On combination of diplomacy and weapons

A few days ago mass media reported that the US is delivering another 17 million dollars’ worth batch of non-lethal weapons. In particular, the reports mentioned drones, communication systems, radars for detecting mortar and artillery positions, night-vision devices, and other equipment, as well as 30 off-road armored cars and 200            Humvees.

The reaction of the US and Ukraine to this news is quite interesting. Congressman Eliot Engel (Democratic Party) considers that this aid is not enough, because it will be of no real help for Ukrainians in the long run. As is known, both Republicans, and Democrats in both Houses of the Congress support providing lethal weapons to Ukraine, as they consider that namely increased losses in the Russian forces will help to stop Russian aggression in the east of Ukraine.

However, Obama’s Administration does not share this opinion so far. At a briefing White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest repeated that giving lethal military assistance to Ukraine may escalate the tension in the Donbas.

The Presidential Administration of Ukraine, however, considers that delivering defensive weapons to Ukraine is a way to de-escalate the situation in the Donbas and establish peace. This opinion was expressed by the deputy head of  the Presidential Administration of Ukraine Valerii Chaly, meaning namely the non-lethal weapons, which, according to him, will help to reinforce the defense of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our state. It looks surprising that the Presidential Administration for some reason didn’t state that namely assistance with lethal defense weapons that can really stop further advancement of separatists together with the Russian forces is needed.

Volodymyr OHRYZKO, former minister of foreign affairs of Ukraine, Kyiv:

“If Ukraine had the weapons that would make any attack on it unreasonable, that would be the constraint we badly need today. And it is absolutely irresponsible to say that this will lead to an escalation of the conflict. We should begin with the fact that an aggressor can be restrained only by force. And such force is the weapons which our American partners have so far been unwilling to give to us, although according to the Budapest Memorandum they promised to do everything to prevent any encroachment on territorial integrity of Ukraine. And there has been an encroachment on our territory, so we have the right to demand that the commitments undertaken by the United States be fulfilled. We have fulfilled our obligations connected with this memorandum, we got rid of the nuclear weapons, and now we need to restore the territorial integrity of our state.”

White House press secretary stated that current sanctions against Russia haven’t brought desired results, therefore the pressure on Moscow may be reinforced. Can we expect the US to implement new sanctions without Europe, which has becoming increasingly resistant against the new restrictions?

“Sanctions without Europe would be nonsensical, because they will have no effect, and vice versa will worsen the situation for the American firms, and without doubt they will fail to produce the expected positive effect. Therefore the sanctions should be simultaneous and coordinated. It is a question whether they will succeed in keeping to the sanctions, because today we hear the countries that traditionally are unwilling to see that a war is underway speak mainly about business. I think the most important thing will be to continue with the sanctions and after that think about their expanding. For this is taking a chronic form, and we need drastic practical measures that will make Russia understand that unless it stops, it will have a very sad ending.”

Recently in an interview to the Associated Press German Ambassador to the US Peter Wittig stated that Angela Merkel during her visit to Washington past month convinced President Barack Obama to refrain from giving Ukraine any lethal weapons. What should President Petro Poroshenko do during his visit to Berlin on March 16?

“I think Poroshenko must convince Ms. Merkel that it is impossible to stop the aggressor with mere statements, calls, and monitoring missions. That in fact this is freezing the aggression and appeasing the aggressor. If it is supposed to be considered a success of European diplomacy, unfortunately it is not a success. Therefore we need to convince the European leaders, including Ms. Merkel, that a real peace will come only when the aggressor is punished. So far this punishment has been nominal. The aggressor doesn’t feel the price everyone is talking about and which it must pay for rudely violating all regulations of the international law.”

It should be noted that Germany is supplying the weapons to the Iraqi Peshmerga fighters who resist the forces of the Islamic State, but it refuses to help Ukraine and keeps saying that there is no military solution to the conflict in the Donbas.

“The thing is that Russia stands behind all this. And at the moment it prevents European politicians from being unbiased. When something is very far away, it does not hurt, but when a certain threat is nearby, the decisions are unfortunately not made and formulated in a proper way. That is why I think that today the task of our diplomacy is above all, along with being thankful to the European Union for its support, to convince our partners that such policy won’t help to solve the conflict, it will simply turn it into another smoldering fire of tension in the European land. At the same time they should understand that there is no way we will agree that de facto (let alone de jure) seizing of the territory in the Donbas and Crimea will stay beyond Ukrainian jurisdiction.”

Shouldn’t Poroshenko remind Merkel of the famous phrase said by German emperor Friedrich the Great: “Diplomacy without weapons is like music without instruments”?

“I think this is namely what today’s very peaceful and pacifist leaders of Germany should be reminded of. When we are speaking about partners, only diplomacy, achievement of compromise, and mutually accepted decisions will do. But, unfortunately, in case with aggressor diplomacy is not enough. They say there is no military solution to the problem, but, unfortunately, there is no diplomatic solution either. Therefore we need a combination of both diplomatic and military measures. And this simple message should be conveyed to our respected Western partners.”