1

EUROMAINAN PRESS

Polish writer: If US doesn’t arm Ukraine, Putin will move against Baltic countries

2015/02/16 • Analysis & Opinion, Featured, Russia

If President Obama follows German Chancellor Merkel and doesn’t arm Ukraine, the

US president will not only “be playing the role Putin has assigned to him” but he will

also open the way toward an effort by Moscow to dominate the Baltic countries while

threatening the world with first use of nuclear weapons, according to Janusz Rolicki.

In a commentary for Warsaw’s “Gazeta Wyborcza,” Rolicki, a senior Polish journalist

and commentator, says that the West must stand up to Vladimir Putin both to show

him that aggression will not be allowed and that threats of first use of nuclear

weapons will not be tolerated.

Putin has openly violated two of the foundations on which the European system has

developed over the last half century – a commitment by the powers against any

change of international borders by force and a pledge by the nuclear powers not to

be the first to use them, Rolicki points out.

2

Chancellor Merkel’s declaration that she opposes arming Ukraine is „suicide for the

European Union as a political player.

These violations are especially troubling at a time when „Putin’s Russia, in

formulating a new military doctrine openly introduces in it the principle of the free

use of nuclear weapons,” when „flouting international agreements, it has developed

a new type of rocket,” and when it carries out exercises and sends out its planes in

ways that are consistent with that notion.

„These exercises, like the doctrine itself,” Rolicki argues, „arose out of the

complexes the roots of which go back to the 1990s. Russia is flexing its muscles in

order to frighten the international community,” and „the world must believe in the

decisiveness of a Russia which is prepared to use nuclear weapons for the

achievement of its political goals.”

That threat has already born fruit, he continues. „Russia is close to cementing its

domination in Ukraine,” as the recent Minsk accords show. No agreement had to be

signed, of course, just as no acquirement about „the liquidation of Czechoslovakia”

had to be signed in Munich in 1938.

If the West does not begin to arm Ukraine, that will mean condemning that state to be

„swallowed up by Russia,” but that Western failure will not end there because Putin

will read this as an indication that he can use force and the threat of even more force

to get his way and he will move against other of Russia’s neighbors, including the

Baltic countries.

Everyone should remember that „if Western politicians after World War II had acted

as Frau Merkel and Mr. Hollande are now, the contemporary world would be one big

Soviet Union.”

The US has enormous military superiority „over the entire rest of the world,” but

„today’s West is incapable of decisive action.” It isn’t even capable of speaking the

truth: „Neither NATO nor the EU has yet recognized Russia as an aggressor,” instead

following Moscow’s line and called „the so-called separatists” that.

Because the West is not punishing the aggressor in a serious way, Russians are

coming to the conclusion that Moscow propagandists are right and that „everything

is permitted to the strong.” Indeed, the West isn’t excluding Russia from sports

competitions, scholarly exchanges, or meetings.

Putin and his foreign minister Sergey Lavrov „are not subjected to ostracism but

treated as statesmen,” despite the fact that they lie in much the same way as Stalin’s

prosecutor Vyshinsky or Soviet foreign minister Gromyko, Rolicki says. Moreover,

„the West up to now has not shown that it is not afraid of the aggressor.”

Chancellor Merkel’s declaration that she opposes arming Ukraine is „suicide for the

European Union as a political player. The second Minsk meetings „showed that this

3

is a path to nowhere” because Putin had already demonstrated that he has no plans

to honor any accords that he doesn’t want to.

The US thus must play the key role because the preservation of an independent

Ukrainian state requires that Putin hears that if he sends his forces beyond the

demarcation line, „NATO will send its forces to Ukraine and if he crosses the Dnepr,

[Russian forces] will encounter Western units there.”

Everyone should remember that „if Western politicians after World War II had acted

as Frau Merkel and Mr. Hollande are now, the contemporary world would be one big

Soviet Union,” Rolicki says.

What is occurring now, he argues, is „the disgusting capitulation of the West and

democracy. If NATO and the EU give way to Putin, a real tragedy awaits us, one

which will threaten the security of the world” by allowing him to assume that his

hands are free to do what he likes.

„It is too bad,” Rolicki concludes, „that Moscow values and respects only crude

force. It is horrible that this country has been able to violate the nuclear taboo

without being punished. The nuclear issue has returned to our lives and again

become a direct threat to the existence of civilization.”

COMMENT

o Gregory Adair Czech Friend • 9 hours ago

Czech Friend,

The Europeans *always* believed in "diplomacy" and talking points while their house

burned down. Always. I mean, that is the history of modern Europe. Never mind 1938

and 1939, just look at the Balkans in the 1990's... Did "Europe" end that massacre

without a US intervention, weapons, and gunboat diplomacy? No! Sorry to be so

blunt.

In the US, most common people basically do not respect Europe with regards to

defense issues, because ordinary Americans had to go fight over there 2 times in the

20th century to bail them out, millions of Americans died for them, and the

Europeans still today do not provide for their own security. (We go easier on

Britain)...It's pathetic. It is not -- as ungenerous Europeans sometimes assert -- that

Americans are brutish and aggressive. It is that Americans take security seriously,

are practical, and do not have patience for bizarre philosophic solutions where

nobody is armed. The only Americans with such ideas are Obama and his NS Advisor

Susan Rice, who both are basically a joke. Europeans openly dismiss and insult us,

but they rely on us for protection. For this reason transatlantic relations are often

strained . You may view the infamously candid Victoria Nuland comment last year --

4

"f- Europe" -- in this light, as an expression of the frustration Americans often have

felt. I must wonder what the uncensored opinions regarding Merkel and Hollande

were in the Washington last week?

About Putin and Ukraine, there are 3 factors making America "gun shy" and avoidant

right now. One is "nuclear Russia"; approach with caution. Two is the **extremely**

unusual foreign policy mind called Barrack Obama. He thinks the world will not burn

down if America dis-engages from security threats. (ISIS is quickly destroying that

ridiculous theory). Third, another factor, for the American people themselves, is

actually being tired of wars. Just tired. America, by success, wealth, and broad

extension of its military power, got stuck with a never-ending chain of conflicts from

1941 to ...1990s. You hear left-thinking people speak as though America is a big

empire extracting benefit from all over the world. But it is more like hundreds of

bases we pay for and staff with 100s of thousands of soldiers, tons of international

responsibilities, and high taxes to keep making weapons. For Americans, power is

experienced as a huge responsibility, not a privelege.

Post 1990, just in time for a pause, came the ultimate meltdown of the Middle East ,

and Al Quaeda in 2001. Bad US policy made the Iraq situation a major mess that is

not over. In any case, the US got 14 years of very hard wars. Put simply, Americans

are now tired and prefer to stay home. Obama got elected while people were in this

mood (and Putin knows this).......Next up, Putin invades Ukraine. The first problem,

frankly, Americans did not really know where Ukraine is. And because they do not

want to go to war very much in general, they are -- so far -- not marching in the street

demanding to go confront Putin. Obama is now banking on getting all the way

though 2016 while sitting on his hands doing as little as possible in Ukraine. It is

plain as day.

The failure to defend Ukraine by the West cannot be blamed on Merkel. She is a

European, and a pacifist, Putin just laughs at her. No, once again, why not jut blame

America. Or rather.... I blame Obama. To me, the US is the only adult in the big room

here. Just as the US will have to lead actions to deal with ISIS, the US will have to

arm and train Ukraine. It is inevitable. Talk of Europe standing up to Putin are

basically absurd; there is no good precedent for it except Great britain in WW2.

Anybody can tell you this, except Obama. I personally wish we would just cut the

song-and-dance, tell Merkel to attend to her business in Berlin, and ship arms and

trainers to Lviv en-masse. Then get on with what needs to be done. This will come

late. Obama will drag it out to the very end.

see more

o

5

Dirk Smith • 2 days ago

Poland and Canada have discussed lethal aid for Ukraine. Just do it!!

see more

Gregory Adair Dirk Smith • 9 hours ago

There's a point!!! Canada -- with the world's largest Ukrainian diaspora -- should

spearhead the lethal aid move. The US is saddled with Obama. Harper could break

this open. Why not get Poland and Canada together , and drag the US in behind?

Canadian MPs: PAss Measures to ship lethal aid to Poland and Ukraine!

James Matkin •

I disagree. I believe escalating confrontation with military weapons from

US is counterproductive risking world war. The Ukraine is not a member of NATO and is by

geography and history within Russia's sphere of influence. "Looked

at with the lenses of “offensive realism” according John Mearsheimer, “The

Tragedy of Great Power Politics” 2001, leaves one pessimistic that the tragedy

unfolding with the Russian invasion of Ukraine will end well. We are witnessing

firsthand the growing split in the West over more military involvement by the

US. Mearsheimer’s realism is based on the fact war will occur because states

pursue power under our “anarchic system” with no hierarchy or “night watchman”

to sort out things when one state attacks another. My comment NY Times Feb. 09.

Unfortunately realism means that the tragedy of major countries is they

6

In negotiations, justice is not an objective standard because

there is no judge or arbitrator of what is fair and therefore parties must

accept that any lasting final deal negotiated will respect the relative

equality or inequality of power between the combatants.

"This is the justice of power, the right of might or of other endownments. In international

relations, as in other areas, sharing is not - and is not expected to be - on a

numerically equal basis but on the basis of acquired inequality. More is

expected by larger states, or more powerful states, or by littoral states or by

nuclear powers, or by victorious states, or by whichever party illustrates the

axiom, 'To those who have it shall be given." (Zartmann 104)

Justice is what the parties believe to be "fair". Justice is then fashioned by the parties (sui

generis) without the benefit of any compelling external review. There is no third

party to judge or legislate what is fair. Fairness is only an ideal in the

minds of the parties. It is accepting that “right is might” within limits

preventing anarchy. The limits are mostly

set by externalities; therefore, in the case of Ukraine if Russia pushes its

dominant power too far this may trigger unwanted escalation beginning with

direct lethal aid from the US.

Russia justifies its aggression in Crimea because the

revolution in Kiev unseating Viktor Yanukovych was unconstitutional as

Yanukovych being a democratically elected leader. Yes, he was unpopular because of his

“rampant corruption, lawlessness and autocracy” and the Maidan protests had widespread,

moderate grassroots support but the remedy for such misfeasance is both civil

prosecution and defeat at the ballot box, not revolution.

But two wrongs do not make a right so if the Kiev protestors

pushing Yanukovych out of office are illegally under the constitution how does

this justify Russia taking action that breaches the fundamental principle of

international law that a nations boundaries must not be changed by force?

“After all, Putin, in opposing U.S. intervention in other countries, has

said repeatedly that foreign intervention can be justified only with the

approval of the United Nations Security Council. Perhaps this is the real

reason Putin is pretending that there is no military intervention in Crimea.

But who is he fooling? Even his strongest supporters understand that thousands

of Russian troops have left their naval base in Sevastopol and have seized

Crimean installations. The other problem is if Putin wants to rely on legal

arguments, he will have trouble explaining why Russia should not abide by the

1994 Budapest Memorandum, which guarantees Ukraine’s territorial integrity.” Michael

Bohm is opinion page editor of The

Moscow Times.

o Milton Devonair James Matkin • 7 hours ago

7

"the growing split in the West over more military involvement by the US."

What are you talking about?

Who are you talking about?

Your whole post seems to be nothing but vague, meaningless generalities. Sounds like

something a professor would write, a professor that has never had a job, never left his

comfortable government funded office and experienced the real world.

So what EXACTLY are the answers to the above?

see more

Gregory Adair James Matkin • 9 hours ago

I disagree with your dismissal of the Ukraine Maidan... .

Most have by now read and studied Mearshimer's arguments from the Realist perspective,

echoed by Kissinger, and even Scowcroft. The problem with this older way of looking at

international affairs is that it presumes inevitabie of spheres of influence, denies agency to

smaller powers, and wrongly places "right" with might, rather than a justified order of close

correlation to the interests of citizens in an emergent democratic expression. Kissinger and

Mearshimer would both warn off confrontation with Russia, viewing its ability to control

Ukraine with "right". This is an backwards and defeatist philosophy. It is also anarchic. They

would not have been able to comfortably describe the world of 1939 under that theory. But

1939 is far closer to the situation today than the static ground of their ideas in the Cold War.

see more

Turtler James Matkin • 10 hours ago

"I disagree. I believe escalating confrontation with military weapons from

US is counterproductive risking world war."

8

You are welcome to disagree. The problem is that that was the sort of logic that helped

weaken us ad make the second world war that much more devastating. In the end you kill a

fire by putting it out or choking it of "food."

We have less of a risk by drawing the line as far away as possible than we do hoping Putin

changes his behavior.

As for the ruminations on Justice, while some degree of that cynicism is warranted, the

degree of subjectivism isn't. By that logic the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was "justice"

because the parties involved (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union) saw it as "fair."

"in the case of Ukraine if Russia pushes its

dominant power too far this may trigger unwanted escalation beginning with

direct lethal aid from the US."

It's already pushing its' dominant power too far. Shamelessly ripping up international

agreements and the history books alike is not the behavior of a responsible partner. It

needs to be punished if only to show that deterrence is there.

"Russia justifies its aggression in Crimea because the

revolution in Kiev unseating Viktor Yanukovych was unconstitutional as

Yanukovych

being a democratically elected leader. Yes, he was unpopular because

of his “rampant corruption, lawlessness and autocracy” and the Maidan

protests had widespread,

moderate grassroots support but the remedy for such misfeasance is both civil

prosecution and defeat at the ballot box, not revolution."

This is a fundamental misreading of what happened in the Maidans.

The Maidans started out as constitutionally protected free demonstrations, as the citizens of

any state have the natural right to do. Obviously, Yanu did not like having a massive

opposition force gathering strength because he remembered what happened last time

during the Orange-Blue faceoffs. So he started trying to disband them more and more.

Eventually, he decided to escalate to the point of unconstitutional measures, including

deploying paramilitary, extra-legal forces to crush the demonstrators (Even when they were

peaceful), and ultimately trying to deploy the military to wipe them out. Only for them to

laugh in his face.

These actions are Deeply Illegal and Unconstitutional. The second Yanukovych chose to do

it, his legitimacy under the Ukrainian constitution was null and void. Removing him at that

point was absolutely lawful, for the same reason it would be le gal to overthrow any other

usurper, initial democratic legitimacy or not. Which is why even his support base

evaporated.

9

The irony is that if Putin or Yanu had put the brakes on sooner or later- Putin to forcing his

puppet to do a spectacularly unpopular move, Yanu taking subtler steps to divide and

remove Maidan without resorting to ham handed tactics, etc- they would probably be in far

stronger positions than they are now.

But c'est la guerre.

Of course, this is something that is conveniently overlooked. Particularly because so few

people have looked at the Ukrainian constitution.

"The other problem is if Putin wants to rely on legal

arguments, he will have trouble explaining why Russia should not abide by the

1994 Budapest Memorandum, which guarantees Ukraine’s territorial integrity.”

Putin has never relied on legal arguments for anything more than superficiality. He rules

through brute force, and will continue to do so.

Ultimately, it will require some level of brute force to bring him down.

Hopefully, supporting the Ukrainians to do this and his domestic opposition will help that.

10

Why the West should listen to Merkel on Ukraine

Colin Robertson The Globe and Mail Tuesday, Feb. 17 2015

Do we arm Ukraine? Economic sanctions have not dissuaded President Vladimir

Putin from continuing Russian aggression.

At the Brisbane G20 summit in November, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Mr.

Putin to “get out of Ukraine.” For Western leaders, the question is what do they do

next.

How long will the new ceasefire endure? Few put much credence in Russian

assurances. An earlier ceasefire unravelled as Mr. Putin’s “little green men” pushed

forward.

Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko wants Western help, specifically lethal arms.

Brandishing captured Russian military IDs at the recent Munich Security Conference,

Mr. Poroshenko asked what further evidence is required of Russian aggression.

The UN estimates the conflict has killed more than 5,000 and displaced a million. Mr.

Putin has the escalatory advantage and he ruminates about the use of nuclear arms.

For Mr. Putin, the campaign is a “holy war’ protecting the Russian diaspora, as well

as a development that rights the 1989 dismemberment of greater Mother Russia.

11

While there have been some Russian protests over Ukraine, anti-Western attitudes

there are at a 25-year high.

A recent report, authored by members of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment,

argues that the West’s strategy to restrain Mr. Putin has failed. They recommend

significant military assistance: radar, drones and short range anti-armor weaponry to

enable Ukraine to counter the Russian offensive.

They argue that “to deter and defend” will raise the cost of aggression and bring Mr.

Putin back to the bargaining table. If Russia is not stopped now, they argue that the

Kremlin will believe it can get away with this form of hybrid warfare. The next

Russian intervention could be in Estonia or Latvia – NATO members with security

guarantees.

NATO’s top commander is calling for the use of “all tools” and, at his recent

confirmation hearing, U.S. Defence Secretary Ashton Carter favoured arms for

Ukraine. Non-intervention by the West during the Spanish Civil War, evocatively

captured in Alan Furst’s novel Midnight in Europe, only advantaged Franco’s

fascists.

But providing arms bring multiple challenges. It takes time to transport equipment

and even more time to train Ukrainians in its use. There is the risk of escalation.

Surveys in the United States are consistent: There is no appetite for American boots

on the ground.

For now, the West negotiates. U.S. President Barack Obama preaches “strategic

patience and persistence” in the newly updated U.S. National Security Strategy, but it

is German Chancellor Angela Merkel who is demonstrating both qualities.

Ms. Merkel, who hosts the G7 summit in June, is leading the negotiations with Mr.

Putin. Ms. Merkel has Mr. Putin’s number. Her leadership underlines Germany’s

geopolitical re-emergence, the only silver lining in this crisis.

Ms. Merkel argues for continued engagement and, for now, she is against arms for

Ukraine. This was her message at the recent Munich security conference and in

meetings last week with Mr. Obama and Mr. Harper. Ms. Merkel deserves our

continuing support.

Providing arms raises many questions:

· How do we control for their distribution?

· Who will be in charge of then?

· Who will train the Ukrainians?

· What and where are the firebreaks?

· Will arms increase casualties and risk a proxy war?

12

Economic sanctions and the drop in oil revenues have been brutal on Russia; its

GDP may fall 5 per cent this year. At some point the bite of sanctions will have to

diminish Mr. Putin’s appeal to Russian patriotism.

Like it or not, Ukraine is not a NATO member and the reasons why we did not

militarily intervene in Mr. Putin’s Crimean conquest still apply. We are already

engaged in a widening conflict with the Islamist militants of ISIL. This week, world

leaders convene for a White House summit on counterterrorism. Meanwhile, there are

the negotiations with Iran, with Mr. Obama declaring that there must be a nuclear

deal by the end of March.

Preserving Western consensus, within the European Union and between the EU and

United States, is always difficult. But if Washington presses ahead with lethal arms,

the Western consensus will crumble.

For now the West’s best choices are threefold:

· With Ukraine: more economic support conditional on the country improving its

governance. Ukraine is worse than Russia in Transparency International’s’

corruption index. As a start why not advise on Canadian-style federalism and

language rights?

· With Russia: continuing engagement with biting sanctions. As costs rise, Mr.

Putin’s calculus of actions without consequences will change.

· Within NATO: Honour the pledges made at the Wales summit to reverse defence

cuts and make the alliance fitter, faster and more flexible.

Whatever the West does, we need to do it collectively, or Mr. Putin wins. Before

adding more arms to the Ukraine crisis, trust Chancellor Merkel and double down on

patience and diplomatic engagement.

--

Colin Robertson

Senior Strategic Advisor, McKenna, Long and Aldridge LLP

Vice President and Fellow, Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute

robcolin@gmail.com

13

WAR IN UKRAINE: Next ceasefire

12 February 2015

TROUW AMSTERDAM

14

CARTOONIST

Tom Janssen (b. 1950) is a cartoonist for the Dutch press. He works for

Amsterdam daily Trouw and various local papers. His cartoons are also

published in The International Herald Tribune, Time Magazine, Le Monde and

The New York Times. In 2009 World Press Cartoon awarded him 2nd prize in

the Editorial Cartoon category for his take on “Wall Street”

Other cartoons by Tom Janssen

After a 17-hour marathon of talks in the Belarusian capital of Minsk, Russian

President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian and French counterparts Petro

Poroshenko and François Hollande, as well as German Chancellor Angela

Merkel, announced on 12 February a ceasefire between Ukrainian troops and

pro-Russian rebels in Eastern Ukraine. It will start on 15 February. The deal

"also involves the withdrawal of heavy weapons from conflict areas, but some

issues remain to be settled", writes BBC, according to which "the deal is very

similar to a ceasefire agreed last September, which unravelled very quickly."