• Obama Urged To Provide Ukraine With "Defensive Lethal Assistance", BBC Produce Propaganda Report
    21 replies, posted
[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/80793000/jpg/_80793883_c0231956-farmer_rescues_hedgehog_from_cattle_grid-spl.jpg[/img] [quote=BBC]President Obama is being urged to supply Ukraine with "defensive lethal assistance", which sounds almost like a contradiction in terms. James Morgan asks what people mean by "defensive" weapons - and finds out it's what a hedgehog has. It's widely believed in the US, and in other Nato countries, that Russia is not only arming the rebels but sending soldiers to fight alongside them, so the pressure is increasing on the White House to ramp up military supplies to the Ukrainian government to help it resist a new offensive. Currently the US only provides non-lethal equipment, such as gas masks, night-vision goggles and radar. How much further can it go without escalating the conflict or being seen as an aggressor? A report by three US think-tanks this week calls for more non-lethal aid - such as drones, secure communications equipment and armoured Humvees - but also "defensive" lethal assistance, specifically anti-tank missiles. "Ukrainian light anti-armour capabilities are severely lacking at a time when the Russians have moved large numbers of tanks and armoured personnel carriers into the Donbass," the report says. But can a missile really be "defensive"?[/quote] [quote=BBC]"Any weapon is defensive if you're using it to defend yourself or your country," says Colin Clark, editor of Breaking Defense magazine. "And since Putin is the aggressor here, if we supply weapons to those fighting against him they are, by definition, defensive." ..... "If you're looking for a metaphor - think about a hedgehog. Its spikes are prickly but ultimately they are only useful in defence. So how can the US make Ukraine more hedgehog-like? More spiky and harder to attack?"[/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-31141840[/url]
Perhaps they will provide the tank hulls, while the Ukrainians will have to add the guns.
Not as if we don't have the military surplus for it. Though, I'd rather sell it than just give it away. Then at least we can make some cash on it while just appearing as doing business as opposed to openly confronting Russia over the issue and losing.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47116781]Not as if we don't have the military surplus for it. Though, I'd rather sell it than just give it away. Then at least we can make some cash on it while just appearing as doing business as opposed to openly confronting Russia over the issue and losing.[/QUOTE] I can personally attest that we have enough 500lb and 1000lb dumb bombs recreate the Great Wall of China, not to mention the guidance kits to make all of them 'JDAMs'. I'm sure we can spare a few TOW I's and M2 Carl Gustavs to help 'em out.
"Defensive lethal assistance" is the best obfuscating euphemism for "guns" I've ever heard.
Fucking hurry up and do it already. Goddamn.
[quote]"Ukrainian light anti-armour capabilities are severely lacking at a time when the Russians have moved large numbers of tanks and armoured personnel carriers into the Donbass," the report says.[/quote] AT missiles are fine for what the Ukrainians need and can only really be used defensively anyway
[url]http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-would-see-us-moves-to-arm-ukraine-as-declaration-of-war/515654.html[/url]
you guys realize this would likely make things even worse right? here is a good explanation of why [url]http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/09/how-not-to-save-ukraine-arming-kiev-is-a-bad-idea/[/url] cached version for those that can't see it [url]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2B4a6PBHgEEJ:foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/09/how-not-to-save-ukraine-arming-kiev-is-a-bad-idea/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=br[/url]
[QUOTE=Ta16;47116814]I can personally attest that we have enough 500lb and 1000lb dumb bombs recreate the Great Wall of China, not to mention the guidance kits to make all of them 'JDAMs'. I'm sure we can spare a few TOW I's and M2 Carl Gustavs to help 'em out.[/QUOTE] aren't like half of the US's stockpile of 1000lb bombs like vietnam era surplus anyways? anyway, we have more than enough military aid to ship to them, after all, we recently cut egypt off, and iraq's shipment has been sitting around, and i can't imagine yemin is getting their next shipment of military aid either. what i'm trying to say is we have plenty of lethal aid that goes to other countries that are right now either cut off or taken over by raving lunitics that could probably be diverted to ukraine [editline]10th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Wizards Court;47117349]you guys realize this would likely make things even worse right? here is a good explanation of why [url]http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/09/how-not-to-save-ukraine-arming-kiev-is-a-bad-idea/[/url] cached version for those that can't see it [url]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2B4a6PBHgEEJ:foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/09/how-not-to-save-ukraine-arming-kiev-is-a-bad-idea/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=br[/url][/QUOTE] [quote]On the contrary, its members were all people who have long backed NATO expansion and have an obvious desire to defend that policy, which has played a central role in creating the present crisis. [/quote] but nato expansionism has not played a role in creating the present crisis, they are the russian scapegoat, but the current crisis stems directly from russian expanisionism both in taking crimea, and puppeting ukrainian politics i get what your source is saying that this is not a deterance situation, but at the same time we cannot persue a policy of appeasment because that would carve up a sovern nation, this isn't about ceeding land, its about millions of people forcibly given over to another country. appeasment generally doesn't work when it involves carving up nations and dividing people, that has only ever caused even more animosity in the regions, look at syria, israel, egypt, pakistan, india, and iran, they all have been appeased at one time or another and its only caused more conflict, and appeasment doesn't account for the third party proxies that russia are employing to take over the region. giving into russia's demand for crimea will not stop the franchised republics in their quest to take over ukraine, it'll do the opposite actually, and force the west to stay out of a situation that will rapidly spiral into a civil war your first source is rather biased against US involvement anywhere, blaming us for not doing enough in yemin but also blaming us for doing too much in ukraine.
U.S. policy makers are pushing for $1Bn in weapons supplies. How many perfectly good soviet weapons does Russia have sitting perfectly preserved in warehouses? Didn't Angela Merkel pretty much destroy the subject of arming Ukraine with improved weapon systems? All it's going to do is bolster the fighting and give Putin more wiggle room.
[QUOTE=Megadave;47116780]Perhaps they will provide the tank hulls, while the Ukrainians will have to add the guns.[/QUOTE] Not possible, since they have to manufacture T-90 bases. USA only makes M1A1 hulls because it's the only tank they use.
Imagine Ukraine saying "America, please help, you can take the land later instead of Russians" and then Russians get even more pissed off.
Putin is pretty much bating for an excuse for a World War III, recently he had Russian pilots almost kamikaze American pilots hoping they would shoot them down. Going to Ukraine and provide aid will give him some news material to twist to his own agenda. Russia is being lead by a psychopath
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;47117349]you guys realize this would likely make things even worse right? here is a good explanation of why [URL]http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/09/how-not-to-save-ukraine-arming-kiev-is-a-bad-idea/[/URL][/QUOTE] Too bad. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances[/URL] We made an obligation to protect a sovereign nation and now, after disarming them with the promise of mutual protection, we're leaving them out to dry against an aggressive foreign invader. I can buy the perceived weakness against NATO as an explanation but not as a justification, and regardless of their motivation, we absolutely cannot send the message to Russia that covert military action against their neighbor states is acceptable, whether it's for imperialist ambitions or perceived insecurity. Russia started this situation and has continued to escalate it. If it takes further escalation of force to send the message that covertly invading your neighbors is not an acceptable means of ensuring political stability, then that's what it will take.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47119510]Too bad. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances[/URL] We made an obligation to protect a sovereign nation and now, after disarming them with the promise of mutual protection, we're leaving them out to dry against an aggressive foreign invader. I can buy the perceived weakness against NATO as an explanation but not as a justification, and regardless of their motivation, we absolutely cannot send the message to Russia that covert military action against their neighbor states is acceptable, whether it's for imperialist ambitions or perceived insecurity. Russia started this situation and has continued to escalate it. If it takes further escalation of force to send the message that covertly invading your neighbors is not an acceptable means of ensuring political stability, then that's what it will take.[/QUOTE] Haha wow I can't believe people are still citing this like they know what it means. All that it says is that the signatories will not violate Ukraine's territorial sovereignty. It's obvious that Russia has not complied with this. Where you got the "obligated to protect Ukraine" from is beyond me. I have asked this for over a year and nobody has been able to come up with where in this treaty it says Ukraine has to be protected by anyone.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47119652]All that it says is that the signatories will not violate Ukraine's territorial sovereignty.[/QUOTE] By implementing the Helsinki Act of 1975: [quote]1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;[/quote] Which per the UN guarantees the sovereignty of a state against military aggression and requires intervention. It is not as binding as a NATO mutual defense pact, but a security agreement has legal force in international law. The signing of the Budapest Memorandum was contingent on the understanding that the US would have Ukraine's back if they faced aggression from Russia. That was literally the entire point of the memorandum, to give Ukraine security against Russian aggression once they'd given up their nuclear deterrence. As a UN member state with a security agreement with the Ukraine, we're obligated to intervene on their behalf.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47119745]By implementing the Helsinki Act of 1975: Which per the UN guarantees the sovereignty of a state against military aggression and requires intervention. It is not as binding as a NATO mutual defense pact, but a security agreement has legal force in international law. The signing of the Budapest Memorandum was contingent on the understanding that the US would have Ukraine's back if they faced aggression from Russia. That was literally the entire point of the memorandum, to give Ukraine security against Russian aggression once they'd given up their nuclear deterrence. As a UN member state with a security agreement with the Ukraine, we're obligated to intervene on their behalf.[/QUOTE] That's not a "security agreement." It's a promise not to invade Ukraine. No party pledged to defend Ukraine under any circumstances. [quote]to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;[/quote] How is that some sort of defense treaty? It's clearly supposed to be a promise between Ukraine and each of the separate signatories, not some mutual defense pact. The "point" of the memorandum was nothing. Why would a treaty need to be signed to make sure countries don't invade each other? Would it be a-OK to do so without the treaty? No, the point of the treaty was a feel-good measure between NATO and Russia during the thaw in relations in the early 90s. Other nearly identical treaties were signed over the sovereignty of other ex-Soviet states. The only reason anyone's ever heard of this Budapest thing is because journalists started digging once the Crimean crisis started.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47119761]No party pledged to defend Ukraine under any circumstances.[/QUOTE] No, they agreed to treat Ukraine under the Helsinki Act of 1975, which guarantees the Ukraine sovereignty and under international law allows for intervention to address a violation. By signing the agreement we're obligated to enforce international law under the terms of the agreement. Like I said. The security provided by the Memorandum was key to Ukraine voluntarily allowing nuclear disarmament. Are you really suggesting that the Budapest Memorandum was just Russia pinky-swearing not to do anything bad, with no implied enforcement if they go back on that promise? Why would the US even be on the Memorandum if that were the case?
[QUOTE=catbarf;47119798]No, they agreed to treat Ukraine under the Helsinki Act of 1975, which guarantees the Ukraine sovereignty and under international law allows for intervention to address a violation. By signing the agreement we're obligated to enforce international law under the terms of the agreement. Like I said. The security provided by the Memorandum was key to Ukraine voluntarily allowing nuclear disarmament. Are you really suggesting that the Budapest Memorandum was just Russia pinky-swearing not to do anything bad, with no implied enforcement if they go back on that promise? Why would the US even be on the Memorandum if that were the case?[/QUOTE] That is exactly what the treaty was. It was a good-faith measure between the Western powers and Russia, which were seemingly becoming closer during the 90s. It was forgotten the moment after it was signed. Why do you think nobody has realized this seemingly gigantic breach in international protocol besides armchair internet diplomats?* Why has the issue not been relentlessly pressed in the UN by Ukraine and others? Nobody seemed to notice the US and UK breaking this apparently obvious law. Maybe it's because it doesn't actually guarantee what you think it does. *the US State Department has actually mentioned the Memorandum in reference to Russia's breaking of it, because that's all that it accounts for.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47119841]That is exactly what the treaty was. It was a good-faith measure between the Western powers and Russia, which were seemingly becoming closer during the 90s. It was forgotten the moment after it was signed. Why do you think nobody has realized this seemingly gigantic breach in international protocol besides armchair internet diplomats?* Why has the issue not been relentlessly pressed in the UN by Ukraine and others? Nobody seemed to notice the US and UK breaking this apparently obvious law. Maybe it's because it doesn't actually guarantee what you think it does. *the US State Department has actually mentioned the Memorandum in reference to Russia's breaking of it, because that's all that it accounts for.[/QUOTE] Are you aware that there is a continuum between 'means absolutely nothing whatsoever' and 'absolutely requires immediate overwhelming force'? Agreements like the Helsinki Accords don't lay out punishments or obligate the use of military force, but they do provide a framework of international law, to be used as justification for intervention if necessary. Nobody is going to go to jail if we don't intervene, but under the principle of the Memorandum we should intervene against a clear breach of international law. It is still a political decision, but legally we are absolutely justified in providing military force against an unlawful invader, and if the US wants to retain geopolitical clout we must follow the agreements we sign. What Eastern European nation is going to care about American assurances of protection if we refuse to back them up? Why is 'well this security agreement you signed doesn't [i]explicitly[/i] say we have to help you' a worthwhile political strategy?
[QUOTE=Sableye;47117633]aren't like half of the US's stockpile of 1000lb bombs like vietnam era surplus anyways? [/QUOTE] Pretty much. Mark 82's and 83's (500 and 1k respectively) came in during the Vietnam war, but they still remain in good condition, anything that becomes degraded is taken out to a blow site and EOD "Demil's" it. With JDAM kits and laser guide kits we can turn every single one of those general purpose dumb bombs into high precision weapons. I wouldn't trust giving the Ukrainian's guidance kits though, not like 82/83s can mount on Russian made birds anyway even if we did. Still I'm sure we have enough AT-4s, TOW I kits and heavy weapons to spare them some.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.