Should we arm Ukraine? ("Foreign Affairs", USA)

20
Should we arm Ukraine? ("Foreign Affairs", USA)

Our publication has recently published a series of articles on supply. weapons Ukraine. As a result, heated debate broke out, and we decided to ask a group of experts to speak in favor or against the proposal in order to show a wide range of opinions.

Proposed question: “Should the United States provide any assistance to the Ukrainian government to organize resistance to rebels supported by Russia?”

Results:

1) Fully support - 4

2) Support - 5

3) Neutral - 0

4) I do not support - 8

5) Strongly do not support - 10

Leon Aron (Leon Aron) - Director of the Department stories Of Russia at the American Institute Enterprise. The last book at the moment: “Roads to the Temple. True, the memories, ideas and ideals of the Russian revolution 1987-1991's. ”

Opinion: I fully support. Degrees of confidence: 10.

Comment: To argue about the fairness of arms supplies to a victim of overt aggression is not only immoral. Such a dispute shows strategic myopia. Today it is clear that for various geopolitical, ideological and political reasons, the lifelong president of Russia is engaged in a revanchist formation of an authoritarian state that seeks to occupy a dominant position in most of Eurasia in order to counteract what Russian leaders call "Western striving under US leadership for world domination and destruction Of Russia. " In the long run, such a political course poses a serious strategic challenge to Western countries. The regime obsessed with revanchist sentiments, based on an authoritarian-nationalist model, has approximately 1700 nuclear warheads on 500 installations. To meet this challenge, Western countries must develop their long-term strategy. The only way to force Vladimir Putin to reconsider his plans is to make his strategy too expensive (being a realist, he spits on world public opinion and other such nonsense) and thus put him in a difficult dilemma. Democratic, stable, oriented to the West, and, possibly, allied relations connected with the West, Ukraine will create a very serious obstacle to the realization of Putin’s plans. Perhaps this obstacle will prove insurmountable for him. Therefore, he seeks to destabilize Ukraine and remove its leaders, with the prospect of creating a new pro-Russian authoritarian regime. Therefore, Ukraine’s survival as a pro-Western, European-oriented state is in the long-term interests of the West. Arming Ukraine, the West is increasing the political price of fulfilling its program for Russia.

Ian Bremmer is the president of the Eurasia Group and the author of the book “Every country is in itself: what happens when there is no leader in the world” (Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World).
Ukrainian soldiers near the town of Artyomovsk

Opinion: I absolutely do not support. Degree of confidence: 9.

Comment: I spoke with high-ranking political advisers regarding the promotion of the idea of ​​supplying weapons to Ukraine. None of them has any idea what to do if, in response, Russia increases the intensity of the attacks. Without clear red lines, it is meaningless and reckless to act this way. In addition, France and Germany, which have so far coordinated their actions with the United States, object to deliveries.

Michael E.Brown is the former head of the Institute for International Affairs and Political Science at George Washington University.

Opinion: I do not support. Degree of confidence: 7.

Valerie Bunce is a professor of international relations and management at Cornell University.


Opinion: I do not support. Degree of confidence: 8.

Comment: The supply of weapons to the Ukrainian army is problematic for two reasons. First, as the experience of Iraq has shown, by arming and training a weak and corrupt army, we simply waste money. Secondly, for Putin, the game is on a large scale, and not only because of his fears about the expansion of the European Union and NATO, but also because of the likelihood of popular anti-government protests from Ukraine to Russia. In short, he worries not only because of the threat to Russia's national security, but also because of the likelihood of losing power. Therefore, in response to the supply of American weapons to Ukraine, a sharp escalation of the conflict will follow. Vladimir Putin has gone too far, and he has nothing to lose.

Ayvo Daalder (Ivo H.Daalder) - Chairman of the Chicago Council for Global Affairs. In 2009-2013 - Permanent Representative of the United States to NATO.


Opinion: support. Degree of confidence: 9.

Comment: I am sure that the United States and NATO should supply Ukraine with weapons as part of military assistance. Something, of course, should not be delivered, for example, Tanks, F-16 aircraft and the like, but Kyiv did not ask for this. But radars for detecting artillery systems, reliable means of communication, Drones and anti-tank missiles are badly needed. Ukraine has been invaded and has every right to defend itself. We have not only the right, but also the obligation to help Ukraine defend itself by supplying it with weapons.

Keith Darden (Keith Darden) - Professor of the Institute of International Service at the American University in Washington.


Opinion: strongly disagree. Degree of confidence: 8.

Comment: This conflict is currently limited, and so it should remain. Talking about the supply of arms to Ukraine only feeds illusory hopes about the possibility of the victory of Ukrainian troops on the battlefield and reduces the chances of resolving the conflict. Rather, the result will be an escalation of the conflict, as Russia will try to inflict a humiliating defeat on the Ukrainian government forces. Minsk-2 is the best contract option that can lead Ukraine out of crisis. Unfortunately, instead of letting the Ukrainian government understand that it has no choice but to carry out constitutional reform and decentralize the country, preserve the non-aligned status of the state and eliminate corruption schemes for appropriating huge sums of money, we support in them that it’s good trained and equipped army of Ukraine will be the vanguard in the war of the West against Russia. This undermines the chances of the implementation of the Minsk agreements, and Ukraine will continue to shed blood and lose territory.

Paula Dobriansky is a senior fellow at the Future Diplomacy Project at Harvard University and chairman of the board of directors of the American Council on World Affairs. She was Deputy Secretary of State for International Affairs in 2001-2009.


Opinion: I fully support. Degree of confidence: 10.

Commentary: Failing Ukraine to provide effective assistance will reinforce Russian aggression and provoke a further destabilization of Europe. In addition, Moscow will be convinced of impunity and will be able to continue the aggression, this time against the Baltic republics and other countries, which is extremely dangerous.

Keith Gessen (Keith Gessen) - co-editor of the magazine n + 1, author of the book "All these sad young writers."


Opinion: I do not support. Degree of confidence: 7.

Comment: Talking about helping Ukraine can be a good way to encourage European diplomacy, but as a real plan of action, such help will lead to poor results. Without support aviation NATO, any supply of weapons will not change the balance of power, and Russian-backed rebels will maintain military superiority. That is, the supply of weapons will only prolong the conflict and lead to new victims.

Masha Gessen is a Russian-American journalist, writer and activist.


Opinion: support. Degree of confidence: 7.

Comment: This will only work if the United States provides enough help to organize an effective defense. Arming Ukraine for the sake of deterring Putin is meaningless, it will only entail a new bloodshed.

James Goldgeier - Head of the International Service Institute at American University in Washington.


Opinion: support. Degree of confidence: 7.

Comment: Russia continues to act to escalate the conflict in Ukraine without any response from the West. In 2014, Western countries made it clear that the expansion of Russian aggression would entail additional sanctions. However, the West did not force Putin to pay a high price for the hostilities unleashed with the support of Russia. The West is obliged to supply Ukraine with weapons for protection against the aggressor. The problem is that the Ukrainian armed forces are still not well organized enough to use the assistance received with high efficiency, and the government in Kiev is forced to desperately fight a severe economic crisis.

Robert Jervis is a professor of international relations at Columbia University.


Opinion: I absolutely do not support. Degree of confidence: 8.

Ivan Krastev (Ivan Krastev) - Chairman of the Center for Liberal Strategy in Sofia and a permanent researcher at the Humanitarian Institute in Vienna.


Opinion: I do not support. Degree of confidence: 8.

Robert Levgold - Professor of Emeritus at Columbia University.


Opinion: I do not support. Degree of confidence: 8.

Comment: I supported the provision of military assistance to Ukraine, but under certain conditions. Firstly, the Ukrainian side must reform its incompetent army. Secondly, at the same time it is necessary to negotiate with Russia, offering it an alternative. It is impossible to make only a part of this, that is, restrict ourselves with the supply of weapons to the just-beaten Ukrainian army. As a result, we will wedge a wedge between the United States and the European Union and give Russia a reason for the escalation of the conflict for which we are not ready.

Anatol Lieven - British writer, journalist and analyst, winner of the Orwell Prize.


Opinion: I absolutely do not support. Degree of confidence: 10.

Comment: Supporters of arms supplies to Ukraine have not learned anything since the Georgian 2008 war of the year. They can only achieve the start of a new Ukrainian offensive in the eastern regions, which will provoke a large-scale Russian invasion and the complete defeat of Ukraine. Are the US ready to send its troops to Ukraine to fight the Russian army? If not, then there is no need to talk about the supply of weapons.

Kimberly Marten is a professor of political science at Barnard College, Columbia University, and vice-director of the Harriman Institute for Russian, Eurasian, and Eastern European Studies.

Opinion: I absolutely do not support. Degree of confidence: 10.

Comment: I have repeatedly written in detail on this topic, including, along with co-author Rajan Menon. I summarize: First, Putin will not retreat, no matter what. By supplying weapons to Ukraine, we will only confirm his words addressed to Russian citizens about the involvement of the United States and NATO in fomenting a conflict in order to strike at Russian sovereignty and security. As a result, his rating will increase, and he will receive the right to openly send the Russian army to Ukraine, with the full support of society. Secondly, there is no action plan in case of escalation after arms transfers. The United States risks falling into a spiraling unwinding conflict without a point of exit from it. Third, without sending their military to the conflict zone, the United States will not control the use of the weapons supplied. As a result, anti-tank missiles delivered, for example, can be used either by Ukrainian militias not subordinate to the government or by pro-Russian rebels against American interests: for striking civilians, which will undermine the legitimacy of US aid in the eyes of Europeans and disrupt unity regarding the sanctions regime, as well as a strike on Russian territory, which will give Putin the necessary support for the escalation of violence. The supply of weapons will not bring the end of the conflict closer, since the Russian army is much bigger and more capable than the Ukrainian one and can adapt much better to changes on the battlefield. Putin’s desire to win in Ukraine is much stronger than the willingness of American public opinion to support the participation of the US Army in the defense of Ukraine, that is, in the war with Russia. The supply of weapons will provoke an increase in the intensity of the conflict and will strengthen Putin’s support in his homeland.

John Mearsheimer is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago.

Opinion: I absolutely do not support. Degree of confidence: 10.

Comment: The supply of arms to Ukraine will lead to an escalation of violence and drag out the war, but will not force Vladimir Putin to submit to the demands of the West. As a result, Ukraine will suffer, and the transatlantic alliance will be disrupted, as the Europeans, especially Germany, strongly oppose the supply of arms to the Ukrainian army.

Rajan Menon is a professor of political science at City College of New York University and a senior fellow at the Institute of War and Peace. Salzman at Columbia University.

Opinion: I absolutely do not support. Degree of confidence: 10.

Comment: Ukraine has the right to seek sources of arms supplies at any time when it wishes, so that it is not about the right to self-determination. But the full right of Ukraine to buy weapons is one thing, and the duty of the United States to supply these weapons is quite another. Ukraine is going through difficult times, that's for sure, but there is no reason to believe that danger to Ukraine means danger to the security of Europe and the United States, as argued by supporters of arms supplies to the Ukrainian army. It is reckless to enter into a confrontation with Russia in a place that Moscow, unlike Washington, considers extremely important for itself. This will certainly harm the security of Ukraine.

Alexander Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University in Newark.

Opinion: I fully support. Degree of confidence: 10.

Cynthia Roberts (Cynthia A.Roberts) is a professor of political science at Hunter College, New York University, and an adjunct professor at the Institute of War and Peace. Salzman at Columbia University.

Opinion: I do not support. Degree of confidence: 7.

Comment: During the current conflict, it is unwise to reject any foreign policy tools. However, the supply of weapons to the Ukrainian army will provoke an escalation of the conflict with Russia and prolong the bloodshed, and not lead to the defeat of the rebels. Putin plays in Ukraine at much higher rates than the United States, and the Ukrainian army is not capable. If the separatists can continue the attack on Mariupol, and, possibly, even further, then the pressure on Washington regarding the supply of weapons will increase. But it cannot be excluded that the final agreement for Ukraine will be even more disadvantageous. Therefore, it is now necessary to force all parties to negotiate. Then Ukraine will have a chance to carry out economic reforms with Western help.

Mary Elise Sarotte is a professor of history at the University of Southern California and Harvard, the author of the book The Falling: The Accidental Opening of the Berlin Wall (The Collapse: The Accidental Opening of the Berlin Wall).

Opinion: I absolutely do not support. Degree of confidence: 10.

Comment: Putin's striving for a violent reshaping of the European borders that emerged after the end of the Cold War represents an unjust and unjustified aggression. But unilateral retaliatory steps, for example, supplying Kiev with any military assistance Ukraine asks creates the risk of an escalation of the conflict with a nuclear power, without using other existing capabilities. It is more reasonable at this stage to agree that the actual split of Ukraine and the “Finlandization” of the western part is a lesser evil, especially since the 11-th paragraph of the Minsk Agreements leads to this. The agreement agreed by Hollande, Merkel, Putin and Poroshenko paves the way for the decentralization of Ukraine. Instead of unilateral military assistance, the United States should help Merkel to implement this program and provide humanitarian assistance to Ukrainian refugees. If it reaches the extreme, and Putin will attack the Baltic States, then the answer should come from NATO, not the United States.

Joshua Itskovich Shifrinson (Joshua R.Itskovich Shifrinson) - Professor of the Institute of Government and Public Services at the University of Texas.

Opinion: I absolutely do not support. Degree of confidence: 9.

Comment: Two points. First, I do not understand what the provision of military assistance, in which the Ukrainian government needs for defense. Pure defensive weapons do not exist. There are bureaucratic terms that describe certain types of weapons as defensive. But in fact, this weapon can also be used for an offensive, just as financial aid allocated for good purposes can be used in a completely different way. Therefore, I do not believe that the United States can provide only defensive assistance, and that Russia will perceive American intervention as rendering support only in defense. This follows a second point. The Ukrainian conflict consists of several parameters: it is a clash of will and interests in a certain territory. Whatever you say, no matter how cool, but Russia is much more interested in Ukraine than the United States, and residents of the eastern regions of Ukraine really want to limit Kiev’s influence on their affairs. The desire of Russia and its satellites in Eastern Ukraine to fight is much higher than the desire of the United States to help the Ukrainian government. In addition, the geographical location of the conflict zone says that Russia is able to cope with any assistance provided by the United States to Ukraine. By providing unconditional support by military means, we add fuel to the fire and lead to a new escalation of the conflict, provoke a direct clash between the US and Russia and create the alienation of Moscow from Washington. Only an agreement between the Ukrainian government, Russia and the rebels can put an end to the conflict. American aid, on the contrary, will lead to a hardening of the positions of all parties.

Jack Snyder - Professor of International Relations in the Department of Political Science at the Institute of War and Peace. Salzman at Columbia University.


Opinion: I absolutely do not support. Degree of confidence: 10.

Comment: Eastern Ukraine is not the theater of war where you can fight with the Russian army.

James Stavridis is the head of the Institute of Law and Diplomacy at Taft University and former commander of NATO forces.


Opinion: I fully support. Degree of confidence: 10.

Comment: The wording "any help" is problematic. It is better to say this: put a defensive weapon to support Ukrainian efforts to protect the state. The original wording distorts the situation, giving the impression of being ready to give a “signed blank check,” and no one talks about that.

Angela Stent is the director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian and Eastern European Studies and a professor at Georgetown University.

Opinion: I do not support. Degree of confidence: 9.

Commentary: It is not clear what will happen when the weapon reaches Ukraine, taking into account the situation at the front in the Donbas. In the case of the supply of arms, Russia may escalate, and the consequences for Ukraine will be catastrophic.

Kathryn Stoner is a senior fellow at the Freeman Spoli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, a faculty member at the Center for Democracy, Development and the Power of Law at Stanford, and the director of the faculty in the international policy research program at Stanford University.


Opinion: support. Degree of confidence: 7.

Given the recent actions of the Ukrainian government forces, it is not easy to understand how they will use the weapons they received without NATO instructors. However, the Ukrainian president asked first of all to supply reconnaissance equipment, such as radar for detecting artillery. With these devices, the Ukrainian military are able to handle.

Daniel Treisman is a professor of political science at the University of California, author of the book: Return: Journey of Russia from Gorbachev to Medvedev (The Return: Journey from Gorbachev to Medvedev).


Opinion: support. Degree of confidence: 5.

There are many reasonable arguments for and against the supply of weapons to Ukraine. Opponents say that it is immoral to send weapons to the conflict zone if it only prolongs hostilities and bloodshed. Is it possible. In addition, it is not clear how many weapons are needed, since the Ukrainian army is disorganized, lacks the most necessary things and is filled with Russian agents. But I do not agree that the supply of arms will provoke Putin to escalate. Of course, he will try to respond immediately. But the Russian president already went for a gradual escalation of the conflict, and it is completely unclear where and when he will stop. At the same time, Russia's open intervention in the war has its price. Surveys show that public opinion does not support the entry of Russian troops, and the growing number of casualties among the “volunteers” will cause discontent in society. Western sanctions and the fall in oil prices are already affecting the Russian economy, and tougher sanctions will cause additional damage. The supply of weapons and the provision of other assistance, for example in intelligence gathering, tactical councils, etc., will help stabilize the front line, while the failure to provide assistance will likely encourage separatists to seize new territories. It is necessary to continue the democratic efforts to make peace, but for this to happen, Putin must be forced to make serious negotiations, and the sanctions have so far failed to achieve this result. At the same time, NATO is obliged to urgently take measures to strengthen the defense capacity of the Baltic republics, first of all, in case of a sluggish hybrid war, so as not to undermine the credibility of the Fifth Article of the statute.

William Wohlfort - Professor at Dartmouth College
.

Opinion: I do not support. Degree of confidence: 8.

Comment: Settlement by negotiation is much preferable to escalating or freezing a conflict. Arms shipments do not bring a diplomatic solution closer, since Russia is still able to maintain a military advantage.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

20 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    4 March 2015 05: 08
    It’s better to send there the rarest thing in Ukraine that will turn and stop the whole war which for a long time has not been there HANDS and that’s enough, otherwise they pull the walking dead by the ropes they do, what they are ordered to, and who orders themselves like Psaki downs.
    1. 0
      4 March 2015 11: 59
      Quote: Sasha75
      It’s better to send there the rarest thing in Ukraine that will turn and stop the whole war, which for a long time there is no HEALTH

      Well you give! And where did they get it from?
  2. +6
    4 March 2015 05: 22
    Smart people carry this. And those who are FOR and those who are against.
    1. +4
      4 March 2015 09: 12
      In fact of the matter. I read the statistics - many are against it, I thought their eyes opened. But no, even those who are categorically against, for the most part, say that they are against, because it still will not stop Putin, and not that this is a direct violation of the Minsk agreements, and even more so no one even remembers those who die from the so-called defensive weapons. Ukrainians and Russians are second-class creatures for them.
      1. 0
        4 March 2015 14: 01
        Quote: sannych
        , and even more so no one even remembers those who die from the so-called. defensive weapons


        Right! And I have the same thought — ON PEOPLE of Donbass, NO ONE even hinted — about their right to life, the right to their opinion and the right to decide their fate. Ghouls they are all and-FOR and AGAINST nonhumans ....
      2. The comment was deleted.
  3. +6
    4 March 2015 05: 24
    What kind of world do these gentlemen live in? No one remembered the people who are fighting for survival, well, unless Cynthia Roberts is timid.
    And what kind of a question is NATO’s supply of weapons for a long time, and the states too, while quietly.
    1. 0
      4 March 2015 18: 46
      Quote: Andrea
      In what world do these gentlemen live?

      In the one that belongs to them and only to them. They seek to resolve the conflict to the maximum benefit of the United States, and those of the United States that are closest to them. All over the world, the concepts of conscience, honor, mercy, and all that jazz are actually only interested in Russians.
      All other countries and peoples only use rhetoric based on these concepts, but apply it exclusively to their mercantile advantage. You need to understand the world in which we are with them.
      They all strive to rob and escape to a strong place, home, taking away the loot. Therefore, they reason as they reason. Pay attention, even arguments that seem to be "for us" - they are not for us, but people simply doubt the effectiveness of the supply of weapons. And we, being forced to fight, strive to discourage the enemy from attacking. Or we decide to take some land for ourselves. In both cases, we behave and reason radically differently than all these gentlemen. We have a common planet, but the worlds are different, not at all similar to each other, we are completely different.
  4. +8
    4 March 2015 06: 24
    It is once again confirmed that the Americans live in their own world, far from reality. They probably absorb America's "exclusiveness" and hatred of Russia with their mother's milk. Two in one bottle, but with the disgusting smell of American fascism.
    1. +1
      4 March 2015 08: 48
      Quote: rotmistr60
      Once again, it is confirmed that Americans live in their own world, far from reality.

      Yes, they are terribly far from the real world.
      But in reality, the decision to supply weapons to the Kiev regime will turn into the implementation of the slogan of the Cuban rebels of 56-58, slightly modified in accordance with the current realities: "The USA is our arsenal, Poroshenko is our transport!" soldier
      In addition, even at the congressional hearings, the American black general said (McCain attacked him for this) that the supply of weapons makes no sense - Russia is close and will be able to react quickly, adequately, and even more so to these supplies. bully
      1. +1
        4 March 2015 09: 28
        Some of the weapons will simply be stolen, some will go to the militia. But Obama apparently decided to show his "determination" in implanting "democracy" in the American way.
  5. +2
    4 March 2015 07: 12
    We must throw weapons in Texas so that the local fighters with the rotten Washington regime do not feel unprotected! And it is necessary to do this. Even Ulster did not declare something for a long time. There, too, the guys are fighting for freedom and independence from the English crown, against poverty and genocide of the British.
    1. 0
      4 March 2015 07: 47
      Perhaps this is superfluous, they only have nuclear weapons in the economy (and this is not a fact), and tanks, combat aircraft, for some, are in the garages.
  6. +3
    4 March 2015 07: 28
    Yes, I did not care about the reasoning of all Western "professors" and others like them. These types can at least get stuck in their "predictions". I am guided by the statements of our President, and not by the bullshit of any mongrel.
  7. 0
    4 March 2015 07: 29
    With all their democracy, only one remembered
    residents of the eastern regions of Ukraine really want to limit the influence of Kiev on their affairs

    In between, and no one remembered the conditions that the junta creates. And so they are afraid of a collision with us. And what does the Baltic have to do with it ?, they have already convinced themselves. Or to raise the degree.
  8. +1
    4 March 2015 07: 32
    all the multidimensionality and multidimensionality of geopolitical realities have been reduced to a single factor - Putin is "babayka", "beech" is tyrannizing the animal!
  9. +3
    4 March 2015 07: 42
    from these comments everything is clear and understandable. people who have not fought themselves, who have not had a civil war in the country in the last 15 years .. just do not understand what they are saying! As usual, Russia is to blame for everything and blah blah blah blah! It is clear that they do not have a brain, because it never even occurred to us to "conquer by force" a kindred country! fool And the fact that we will then go to the poor countries of the Baltic ... is already a high degree of schizophrenia! wassat Why did they surrender to us? Which one of them would have thought! Or do they judge it all by themselves, "I don't bite like that"? !!! So we are not such stupid people as they are! Or as we are considered "our five-columnists" !!! fool Why the hell are we these countries that hate us? fool We lived beautifully without them for so many years! They forgot about the main thing, that if the conflict develops into a nuclear one, then life will no longer seem raspberry to anyone! And the DPRK has already promised to drop a nuclear tactical bomb on the United States, and they will say that it was us again ... and then the scribe will come to everyone! negative
  10. Fox
    +3
    4 March 2015 08: 38
    A lover of selfies and "male" (with dumbbells) aerobics extended sanctions against Russia for a year. Who else has illusions about the imminent legalization of US arms supplies to Ukraine?

    Over the next 1-2 weeks, the valiant Ukropov so-called army will violate the Minsk agreements and will again shell the settlements of New Russia with heavy artillery, which they were not going to withdraw anywhere.

    If the leadership of Russia still has at least some crumbs of self-esteem, then it's time to take any decisive action, namely, take Mariupol or Kharkov (to choose from).

    Further procrastination and slurred pursuit will not lead to anything good. Most Russians are simply annoyed and exhausted by the Kremlin's senseless, obscure and absurd policies in the Ukrainian Civil War.

    How much can mu-mu drive? It’s just some shame. Soon, all earned by overwork, ratings will begin to run uncontrollably to zero and then to minus ... There is no more strength to endure.
  11. 0
    4 March 2015 08: 44
    Just a fact
    Last summer, in the midst of hostilities in Ukraine, 80-100 teachers from leading American universities came to St. Petersburg to attend an internal conference. When approving the conference, only ONE question was asked- Will it be safe for us? The answer was given - emotionally the situation is tense, but absolutely safe.
    The group DEMONSTRATELY arrived, resolved its internal issues and left.
  12. +1
    4 March 2015 09: 06
    Not a word about who made all this mess in Ukraine, who sponsored and organized the armed seizure of power, who brought the fascists to power. Instead, both are trying to get away from the root causes of the conflict and shift the blame for everything that happened to Russia! Political cheats, these Western politicians, political scientists and hedgehogs with them. For such things you need to beat these "smart guys" with a candelabrum.
  13. +1
    4 March 2015 10: 48
    I'm just wondering, do those who write about Russian aggression really believe in it, or are they just trolls?
  14. +1
    4 March 2015 12: 49
    And no one noticed that this and other similar Western publications a priori address the fact of the resumption of hostilities? All talk about the supply or non-delivery of weapons is considered in this context.
  15. 0
    4 March 2015 14: 52
    I read it and was surprised. How do these countries still exist with such "specialists"

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"