- Students’ Column
- War and Military
“Obama’s statement during an interview with CNN is reiterating something that lately has been becoming a second opinion on the matter of Ukraine — the US facilitated the regime change in Ukraine through a planned coup of democratically elected Viktor Yanukovych (former President of Ukraine).
In the past decade US has overthrown numerous governments in Latin America, Asia and Africa and replaced them with leaders of pro western ideology that proved useful for Washington’s geopolitical interests,” independent researcher and writer Timothy Alexander Guzman told Sputnik. US President Barack Obama revealed the United States’ involvement in the Ukrainian crisis from its outset and admitted that the United States “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.” (Global Research)
In another interview with NPR, Obama had admitted consulting with OPEC countries to support reduced oil prices to weaken the economy of Russia. Lowered oil prices and a number of sanctions imposed on Russia has done nothing to improve the situation in Ukraine. At this juncture, US is considering openly arming the Ukrainian army and drive Russia into the conflict. US is already involved in a number of wars around the world. Will driving the conflict from middle east to black sea will help bring peace in the world?
In this article we will take a look at western mainstream media and try to understand if US involvement in Ukraine is problem solving or disturbing.
Disturbing or problem solving?
Now we are going to analyze two cases of current importance in US-Ukraine relationship.
Deciding whether to send lethal aid – considering all sides of the question. “The stage is set for U.S. President Barack Obama to authorize shipments of weapons to Ukraine’s ailing military, but now the White House is left to decide if sending that lethal aid will further escalate the already rising war there and prompt a strong Russian response. Opting not to send weapons could encourage President Vladimir Putin to continue to assert Russia’s power over its neighbors, an analyst said on Monday” (International Business Times)
“U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the president will weigh his options carefully and will not be rushed into a decision. Obama’s administration has faced criticism that it struggles to act decisively and project U.S vision at the height of foreign crises. “The timetable is fluid. This is too important to make a snap decision,” one official said. Obama meets on Monday at the White House with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who discussed the peace initiative with Putin on Friday and has made clear she opposes providing lethal arms to the Ukraine government.
Yet tough rhetoric from some Obama advisors has raised expectations of a stronger U.S. response: “The Ukrainian people have a right to defend themselves,” Vice-President Joe Biden told a security conference in Munich on Saturday.” (Reuters)
Lamberto Zannier, secretary-general of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, told Reuters he was worried that direct Western military support for the Ukraine government would fan the flames of the conflict: “It may even lead down the line to more direct intervention of Russia in this conflict … Our objective remains that of de-escalating, so I think really the effort should continue to focus on that,” he said at the Munich Security Conference. (Reuters)
“It is hard to find comfort in a plan whose success relies on Vladimir Putin’s sensitivity to death,” Shapiro writes, noting the surging anti-American sentiment in Russia. Direct U.S. military aid to Ukraine would only deepen the anti-West, “anti-imperialist” narratives that have dominated airwaves in Russia over the past year and would reinforce the Kremlin’s own messaging about the conflict as an existential struggle for Moscow’s future.”
Here’s how Zbigniew Brzezinski, former secretary of state in the Carter administration, described the American reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union… And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible.
The legacy of that American plan to build up the Mujahideen and “make the Soviets bleed” is, of course, still being unraveled. No one wants an Afghanistan scenario, but the calculation behind arming Kiev now is not that different from the one in Brzezinski’s mind more than three decades ago. Sanctions are already in play; some members of Congress think it’s time to apply even more pressure.
About solution: There’s a reason why European leaders, including those of Germany, France and Britain, are desperately seeking a cease-fire rather than an escalation of the conflict. Ultimately, the only imaginable solution is a diplomatic settlement that turns down the heat in the region and allows for rapprochement between Russia and its western neighbors. An influx of Western weaponry and military aid could have the opposite effect, paralyzing any hopes of a diplomatic breakthrough and perhaps even prompt a full-scale Russian invasion. (Original Article on The Washington Post)