The administration seems to be split on the question of the day, which is whether or not to start providing direct arms to the Ukrainian military. The Pentagon is pushing hard for the policy, but is facing some resistance.
The Ukrainian military has been struggling against eastern rebels in recent weeks, and the Pentagon argues that a plan to send javelin anti-tank missiles and small arms to them would “deter” the rebels and put the Ukrainian military back in the driver’s seat.
Other advisers warn that adding more weaponry to the civil war won’t necessarily “solve” the problem, and say the Pentagon’s plan to arm the military could force Russia’s hand into providing more direct weaponry to the rebels, escalating what is in many ways already a proxy war.
With the Pentagon already planning to deploy US ground troops to Ukraine later this year to train the military, they see arming them as a no-brainer, though if it does simply escalate the conflict even further, which seems highly likely, it might but the US troops in harms way.
A NATO nation supplying weapons to a civil war? Especially in Ukraine where fascist coup snipers destroyed a democratically elected government?
If the U.S. starts sending arms Putin would likely escalate the near term and crush Ukraine before those arms made the situation worse.
Hitler "crushed" most of Europe but was ultimately defeated.
The US cannot not NATO can defeat Russia in any conventional war. If nukes are pulled out then everyone loses especially the US. The US is a paper tiger, and loses conflicts because of bad planning, and inferior equipment. Period
> Hitler "crushed" most of Europe but was ultimately defeated.
By Stalin.
Yeah Mikey, you are even more Fox Newsy than usual.
…..defeated primarily by the Russians.
OK as long as Russia can sent arms and trainers to Mexico's rebels.
We would genocide them in a jiffy then claim that there never were any rebels and they were all communists anyway.
Sounds like the Cuban missile crisis in reverse,
with the US putting them on Russia's door step.
My understanding is that the Cuban missiles were only after we put ours in Turkey.
I was under the impression that it was simultaneous. Of course that part of the story was omitted from the history books.
The "Cuban missile crisis" is a perfect example of the way the western media is used to control the narrative. How many people are aware that the US started the crisis by putting missiles on the USSR's doorstep (on the Turkish border) or that the crisis was resolved when BOTH sides agreed to withdraw their missiles? It would be at least as appropriate call it the Turkish missile crisis.
Large amounts of our commonly accepted history is bunk.
Nice article.
Rearming the Ukraine government has everything to do with selling more killing machines – it´s good business, especially if it escalates the war – more arms, more war, more and more arms…while the Ukraine and its people go down the drain.
The problem is that if the US/NATO insists on supplying weapons, it will not be only the Ukraine and its people who go down the drain. But then I guess the US military thinks that as long as whatever happens happens "over there" (including Europe) how bad can things get for the American people?
I used to believe that the sane people, the adults in the room, would stop the insane, megalomaniacal apocalyptic rush to mutual assured destruction. I no longer believe there are any sane people left in the "leaders" room…and the "voters" have been co-opted and they don't know it (or won't admit it.)
What basis do you have for your belief that "Ukraine and its people will go down the drain"?
They already are. The economy is in the crapper, dead. Maybe Europe and the IMF will inject a few billion to pay back russian debt? Nazis are roosting all over the place. Major destruction in the east, which used to be a fat part of the industrial heartland. Crimea is being stripped bare by russian "tax collectors". 100'000+ people have fled to Russia. Ukraine no longer even transits Russian natural gas, it's going via Turkey now. What other evidence do you need? Or do you hope that fracking will save Ukraine?
Stop inhaling jenkem smoke.
Its just that there are too few Americans willing to envision American provocations for what they are: Provocations. Americans only send arms to countries that are threatened by the ambitions of totalitarian states and "terrorists", we believe. Like Israel, it is thought that the US is simply incapable of self-service. Presuppositions of this kind die hard. And I'm afraid that a good knee to the nuts will do little to cure this pathology. To this day there is no comprehension of why 9/11 occurred. Regrettably, the stakes are awfully high in this case.
What better way to R&R your weapons of war, ncluding psy war, than under actual war time conditions.It is a way to build “Professional Officer Corps” , entertain gamers and flag wavers with media hype, but best of all rather than put your own major forces in danger pay others to die. Israel uses weaponry US began developing in Iraq directed energy and even the small neutron warheads in Syria. It is a good economic move as in US where millions of daily wages depend upon war. You can always find national mixture of intelligence and greed that one can pay no matter the blooodletting they unleash upon others.
I doubt if US ground troops would need to become directly involved in the fighting. What's needed is US air power. Give Putin a long, "slow bleed" war. It worked with Milosevic. Putin sending in his whole rickety conscript army would actually be quite convenient for NATO. Chances are, few of his conscripts would be willing to die for Ukraine or the greater glory of the oligarchs who have been robbing them for 23 years, and the officers are notoriously incompetent. Russia hasn't won a war without US help since 1878. Equally, the further west Putin comes, the more vulnerable he is to NATO attack. He would be operating in enemy country and could expect little sympathy from the Ukrainians, who hate the Russians the way the Irish hate the English (and for much the same reasons!). Moreover, the war would probably escalate fairly quickly, spreading to the Baltic republics and to air attacks along the Arctic and Pacific coasts and into the Caucasus (NATO effectively surrounds Russia). Putin is trapped. He can't stay where he is, he can't advance and he can't retreat. Sooner or later, military force will probably be the only alternative.
Are you serious??? Russia would crush any American planes coming into Ukraine. Furthermore Russia would send the "Yankee's" packing, since this would be a brutal defeat of "so-called" American power. America and NATO do not possess the resolve, or the planning to defeat Russia in any conventional war, plus the revolt from NATO countries would be massive. The populations of Europe do not support the US terror machine, and its lapdog the EU especially against Russia. Russia from a military standpoint would prove once an for all that Uncle Sam's mouth is all that and nothing else!
We've heard from you before. You're the one who earned his history degree at Toilet Bowl College, where they decorate your diploma with flecks of cow shit before handing it to you. Go spend some time at National Review where you can find many crazies like yourself. You'lll be happier, troll.
There can be no doubt at this point that America would have its butt handed to it in Ukraine. Is it not bad enough that every single terrorist war the US instigates around the globe that it LOSES! When has the US actually had a victory?? Uncle Sam's dreams of worldwide grandeur and hegemony have failed, and Ukraine will prove how weak American military might really is in the face of a real power like Russia. One cannot believe all of the lies, and fabricated tripe coming from the prestitute western media, because it is all manufactured to damn the real power being Russia.
Actually, I suspect the US military would do quite well versus the Russian military in a conventional war where technological superiority,. etc. make a big difference.
What the US can't win are the unconventional wars that follow conventional victories. And like you say, if the nukes come out, everyone loses. So I hope we don't see our competing views tested.
We cannot even defeat the Taliban after fourteen years. If we cannot do that how can we defeat Russia? The Taliban even before 9/11 (if you believe the official mythology …and I do not) were loving in THE STONE AGE. Fourteen years and we cannot defeat them, conclusively?
Ask yourself if that makes any sense. Ask yourself if that has the ring of truth to it now.
Oh please! Americans will swallow just about anything.
Georgy,
I'm not sure where you think you're disagreeing with me. The US won the conventional aspect of the war in Afghanistan in less than two months. What they did not win, have not won and never can win is an extended unconventional "counter-insurgency" campaign.
If the US and Russia line their tanks, artillery, mechanized infantry, combat aircraft up against each other and go head to head, the US will likely make short order of Russia's conventional armed forces. Holding on to or exerting control over anything they gain by doing so? Highly unlikely.
This is likely correct. Western armed forces can bring so much automated and synchronized overkill to the battle field it's not even funny. We have gone to baroque excesses out of sheer bloody-mindedness and because we can.
The American military is good a small wars where technology really counts. Big wars require large quantities of good stuff and reasonably trained soldiers. There isn't the production capacity to make the high tech stuff fast enough, or the time to train the troops well enough to use it.
Russia would be fighting with short and secure logistics and on ground they know. Russian tactical missiles guarantee that there won't be any sitting around in peace and comfort waiting for the word to attack – there will be no "behind the front line".
America might win but they won't survive the cost in lives and treasure. They will be the UK after WW2. ; exhausted and bankrupt. On to the stage comes China…
Offhand I'd say the US would establish air superiority in 24 hours, air supremacy within a week, and that Russian logistics, far from being "secure," would come apart at the seams within the same time period, resulting in complete inability to deliver supplies, munitions or reinforcements into the battle area with any significant degree of reliability.
The real question would be whether or not the Russians could achieve a comparable disorganization of US logistics. That would probably depend largely on where the pre-war US buildup took place, how big that buildup could be before hostilities opened, and how long the day-to-day logistical train had to be.
Strange that no-one is calling this process – "Ukrainization of the War". You know – the same old sh-t – "let the South Vietnamese boys do the dying for their freedom". "Let the Afghan (Iraqi) boys do the dying for their freedom". "We will just supply the necessary arms". It is such a weak strategy and proven wrong time and again. Luckily for the War Party; to paraphrase Lincoln, "Most Americans can be fooled over and over again". Just keep doing military flyovers and honor guards at everything from carwash openings to dog shows – the idiots are patriots – patridiots, if you will.