reactions I would like to read them.

Maybe you did not find some because "academic sorces" very rarely give reviews on an articles of an online newspaper in the first 24 hours after they came out. The same goes for other newspapers. Especially if this article repeats the same clichees that you read for three months now.

It is already the second time I explained why the "The West betrayed Russia to lure Poland etc. into the Nato" is a myth.

I don't need the support of "news media or academic sources" to make up my mind and if you suggest the criticism about this article would need some "official" support to be valid, it doesn't.

What I wrote is plausible and open for everybody to check himself. Don't believe there was a "Bloddy sunday" in 1991? Google it. Same goes for the rest.

 

[W!nston]

ihno - why did you take that personally? You act as if I was challenging you and that is not at all the case. I included gorgik's name in that reply too but he hasn't responded with indignation. I think he read my words and saw them for what they were. I was asking for help finding some more criticism of that article not to insinuate you were wrong.

As for you needing 'support of news media or academic sources' I agree. Your opinion was clear as a bell. Sometimes it seems like no one else' opinion matters.

I don't know why I even bothered writing this, lol.

Have a good night ihno my friend

 

[gorgik9]

@ Sniffit

No, I don't think you mean to harm and hurt, and I seriously think you mean well. But I've got serious difficulties to use this HuffPost article as some kind of platform (or whatever you could call it) for any kind of honest and serious discussion just because it's so damn filled with grave errors and downright humiliating manipulations towards people in many, many European nations.

If it wasn't so late at night right now I could go on with this post much longer, but I'll have to go to bed soon.

 

[topdog]

I think the article is misdirected. The U.S. doesn't rule Ukraine and doesn't set that government's policy. If you think the Kiev should handle things differently then tell Poroshenko. This is for the Ukrainian people to decide.

And frankly, the author is misreading the U.S. media. U.S. citizens don't care whether there is one Ukraine or twenty. Pundits have to fill their newspaper columns and air time with something, so they pontificate on whatever grabs the headlines. If the rebels hadn't blown up a passenger jet, Ukraine's troubles would be buried on page 10.

 

[W!nston]

Putin Appears to Be Preparing for Invasion…Again

IMO This scenario is most probably the likely one. If and when Russia invades Ukraine the West will ratchet up the economic screws again with more sanctions. Maybe things will work out the way they usually do and all of this will be another page in history books. I really don't know what else to say.

Putin Appears to Be Preparing for Invasion…Again
DefenseOnedotcom | by Janine Davidson | July 30 2014

Russia's President Vladimir Putin waves to photographers as he leaves the Itamaraty Palace after the BRICS Summit in Brasilia, Brazil, July 16, 2014. // Felipe Dana/AP

Europe’s announcement of sectorial sanctions against Russia is welcome news. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s continued aggression in Ukraine should not go unanswered by the international community. Over time, this latest round, which affects military, financial, and oil sectors will surely bite. Whether they will change Putin’s calculus in the short term, however, is far less certain. In fact, Putin’s moves to date signal his intentions loud and clear. Far from seeking options for a face-saving de-escalation, Putin is posturing for more military intervention.

The latest reports from U.S. intelligence suggest that Russia has not only been supplying a steady stream of high-end weapons and training to rebels in Ukraine; but they are also firing artillery from across the border. As former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul plainly observed, “Instead of using [the Malaysian Air crash] as a pretext for ending this war, he seems to be doing the opposite, doubling down.”

This should really not surprise us. Just because many of us think it would be unwise for Putin to continue to escalate this crisis, does not mean that he won’t do it anyway. Buoyed by Russian domestic public opinion, Putin has demonstrated remarkable resolve in the face of increasingly tough sanctions and isolation from the international community. The fact that escalating the conflict or even invading Ukraine may not be in Russia’s long-term interests is beside the point. If we continue to try to predict Putin’s behavior based on what we think is “wise” versus what he is actually doing, we will continue to be surprised.

And the Russian president has made it pretty clear how much farther he may go. According to General Philip Breedlove, NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Russia continues to amass combat forces on the Ukraine-Russia border. There are now well over 12,000 Russian combat troops deployed there, including seven battalion task groups and some special operations units, poised and ready for a full scale invasion if and when the time comes.

Meanwhile, as armed rebels continue to intimidate investigators and further contaminate evidence from the Malaysia Air crash site, Australia, the Netherlands, Malaysia, Britain, and Germany are thinking through how best to protect international investigators with some combination of armed and unarmed police and military troops. In this increasingly tense environment, foreign boots on the ground are looking increasingly inevitable. The question is, whose boots will they be?

Having previously announced his desire for outside forces to protect the interests of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, Putin has already set the stage for putting boots on the ground under the pretext of a “peacekeeping” or “humanitarian” mission. He is now physically postured to do this unilaterally. If past is prologue, among these Russian “peacekeeping” troops will be others who look suspiciously similar to Russian special operations troops, further tipping the scales and complicating the facts on the ground.

As General Breedlove, wrote on July 16, “Russia’s actions in and around Ukraine have not been, and are not now, defensive in nature…This is a 21st-century offensive employing 21st-century tools for strategic deception and calculated ambiguity to achieve Moscow’s political goals.” It is time to recognize this power play for the cunning asymmetrical warfare it actually is.

But to actually deter further Russian aggression requires an overt demonstration of competence and will. Vladimir Putin must have credible reason to believe that further escalation is not only contrary to his long-term interest, but that the military operation will fail—or at least be much harder and much more costly than he currently thinks it will be.

Those who argue that assisting the Ukrainian military would be “reckless and provocative,” misunderstand the logic of deterrence. Unless the Ukrainian military can provide a credible counter-force, Putin will continue to think this is a fight easily won. As Philip Stephens explains, “weakness stokes the Russian president’s expansionism.”

The U.S. and NATO have rightly expressed their support for Ukraine and have taken small steps to support their military. Non-lethal aid, like body armor, medical supplies, food, and other equipment are critical. But for Ukraine to present a viable deterrent to Putin’s ambitions, it needs funding to pay troops, advisers to help plan, intelligence support for targeting, training for new recruits, and yes, ammunition and defensive weapons.

All this can be provided without putting U.S. or NATO boots in the fight. Military aid is not the same as military intervention. Far from escalating the conflict or provoking Putin, bolstering Ukraine’s forces can actually deter further incursions by demonstrating to an ambitious aggressor the very real possibility that escalation will result in a messy and ultimately embarrassing demonstration of his military might.

Failing to adequately assist the Ukrainian military as Russian troops position for invasion is the opposite of deterrence, as it provokes, through demonstrated weakness, the very behavior we are trying to avoid.

Dr. Janine Davidson is senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. Her areas of expertise include defense strategy and policy, military operations, national security, and civil-military relations.

 

[W!nston]

'Complacent' NATO Unprepared For Russian Threat: British Lawmakers

How well will NATO prepare for a Russian invasion in the Baltics? Moving more personnel, equipment and ammunition in a military build up would probably raise the stakes again.

'Complacent' NATO Unprepared For Russian Threat: British Lawmakers
REUTERS | By Kylie MacLellan | 8:00 pm July 30 2014

LONDON (Reuters) - NATO is not prepared for the threat of a Russian attack on one of its members, British lawmakers said on Thursday, calling for more equipment and troops to be positioned in the Baltic States, which, they said, were particularly vulnerable.

Parliament's Defense Select Committee said events in Crimea and eastern Ukraine had revealed "alarming deficiencies" in NATO's preparedness and should be a "wake-up call".

The military alliance has stepped up exercises in eastern Europe since Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimea Peninsula in March. Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

Ukraine's neighbor and NATO-member Poland has said it wants the alliance to permanently station troops in the region as a guarantee against Russian intervention. But most NATO members are reluctant because of the cost and the risk of further antagonizing the Kremlin.

"NATO has been too complacent about the threat from Russia, and it is not well-prepared," said Rory Stewart, chairman of the committee, made up of lawmakers from the ruling Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as well as from opposition Labour.

"The instability in Russia, President Putin's world view and the failure of the West to respond actively in Ukraine means that we now have to address urgently the possibility, however small, of Russia repeating such tactics elsewhere. In particular, the NATO member states in the Baltic are vulnerable," he said.

Britain this week said it would send 1,350 military personnel and more than 350 vehicles to Poland for a NATO exercise in October, aimed at reassuring its allies in eastern Europe.

The committee's report said a NATO summit in Wales in September should agree plans for the positioning of equipment in the Baltic States - Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia - a continuous presence of NATO troops for training in the region and large-scale military exercises including representatives from all 28 NATO member states.

NATO should also improve its existing rapid reaction force, the committee said, as well as considering establishing a standing reserve force and a headquarters focused on eastern Europe and the Baltic.

The committee said the alliance also needed to be better prepared to deal with unconventional tactics, such as cyber-attacks, information warfare and irregular militia.

Substantial Russian minorities and the influence of Russian media make Estonia and Latvia particularly vulnerable to the type of information warfare that the committee said had been used to incite disturbances in Ukraine.

"The use of asymmetric warfare tactics present a substantial challenge to a political military alliance such as NATO," the report said. "These tactics are designed to test the lower limit of the alliance's response threshold, are likely to involve deniable actors, and work to exploit political division."

The European Union and the United States on Tuesday agreed further sanctions against Russia, in the strongest international action yet over Moscow's support for rebels in eastern Ukraine.

Moscow denies it is arming the rebels, protestations that are ridiculed in the West.

(Editing by Louise Ireland)