The whole Crimea belongs to Vladimir Putin, and the “nervous” Ukraine is looking in the direction of the United States in expectation of help, but Washington is still denying military support to this country, reports Defense One 20 in March.
With an insignificant majority of votes, the interviewed military insiders of the National Journal edition spoke in favor of providing military assistance - 57% in favor, against 43% (61 people were polled). The question was whether to start shipping to Ukraine weapons, ammunition, and intelligence information, or not.
Supporters of military aid say that it is necessary to send a clear signal to Putin that "he has no right to illegally annex neighboring territories." Those who speak out say that the provision of military assistance "will open a Pandora's box" and it would be "too expensive" for the United States. Their position is that "why should we be drawn into fighting with Russia in a territory that is not strategically important for us?".
The publication cites some insider statements.
“Military support will increase Putin’s risks and he will have less opportunity to escalate the situation in the short term.”
“While Ukraine will offer military resistance to Russia, the efforts of the West should be focused on resolving the issue diplomatically until the situation gets out of control.”
“We won the Cold War without a single shot, and we have a chance to win this battle without personally pulling the trigger.”
- The United States supplied weapons to Georgia without getting involved in the war. Obama can do the same, but apparently he lacks determination.
“Help needs to be given if Putin continues to send troops into Ukraine.”
- We drew the red line, and now we must provide military assistance if we want to regain the confidence of our friends and allies.
- Too late. We must negotiate to save face. We do not need a new cold war. Putin perceives Obama as a weak politician. Sending a weapon will not convince him otherwise.
- Our weapons and ammunition will not help bridge the gap in capabilities between the Ukrainian and Russian troops. Although intelligence information may to some extent help the Ukrainians, but this will further exacerbate tensions in US-Russian relations.
- We should not pretend that Ukraine is under the protection of the US / NATO. This is not true. The provision of military assistance will help Ukraine organize resistance, but in the end Ukrainian troops will be defeated. It is better to pay more attention to the intensification of defense efforts within NATO.
- We should not be on the verge of war with Russia because of Ukraine and the Crimea.
- The establishment of closer military ties between Ukraine and the West will provoke even stronger. Russian reaction in this matter
“The United States and the NATO countries cannot bring their troops into Ukraine as easily as Putin can, who knows that Kiev is not capable of providing effective opposition.” NATO allies should pay more attention to the defense of the Baltic countries (including taking into account requests from Sweden and Finland) before getting involved in the war in Ukraine. Putin is doing what the Russian tsars did, which absorbed the peripheral countries, so that their internal problems would become a headache for Moscow (recall the seizure of Chechnya in the 1860s). Let him (Putin) create problems for himself. We need to strengthen work with the Ukrainian military to increase their combat capability, to train Ukrainian troops in Poland. To consider the question of the economic stifling of Kaliningrad and block the water communications of this region. Let us comprehensively strengthen our positions before offering Ukraine an “umbrella” of NATO.
- We must never forget that the United States does not have vital interests in Ukraine, unlike Russia. One must be careful in dealing with another nuclear state.
- We have already lost this battle, Putin will not leave. If we want to do something, the help and support of Ukraine should be provided in conjunction with the efforts of other NATO countries.