Washington does not believe arms to Ukraine can change the tide of war, it is actually aimed at Europeans
The New York Times claims that top US and NATO officials are seriously discussing arming Ukraine. Among the ones advocating arming Ukraine are the Secretary of State John Kerry, Obama's National Security advisor Susan Rice, NATO Commander general Breedlove, Top US general Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
A wish list under discussion amounts to $3 billion in military assistance including drones, armored vehicles and anti-armor missiles.
Anissa Naouai, host of In the Now show, interviewed James Jatras, a well known Washington insider, former U.S. diplomat, GOP Senate policy adviser, lobbyist and expert on Russia, Serbia, Europe and the Middle East.
Some of the key points from his interview are:
- US arming Ukraine is very likely. When you see a policy discussion report in The New York Times, experience shows the policy is already being conducted covertly and this is just a way to bringing into public view a program that's already been initiated (NATO shell rounds are already detected in Gorlovka, Ukraine).
Nobody in Washington imagines with the best of support Kiev forces will be able to win this militarily.
Arming of Ukraine is primarily directed against Europeans. Since there is more and more dissension in European ranks from the US' confrontational policy the only way to scare the EU wimps back into a more confrontational position is to turn up the heat and the chaos. (Chief of US Army in the Europe is already awarding medals to crippled Ukrainian soldiers).
This is a clear parallel to the Balkan conflicts. There the United States also needed to demonstrate leadership by escalating conflict and dragging reluctant Europeans with them (bombing Serbs in 1995 and 1999, facilitate an inflow of Islamists to bolster the Bosnian Muslims in Bosnia and Albanian separatists in Serbia, and finally creating a NATO client state in Kosovo)
Arming of Ukraine could be counter-productive for American policymakers; instead of scaring the Europeans in becoming more confrontational, it could actually scare them off.
There is a non-military way out. The Washington needs to step back, let the moderate voices in the European Union reach an agreement with Moscow and together they can help bring parties inside Ukraine to negotiated solution.
One of the US reasons for arming the Kiev forces would force Russia to overt intervention in Ukraine which than can be to justify the script that we've seen so far.
Concerning Obama's comment on US brokering the deal for "transition of power" in Ukraine instead of power sharing deal which was actually signed in Kiev in February 2014, Obama has a somewhat unfortunate tendency, maybe a laudable one, to speak of scripts sometimes.
It seems that slowly but surely we are heading for international/global conflict/war. Everything is driven by US hawkish effort and destructive desire to remain the undisputed global bully.
Instability in Europe is needed to show to Europeans that they still need US big brother taking care of them.
In addition, global instability and wars are necessary if US wants to stay at the top of the league. US establishment knows it doesn’t stand a chance of winning a fair economic game against China and BRICS if there is a stability in the world.