Western training and weaponry have unquestionably helped Ukraine. Yet the risks of pouring more arms into Ukraine should be considered carefully, reports the Guardian.
Weapons to fight Russian aggression
The United States and some of its Nato allies – Britain, Poland and the Baltic trio – have been the most vigorous in insisting that Ukraine must, for moral and strategic reasons, receive the weapons it needs to fight Russian aggression.
The moral case, strengthened by Ukrainians’ valiant resistance and President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s Churchillian wartime leadership, is that Ukraine is the victim, Russia the aggressor.
Ultimately, even Germany, which had been reluctant to arm Ukraine, was persuaded by this portrayal. It sent Ukraine 1,000 anti-tank and 500 anti-aircraft missiles and changed its policy prohibiting other members of the alliance from transferring German-made weapons to Ukraine.
By now, Ukraine is receiving arms and equipment from many other countries, some of whom aren’t in NATO.
Failing to resist aggression invites more!
The gist of the strategic case is that failing to resist aggression invites more of it. Poland and the Baltic states have a particularly strong stake in driving this point home, as a glance at a map of east-central Europe makes evident: if Ukraine comes under Russia’s sway, they will be vulnerable.
The United States has been arming Ukraine and training its troops since 2015 and provided it $1.5bn in military support even before the war. With Ukraine now fighting for survival, there is strong, bipartisan support in Congress for extending even more help.
On 11 March the Senate approved a spending bill, passed earlier by the House of Representatives, containing the $3.5bn in military aid for Ukraine requested by President Joe Biden.
The White House had taken bold steps even earlier. Two days after the Russian invasion the president authorized $350m in emergency military assistance to Ukraine. By early March the US had arranged for 17,000 anti-tank missiles (including Javelins) to reach Poland and Romania for overland delivery to Ukraine.
Confidence runs high that with more firepower Ukraine will, at minimum, blunt the Russian offensive and be in a strong position whenever the bargaining over the terms for ending the war begins.
Those who believe this can point to compelling evidence: western training and weaponry have unquestionably helped Ukraine destroy a lot of Russian armor and aircraft.
Hence their confidence that more Javelins will improve Ukraine’s ability to destroy Russia’s tanks, that additional Stinger anti-aircraft missiles will cause even more Russian warplanes to fall from the skies, and that counter-battery radars will locate and demolish deadly Russian artillery.
Risks of pouring arms into Ukraine
Yet amid the moral outrage and depth of animosity toward Putin, the risks of pouring arms into Ukraine should be considered carefully and dispassionately.
Providing Ukraine even more arms may well produce the results its proponents anticipate. It could, on the other hand, impel Russian commanders to subject Ukrainians to even greater pain. They have already experienced enormous suffering because Russia, as the Office of the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has noted, routinely hits civilian buildings.
If the war becomes even more brutal, Ukraine may keep resisting, but then the number of Ukrainians seeking refuge in other countries, now 2.6 million (the largest proportion is in Poland), will soar.
With Warsaw and Kraków, its two largest cities, overwhelmed by the influx, Poland has already appealed for help. A continuing exodus from Ukraine could strain the economies and social fabric of its neighbors, especially if the war drags on, preventing refugees from returning home.
Furthermore, Russia may not stand by, allowing the west to fortify Ukraine’s army. Putin might order his generals to bomb the supply routes from Poland and Romania, the Nato countries that have the longest borders with Ukraine.
Did you subscribe to our daily Newsletter?
It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe
Source: The Guardian
