Russia

Why We Shouldn't Arm Ukraine

The Russians can beat us to any punch, and they would hit harder.

|

In recent decades, you could make a good living betting on American military intervention in any foreign crisis covered by CNN. President Barack Obama has resisted demands to escalate our response to Russia's aggression against Ukraine, but his resistance may soon collapse.

It has been under great pressure for months, with Republicans accusing him of being "weak and indecisive." This week, a report from three establishment-oriented think tanks—the Atlantic Council, the Brookings Institution and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs—said the United States should provide "lethal defensive arms" and other supplies to the Kiev government. Ashton Carter, nominated to be secretary of defense, said in his confirmation hearing Wednesday, "I'm very much inclined in that direction."

But Obama abstained from shipping weapons to Ukraine because there was no reason to think they would do much good—and there still isn't. Lethal military assistance combines several unappealing features.

It would cost a lot of money that would probably be wasted, since the arms would not be sufficient to stop Vladimir Putin from achieving any military goal he sets. It could induce him to intensify his aggression before our help can arrive.

It could expand the destruction of the fighting without changing the outcome. And it's likely to eventually present the U.S. with a choice between accepting defeat and having to use our own forces to save Ukraine.

No one really doubts that Putin can prevail in this fight. The think-tank report concedes, "Even with enormous support from the West, the Ukrainian army will not be able to defeat a determined attack by the Russian military."

Despite all the martial rhetoric in Washington, we are not going to turn the tide of the war. All the U.S. government can hope to do is raise the price Putin has to pay.

Chicago Council on Global Affairs President Ivo Daalder, who was Obama's ambassador to NATO, told NPR that "the one thing Mr. Putin is most concerned about is Russian casualties." He said, "We know from the history in Afghanistan and other places that when Russian soldiers die, then the cost and the debate in Moscow and in the rest of Russia will go up." The hope is that Russia would retreat or negotiate a settlement.

But the aid might come too late to boost the Russian body count, since Putin would have plenty of time to preempt it. The Russians can beat us to any punch, and they would hit harder.

Justin Logan, a foreign policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, also notes, "Historically, Russia has been probably the least casualty-averse country on Earth." The Soviets stayed in Afghanistan a decade despite losing more than 14,000 lives—six times more than we have lost there. And Afghanistan was a country that, unlike Ukraine, had no large populace of ethnic Russians pining to rejoin the motherland.

Nor does an increase in casualties necessarily cause outsiders to look for the exit. More often, it spurs them to plunge deeper. That was the case for the Soviets in Afghanistan, as well as the U.S. in Iraq. Turning Ukraine into a struggle against American imperialism would make it easier, not harder, for Putin to justify the sacrifice.

The belief that we can force him to sue for peace is one of those fetching delusions that often overcome our policymakers and pundits. Political scientist Lionel Beehner noted recently in The Washington Post, "Scholarship generally finds that third-party intervention on the side of rebel forces makes conflicts longer, bloodier, and more difficult to resolve through peaceful means."

There is no reason to think intervening on behalf of the Ukrainian government would yield a different result. Often, all you get from expanding a war is an expanded war. In this one, we might ensure more dead Russians—but also a lot more dead Ukrainians.

The problem is that the U.S. has neither the means nor the motivation to stop Putin. Ukraine is always going to be a lot closer to Moscow than to Washington, and its fate is always going to matter a lot more to the Russians than to us.

When the Soviets invaded Hungary in 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower, who was not weak or indecisive, refused to send U.S. troops or weapons to help the pro-democracy Budapest government. "Eisenhower knew that there were limits to his power," wrote biographer Stephen Ambrose, "and Hungary was outside those limits." So is Ukraine.

NEXT: Wisconsin State Treasurer's First Objective: Eliminating Himself

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ukraine is always going to be a lot closer to Moscow than to Washington, and its fate is always going to matter a lot more to the Russians than to us.

    They need to accept their fate of being colonized by Russia!

    How about we sell weapons to the Ukrainians?

    1. Doesn’t Western Europe have an arms business? What about them?

          1. Apparently, Senator Richard Durbin, described in news reports as a “senior U.S. lawmaker,” has been impersonated with regard to the Ukrainian matter. See:

            http://www.reuters.com/article…..FK20150706

            Thank God we have the CIA and the FBI to track down the miscreant criminals who disseminate such treasonous forgeries. Obviously no parody involved there, or Reuters would have made that clear. Or if it is a parody, it’s too deadpan and should be prosecuted under the precedent set in America’s leading criminal satire case, because the author’s intent was clearly to harm the Senator’s reputation. See the documentation at:

            http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

      1. They sold all their AK47s to Americans living in the Bible Belt.

        1. We will disguise it as a Greek bailout and have the German taxpayer foot the bill!

        2. And God bless them for it.

        3. Put your hat back in place, trying to think with that lump is beyond you.

      2. We should stay out of it.

        Leave the Germans alone. It is their sphere of influence.

        Uh. Oh. Wrong war.

    2. “How about we sell weapons to the Ukrainians?”

      IMPERIALIST AGGRESSION! UNWARRANTED MEDDLING!! INTERVENTION! INTERVENTION!!
      /Sheldon

      neither here nor there, but i wouldn’t even bother selling the Ukranians guns, because they’d probably just sell them on the black market to help fund their whore-farms/nightmarish europop productions

      no, i’d go full out giving the Poles whatever guns, money, training they wanted. Because they would actually use it. They are one of those rare countries that actually has ‘freedom’ and unlike most of Europe decided its probably worth keeping.

      1. Probably has something to do with the long Polish tradition of getting their asses kicked by everyone around them, dealing with occupation for a couple decades or centuries, then rebuilding the country.

        1. “A Pole is born with a sword in one hand, a brick in the other”

          Oh, and GILMORE….I wouldn’t have a problem funding whorefarms….just sayin’.

  2. If we want to slow Russian aggression, probably the thing to do that’s a little less provocative is to sell defensive arms to Eastern Europe. More, I mean. We could’ve done more of that with Ukraine, but to do so now is too little, too late.

    There’s also an argument to stay out altogether, just because it’s not really our issue, and, of course, Russia has a whole lot of internal problems to deal with that will likely slow down its recent imperialist aggression.

    1. It comes down to two issues. First, would giving them arms do any good. The worst thing that could happen would be to further inflame Russian nationalism by giving them arms and having Ukraine roll over without a fight anyway.

      I am not sure what the answer to that is. It may be that Ukraine is so corrupt and incompetent nothing short of US intervention, which is not an option, is going to save them.

      The second question is if giving them arms will allow them to effectively fight back, what are we going to accomplish by doing that. Can we keep Putin out of there forever? Can we make the war so costly that between that and lower oil prices we bankrupt him and cause the Russians to revolt and throw him out of office? If not and we only delay him and make it hard for him to take Ukraine, what are we going to do with the time that buys us?

      Chapman is silly and stupid but he is right that arming Ukraine and ensuring a bloody long war rather than a short one is a big deal. We shouldn’t do that unless we have a plan for how doing that is going to further our interests.

      1. We could’ve provided defensive arms to Ukraine before the invasion. Now, I think it’s really too late. But the rest of Eastern Europe can and should continue to arm to the teeth. Russia may get even more aggressive as their economy continues its slide.

      2. Chapman is silly and stupid but he is right…

        The ad homs are unnecessary.

        1. That is not an ad hominem – and ad hominem would be “Chapman is wrong because he is silly and stupid”. Saying he is right despite being silly and stupid might be a simple insult at worst.

      3. “It may be that Ukraine is so corrupt and incompetent”

        Also, Haiti may not the best place for your vacation home.

      4. We shouldn’t do that unless we have a plan for how doing that is going to further our interests.

        And, honestly, I don’t see how our interests get furthered unless you take the broadest possible interpretation of our interests.

        1. Our interests are furthered by a weaker Putin who is less able to cause trouble in the world. It is in our interest for eastern Europe to remain free and stable and out from under the Russian thumb.

          It would also be in our interests to see Putin go bankrupt and be replaced by a less oppressive and aggressive government. What is not in our interests is for Putin to inflame Russian nationalism and slowly absorb back and loot all of the old Soviet Union as a way of avoiding running out of other people’s money.

          1. eastern Europe to remain free and stable and out from under the Russian thumb

            Pick two.

          2. By the way, what also isn’t in our interests is to throw billions of dollars away trying to pretend areas that have been in the Russian sphere of influence for centuries are going to able to reliably be retained outside their sphere of influence.

            1. God damned Easties, need to know their place as Russian slaves!

              1. Well, Switzy, you want to go fend off the Russian hordes, I’ll be happy to contribute to the fund for your transportation and armament.

                Have fun with that.

              2. Are you posting this from Ukraine, Switz? If not, STFU.

      5. The second question is if giving them arms will allow them to effectively fight back, what are we going to accomplish by doing that.

        Kiev has more weapons than the rebels. And it is the rebels that are ‘fighting back’ against aggression by the Kiev government.

        Can we make the war so costly that between that and lower oil prices we bankrupt him and cause the Russians to revolt and throw him out of office?

        Lower prices have hurt the shale sector. Much of the high yield debt that is responsible for the boom in uneconomic production will be written off by lenders who financed producers that could not generate an economic profit at $100 oil.

        Russians are hurt by the falling price but their economy can deal with the decline better than the Middle Eastern producers that need $80-$100 oil to fund their welfare schemes. Putin can solve the low oil price problem by ensuring that any one of the many Shiite groups in in the Middle East attack Sunni oil-producing assets. One successful attack on an LNG terminal or port could create a significant disruption in production that will push prices higher. That will help conventional producers but not the American shale sector, which will still have to write off uneconomic assets outside of the few prolific core areas.

        If Americans are not careful they will create the very catalyst that sets off the next economic contraction and bursts the biggest bubble in world history; the market in sovereign debt.

  3. I don’t understand what weapons the Ukrainians need. I was assuming the needed anti-tank type weapons, but wikipedia tells me they already have a lot.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E…..und_Forces

    Are they running low on ammo or warheads for these systems?

    1. They’re running low on cash to get them out of hock.

  4. It would cost a lot of money that would probably be wasted, since the arms would not be sufficient to stop Vladimir Putin from achieving any military goal he sets.

    You know who else believes that an armed populace wouldn’t do much to stop government aggression?

    1. Nobody is talking about arming the populace. This would be strictly a government-to-government transfer. IOW, slow, expensive and ineffective. Half of the weapons we send will end up in the hands of Obama cronies who will sell them to Russia, and the other half will end up going directly to Russia. Ukraine will get a single-shot .22 and a case of expired MRE’s.

  5. Scholarship generally finds that third-party intervention on the side of rebel forces makes conflicts longer, bloodier, and more difficult to resolve through peaceful means.”

    Yes. You get get peace really quickly if one side can’t defend itself and just surrenders. Both sides being armed, however, makes that a bit harder. There are other goals besides peace. You can always have peace if you are willing to suffer whatever injustice your enemy wants to inflict on you.

    While those wars may have been longer and bloodier, but the peace that resulted was likely more just. There wasn’t much of a war in Bosnia. It was mostly the Serbs murdering the Bosnians. When a war actually did break out and someone besides the Serbs showed up with guns, the genocide at least stopped.

    Beyond that which result is better, walking away from Ukraine and allowing Putin to easily absorb the entire place and dictate whatever terms he likes and quickly move on to other targets or make Putin pay dearly for Ukraine, costing him money and lives and tying him down there for who knows how long while Poland and the Baltic and the rest of Eastern Europe are safe from his gaze and have time and breathing space to prepare to stop his aggressions?

    We can’t play both choices out so there is no definitive answer to that question. It is not however obvious that rolling over for Putin and abandoning Ukraine is the best choice. It may be a really bad choice.

    1. The criminal, once engaged in the criminal act shall be allowed to carry out said criminal act unmolested by the victim, until authorized law enforcement arrives.

      1. Bingo. If someone breaks into my house and I take a gun and go confront him, a real gunfight might start. Political scientists tell us that home invasions are shorter and less bloody when the home owner is unarmed and does not resist.

        1. Yeah. Totally. Getting ass-raped is much less bloody than getting shot.

          1. Not if you’re doing it correctly.

          2. Things are just so much more dog-gonned peaceful when you behave like the good slave you are!

          3. Depends on who’s doing the ass raping.

  6. Who doesn’t like a good proxy war against the Russians? Makes me feel like a kid again.

  7. It is one thing to say the US should be loath to launch wars abroad. I like Ukraine and all but I certainly understand why Americans are not too keen of sending their sons and daughters over to die defending them.

    It is quite another thing to say that we shouldn’t at least send arms or material help to a country defending itself from a hostile invasion. If doing so risks dragging the US into the war, sure. Otherwise, you are crossing the line from prudent isolationist to pacifist asshole. Just because we should be very circumspect about when and were we go to war doesn’t mean we should refuse material help to nations that are real victims of aggression. We shouldn’t as a general rule fight other country’s wars for them. That should not mean that we stand aside and never help countries that are victims of aggression defend themselves.

    1. It is quite another thing to say that we shouldn’t at least send arms or material help to a country defending itself from a hostile invasion.

      See, I’m fine with sending them shit, as long as they send us some money for said shit. Freebies? No thanks.

      1. We can put it on layaway. Also there is more to life than money. Helping people gets them to help you sometimes. Or helping the Ukraine for free now may save us money later by stopping Putin here rather than when he goes for Poland and it really costs us.

        I understand your point about the US government not being a world charity organization. That however doesn’t mean that it can never be in our interests to do something for free. It all depends.

        1. . Also there is more to life than money.

          Not really, John. Money is received by sacrificing time to perform a service or produce a product; time out of -someone’s- life. That is not replaceable.

          1. I know where the money comes from anon. The money is only valuable because of what it purchases. It may be that money spent arming the Ukraine or some other victim of aggression produces benefits that make it in our interests to do.

            If arming Ukraine now saves us money later by preventing Putin from causing trouble elsewhere, we should arm Ukraine and consider it money well spent.

        2. You know how layaway works, John? And helping governments gets them to shit on you whenever it becomes convenient for them to do so. This is not about helping people. It’s helping a venal, corrupt government.

        3. John|2.5.15 @ 12:40PM|#
          “We can put it on layaway.”

          Let’s see, what’s a catchy name for that?
          I know! Let’s call it “lend-Lease”!

          1. Layaway doesn’t work that way.

            1. Neither did Lend-Lease.

        4. We can put it on layaway.

          Except, even absent the Russian threat, the Ukrainian government is hardly a sterling credit risk. And what are we going to do, repossess the equipment?

          1. We will take many young Ukrainian womenz as collateral?

            what?

          2. That was a joke Bill.

  8. And it’s likely to eventually present the U.S. with a choice between accepting defeat and having to use our own forces to save Ukraine.

    As if the cuntwads on Capitol Hill don’t view this as a feature.

  9. “Turning Ukraine into a struggle against American imperialism would make it easier, not harder, for Putin to justify the sacrifice.”

    This is the central issue, the exact reverse of what we would hope to achieve.

  10. Its fine, we can just let the Nazi’s have Poland. Ooops I guess I got the century wrong, but everything else is the same.

    I am amazed and terrified at how much today very much resembles the 1930’s.

    1. I’m amazed at how much we know and how little we’ve learned since the 1930’s.

      1. Human nature has not changed. We’re still three steps out of the cave. The only difference is that we’re much more efficient at killing each other.

    2. I am amazed that some people think the height of discourse is to scream “APPEASEMENT!”

      1. Especially when Germany was an immensely powerful war machine, certainly the most powerful in Europe, whereas Russia is an economically deteriorating backwater with internal insurrections, serious substance abuse problems, and which is riddled with AIDS and other third world diseases.

        They have a population growth rate so low that their population is currently halving every generation and their live expectancy for men is about 55 years.

        Comparing 2015 Russia gobbling up basketcases like the Ukraine to Germany annexing Austria and invading Poland is absurd.

    3. The US was right NOT to get involved when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. At that point the German’s were not attacking or threatening to attack the US. The US entered WWII for the right reason: to defend ourselves after being attacked. The German’s declared war on the US when the US declared War on their ally, Japan. The US had no choice at that point.

      The US engagement in WWII was moral because we only entered the war when we had the moral right to do so. The US population was fully behind the effort to win. It is a lesson that needs to be relearned.

      1. “The US entered WWII for the right reason: to defend ourselves after being attacked. ”

        Yes, always best to wait until much of your navy and thousands of your navy sailors are destroyed in a sneak attack before taking action against your enemies.

        We should have also waited for a Soviet nuclear first strike before confronting them around the world. The Cold War was so warlike. And Cold. Ick!

    4. Its fine, we can just let the Nazi’s have Poland.

      Except not every war is WWII and not every aggressor is Adolf Hitler.

    1. The hero is not entitled to a last kiss, a last cigarette, or any other form of last request.

      Paddington used this trope, which made me jump up and head for the bar (again).

      1. They fucking ruined by favorite Peruvian bear, didn’t they?

  11. Talk about being right for the wrong reasons. The US should not get involved in the Ukrainian conflict for one simple reason: Russia is not attacking or threatening the US with their stupid military intervention in the Ukraine. He says the US should not get involved because the proposed strategy would be ineffective. In other words, if the US could make a difference, then they SHOULD get involved. Thus, he accepts the premise–that maybe the US should do something. That is wrong, too. There is absolutely no rational reason for the US to get involved in this mess.

    Reason’s foreign policy “experts” really have nothing original to offer to improve the terrible foreign policy America has been following for the past 6 decades and should probably just keep quiet. Chapman here comes off as wimpy, conventional and unserious.

    1. Chapman is by no means Reason’s voice on foreign policy. He’s more the token moron for our entertainment.

      1. Well, their voice on foreign policy is Sheldon Richman.

        I think that might actually be worse than Chapman.

        1. Worse.

      2. No other writers for Reason ever offer a counter-argument that I have seen. Please link me to it if I have missed it. I think he represents a good portion of the libertarian thinking–or non-thinking.

        1. I think he represents a good portion of the libertarian thinking–or non-thinking.

          Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of libertarians are either Wilsonian idealists or even Kissinger/Brzezinski realists when it comes to foreign policy?

          Into what bizarre alternate timeline have I shifted?

          1. As I have commented before, I have no idea what most libertarians think. I come to Reason because I assume it presents libertarian thinking. Is that not true? Then where should I go. I strongly disagree with the foreign policy presented here. It sounds like Michael Moore liberalism. Thus, he accepts the premise–that maybe the US should do something. See Richman’s post of a few days ago for instance.

            1. Delete above: Thus, he accepts the premise–that maybe the US should do something. Crap how did that get in there…

            2. I come to Reason because I assume it presents libertarian thinking. Is that not true?

              Reason is representative of one major school of thought within libertarianism, but it’s far from definitive. Lew Rockwell and his site would represent another major school of thought with a very different concept of what constitutes libertarian foreign policy (closer to the Old Right non-interventionism), and a place like the Ayn Rand Institute would represent another (the nuke-Mecca and let Allah sort them out school).

              1. I am very familiar with the view of ARI’s writers. They do advocate a very strong position on the ME, but your representation is simplistic to the point of childishness. Take a look at Elan Journo’s book, Winning the Unwinnable War for a proper take.

                1. I’m quite familiar with Journo’s work, myself. I’m also quite familiar with humor.

                  Jus’ sayin’

                  1. Sorry, I’m a little touchey on this subject. I have been repeatedly denigrated for offering ME ideas on this blog that have been heavily influenced by this book.

                    1. Well again, these forum see a lot of cross-school traffic. You have O-ists along with no-shit, actual believers in the Jews are Lizard People bent on world conquest theory (and that’s not hyperbole…google search reason and “wakeup”).

                      Personally, on the subject of the Middle East, I would describe myself as a consequentialist non-interventionist. That is, I agree with Ayn Rand’s argument that a state as a moral right to intervene in what is basically a failed state that has descended into barbarism, if it serves the interest of the intervening state. And currently, I don’t see how a more aggressive intervention in the region would serve the interests of the United States tactically or strategically.

                    2. You know what I would like to see here? A serious discussion what went wrong in the Bush/Obama engagements in the ME after 911. Bush had the moral right and the country was behind him after the attacks. But after all these years, lives lost and trillions spent we are still under the threat of Islamic Totalitarianism. Bush blew it. Obama blew it. I get the feeling most commenters here think that I could not have come out any differently than it did. I disagree. The US government was morally obligated to respond and defend itself. But we were obviously unsuccessful in ending the threat and defeating the Islamists. Are these assholes really that invincible? Is there really nothing the US can do to stop the continued terrorist threat? I reject this notion. But this is a argument for another day.

                      Got to go back to work. Later.

                    3. Are these assholes really that invincible?

                      Well only if America keeps engaging in the expensive foreign conventional attacks that you seem to support and completely ignore the negative consequences of.

                    4. “But after all these years, lives lost and trillions spent we are still under the threat of Islamic Totalitarianism. ”

                      Sometimes you have enemies, and lots of them, and there are no tidy solutions.

                      Bush’s fundamental error was thinking that freedom was a universal value.

              2. What school of libertarianism supports the initiation of violence against other people? Note that it is Kiev that wants to rule over areas that want no part of the puppet government that was installed by a Western financed coup and want no part of a deal with the EU that would impoverish ordinary individuals while it enriched the ruling elite.

  12. I have another reason; it’s none of our business.

    1. Agreed.

    2. And another reason: the Ukrainian government has resorted to slavery and villagers are fleeing into Russia to avoid being conscripted.

      1. That, too. The Ukraine government doesn’t defend the liberty of their own citizens. Thus, the land of liberty has no dog in the fight.

        1. Not sure how to separate the Russian propaganda from the truth with those stories. When the Russian “militias” take an area, the first thing they do is seize the TV and radio stations and begin broadcasting propaganda (lies) 24/7.

      2. And I’m not going to do the research, but I understand the reason Ukraine is lacking a lot of arms is a result of handing out free shit. We’re supposed to support and reward that?
        The Euros seem to have an interest in such foolishness; let them show us how superior their system is. I’ll be right here watching.
        And, no, Henri, we won’t fly you in. Buy your own damn gas.

    3. Kind of like Syria.

  13. Isn’t Russia intervening on the side of the rebels? Why would that Beehner quote apply to us and not the Russians?

    And Beehner’s name sounds racist, so he needs to apologize ASAP.

  14. Lets be fair here. Since the end of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact NATO has expanded it’s memebrship. If we look at this from the Russian perspective losing Ukraine means they have no buffer from historic enemies. We can wave the freedom and liberty flag, but at the end of the day the Russians are nationalistic and paranoid. No good end comes from a Russia that feels backed into a cornER by the west.

    I’m sure our missile shield probably also doesn’t help make them feel like we are alturistic in our intentions.

    1. ” If we look at this from the Russian perspective … ”

      Because KGB Vlad has a perspective too.

      1. Not sure if your trolling or not.

  15. The Ukrainian conflict has very little to do with Putin. After the coup that was largely driven by Western financed groups the people in Eastern Ukraine figured out that they did not want to be ruled by a puppet government that was supported by neofascist groups who were talking about national purity. It is these people who are on the front lines fighting for their freedom and Kiev that is the invader. As far as I am concerned Putin is a bad guy. But he did not start the conflict. Is he giving support to the rebels? Of course he is. He sends food and medicine and turns a blind eye to arms smuggling. He also sends people to help plan the resistance and shares intelligence with the rebel groups.

    Since when is it Un-American to fight for one’s liberty? Since when is it Un-American to resist invaders? If he wanted to do the right thing Obama would sit down with both sides as well as with Putin and negotiate a peaceful settlement. If that means that Eastern Ukraine splits from Kiev so be it.

    1. Your about a fool give Putin everything he wants maybe ISIS will settle for Maine!

  16. Just pretend they are Muslims then he will send everything and the kitchen sink.

  17. A great Russian invasion in Ukraine will make it able to control more oil and gas resources from the region of the Black Sea, now still unexplored. The international market of natural resources isn’t too far from US.

  18. Russia has been probably the least casualty-averse country on Earth.” The Soviets stayed in Afghanistan a decade despite losing more than 14,000 lives?six times more than we have lost there.

    What a short memory. The US lost 58,000 in Vietnam.

  19. More than any other piece I’ve read from Reason, this one strikes me as starting with the conclusion, then trying to find justification. I much prefer the pieces that start with facts that lead to a reasoned conclusion.

  20. said the United States should provide “lethal defensive arms” and other supplies to the Kiev government

    Human beings are supposed to learn from their past mistakes…

  21. Apparently you don’t alt-text Putin if you know what’s good for you.

  22. Leave the Germans alone. It is their sphere of influence.

    Uh. Oh. Wrong war.

  23. Start a new lucrative career. Our firm is looking for 10 people to represent our services?.
    You will have business coming to you on a daily basis
    Check Here Don’t Miss Golden Chance
    Open this link to get the opportunity , as like i did and i am feeling crazy.. it realy works,,,,,,,,,,

    ?????????????????????? http://www.netpay20.com

  24. Great opportunity to earn extra money. Make .00 For Every Email You Process And Get Paid INSTANTLY! NO Selling – NOT MLM – ? .. http://www.MoneyKin.Com

  25. Okay, so we don’t help the Ukrainians, what could happen? Russia takes back all of Ukraine, then Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Finland and the other Baltic states and the ‘Stans they used to control before. Or will Russia just stop at Ukraine? Looks like nuclear Armageddon is coming back.

    1. You made some incredible jumps in logic there. The Cold War pretty much disproved the domino theory. Let’s not bring it back because the statist and Hawks want another round of American intervention.

  26. “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
    – Winston Churchill

    How quickly we forget, or refuse to remember.

  27. What nobody is mentioning here is who is attacking whom and who started it all. It was not the Russians. If any of you have read articles by Ukrainians and one former U.S. Ambassador giving details of the coup and resultant war, you will note that it started with:

    1) a corrupt but still democratically elected government who decided Russia would be giving them a better monetary deal than the austerity promised by the EU, and

    2) a long effort by CIA supported NGOs, a main one being the misnamed National Endowment for Democracy that was started by a former CIA Director, to stage a coup to ensure a Western friendly government, for reasons of both money and power.

    The CIA coup included fascist neo-NAZI (read about Bandera) elements paid for indirectly by our tax dollars, including those snipers who shot at both sides to further inflame the situation to their advantage, and the murder in a burning building of a large number of those who disagreed with them. Once the Western diplomats installed Poroshenko, he proceeded to try to drive out or kill his political opponents in eastern Ukraine, including innocent women and children using at least one punishment battalion and indiscriminate shelling. Can you blame the “rebels” for defending their homes or Putin for helping those calling for assistance?

    Putin may not be an angel, but the U.S. is totally in the wrong in this situation and more weapons or propaganda would only increase the hypocrisy.

    1. Go back to Russia. The US is not invading or attempting to annex Ukraine. Here’s a handy guide:
      http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media…..canada.jpg

      The Ukrainian people are not interested in being a Russian puppet state. Calling “US meddling” a serious reason for the the Ukrainian revolution is like calling Anna Chapman a serious nuclear threat. Maybe if Putin was not so intent on bribing the elected officials in Ukraine to not do business with the EU, there wouldn’t be such a mess on that side of the world.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.