PRO/CON: Should U.S.

grant Ukraines urgent request for

military aid?
By Lawrence J. Haas and John B. Quigley, McClatchy-Tribune News
Oct. 10, 2014 1:00 AM
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko (center) inspects military gear at a military base in Zhytomyr, Ukraine,
Oct. 4, 2014.
PRO: Putins aggression against Ukraine wont be stopped by mere sanc-
tions
WASHINGTONThe president sets U.S. foreign policy but, with regard to Ukraine, Congress
has an opportunity to push the United States in a more fruitful direction by approving bipartisan
legislation from the Senate that would give Kiev $350 million in military aid to help it fend o
Moscows advances.
Russias Vladimir Putin, who dreams of resurrecting the Soviet empire, scos at U.S. and European
actions to date, and he wont be deterred from seizing more of Ukraine and plotting his next
moves in the region by somewhat tougher sanctions or more Western poo-pooing about his growing
isolation.
Thats important because Putin is not just carving up a former Soviet republic but, increasingly,
hes threatening the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, all of which are now members of
1
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). More broadly, hes threatening the very norms of
international relations that have mostly ensured global stability in the post-Cold War world.
Only U.S. military aid to Ukraines besieged government holds the potential to give Putin any
pause. As Ukraines President Petro Poroshenko told Congress recently with regard to U.S. non-
military aid, Blankets and night-vision goggles are important. But one cannot win a war with
blankets.
For the U.S.-led West and its eorts to halt Putins advances, 2014 has been a weak year of verbal
condemnation, limited sanctions and military posturing.
Far from disturbing Putin, the Wests actions to date have only encouraged Moscows strongman
to push ahead.
Russia annexed Crimea in March after its troops seized control of the peninsula and, in a fraudulent
election, Crimeans voted 95.5 percent to join Russia. U.S. and European leaders denounced the
action, imposed limited sanctions, and conducted military exercises in the areanone of which
deterred Putin.
Then, Russia aided pro-Russia separatists in Ukraine, sent troops and arms across the border, cut
o natural gas supplies on which Ukraine relies heavily, and forced concessions from Kiev as part
of a cease-re that separatists have already violated.
President Barack Obama vowed that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine,
the United States and Europe ramped up sanctions and Obama visited Estonia to voice U.S. support
for the Balticsbut Putin barely noticed.
Regarding the Baltics, a top Russian ocial recently complained of discrimination against ethnic
Russians and the Russian language, laying the groundwork for a Ukraine-like intervention.
In addition, Russia seized an Estonian security ocial along their shared border and charged him
with espionage, captured a Lithuanian shing vessel in what it said were Russian waters, and
asked Lithuania to extradite some 1,500 former Soviet citizens who supposedly hadnt fullled their
military service in the Soviet Union.
Weak Western action is emboldening Putin. In mid-September, Russian strategic nuclear bombers
ew within 63 miles of Alaskas coast and 46 miles of Canadas, forcing U.S. and Canadian jets to
intercept them.
That Russia sent its bombers as Poroshenko was meeting with top Canadian and U.S. ocials
signaled Putins disdain for the West. In the same vein, Russia sent nuclear bombers on a practice
cruise missile attack o Canadas coast earlier in September around the time of NATOs summit in
Wales in response to Russias activities in Ukraine.
2
Such Russian brashness comes as Moscow is upgrading its nuclear arsenal with new missiles, sub-
marines and a new bomber; test-ring new missiles, and strengthening its forces and bases in the
Arctic.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the $350 million in aid for Ukraine on Sept. 18.
Congress should quickly follow suit, and President Obama should shift course and sign it.
Otherwise, well surely see more brazen Russian attacks both in Ukraine and beyond, forcing Wash-
ington to ponder what comes next and how much more it will let Putin chip away at the U.S.-led
global order. ABOUT THE WRITER: A former communications director for Vice President Al
Gore, Lawrence J. Haas is a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. Readers may
write him at AFPC, 1509 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20002.
This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not
subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily
represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.
CON: Providing lethal aid will shatter cease-re; add to death and de-
struction
COLUMBUS, OhioPresident Barack Obama is right to reject the request of Ukraine President
Petro Poroshenko for military aid of the lethal type. Poroshenko wants weaponry to ght separatist
elements in his country.
Obama gave Poroshenko a feel-good moment during his visit to Washington by letting him make
an impassioned appeal in Congress for lethal aid, generating applause from lawmakers. But in a
meeting just after, Obama turned Poroshenko down. Obama will come up with military aid of a
non-lethal type for Ukraine.
A cease-re is in placemore or lessin Ukraine between the central authorities and the separatists,
who hold the major eastern cities of Donetsk and Luhansk. If the cease-re holds, the warfare that
has devastated some areas in eastern Ukraine will not resume. Giving Ukraine more lethal-type
aid would risk fueling the hostilities in eastern Ukraine at a time when matters seem to be getting
resolved.
Poroshenko has just made an important concession to the separatists with the passage of a law on
autonomy for the separatist-inclined areas. That law, along with the cease-re, has set a path to a
way out of the deadly conict.
Obamas rejection of lethal aid does not satisfy everyone in Congress. The Senate Foreign Relations
Committee has called for lethal aid to Ukraine. But what the United States should now do is to
3
help solidify the cease-re and encourage implementation of the new autonomy law.
That law is a good rst step toward giving the population in eastern Ukraine more control over
local aairs, and allowing for maintenance of the closer ties that that area has historically had with
Russia.
In the public discussion over a proper U.S. approach toward the situation, focus has been on U.S.-
Russia dierences. There is a tendency to see anything that looks like a gain for Russia as a loss
on our side.
The focus needs to be on what is best for Ukraine. The United States is a participant in the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which has been working in Ukraine to bring
about an agreement between the central authorities and the separatists over their relationship.
Finding the right balance will not be easy. The new law on autonomy is more a road map than a
precise recipe. It leaves unclear exactly which parts of eastern Ukraine are involved, and just what
autonomy will mean.
One factor of some uncertainty is the desire of the population in eastern Ukraine. One segment of
the easterners wants nothing to do with the government in Kiev. It is that opinion that fuels the
separatists. But others in that part of Ukraine are comfortable with rule from Kiev. And perhaps
a third segment just wants calm.
One key element in the new autonomy law is an assurance that the Russian language can be used
in the public sphere in eastern Ukraine. That is a good step, even though it is only a reversion to
the situation that preceded the turbulent events of last winter in Ukraine.
In the midst of that political turmoil, Ukraines parliament passed a law to repeal a 2012 law that
had allowed for the use of Russian as an ocial language. Protest followed that move, leading
Ukraines president to nullify the repeal. Now at least the prior situation has been restored.
Just what kind of relationship eastern Ukraine will have with Russia remains to be worked out.
Annexation by Russiaas happened earlier in the year for Crimeais not in the cards for eastern
Ukraine. The central government and the separatists have to work out an accommodation.
The United States should promote that process. There is every reason to believe that an acceptable
arrangement can be achieved that will end the bloodshed in Ukraine. ABOUT THE WRITER:
John B. Quigley is a distinguished professor of law at Ohio State University. Readers may write to
him at Moritz College of Law, 55 West 12th St., Columbus, Ohio 43210.
This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not
subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily
represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.
4
5
Quiz
1. All of the following are arguments the PRO author uses to convince the reader of his point,
EXCEPT:
(a) the need to support NATO allies
(b) maintaining the role of U.S. role in a post-Cold War world
(c) keeping up the eectiveness of sanctions
(d) preventing further actions by Putin in Eastern Europe
2. Read the nal paragraph from the PRO author:
Otherwise, well surely see more brazen Russian attacks both in Ukraine and beyond, forcing
Washington to ponder what comes next and how much more it will let Putin chip away at
the U.S.-led global order.
What broader point is the author trying to hammer home in this nal paragraph?
(a) Russias threat to U.S. interests
(b) Putin as a threat to eastern Ukraine
(c) Russia losing its power to U.S.
(d) Washingtons inability to deal with Ukraine
3. Both authors touch on how foreign policy shows the separation of powers between Congress
and the president. What larger principle of how our government works does this highlight?
6
Note: you may need other texts outside of the PRO/CON arguments for the answer.
(a) veto power
(b) foreign policy
(c) military intervention
(d) checks and balances
4. In which document can you nd the rule stating that Congress votes yes on a law before the
president signs it? Note: you may need other texts outside of the PRO/CON arguments for
the answer.
(a) the Bill of Rights
(b) the original U.S. Constitution
(c) the Declaration of Independence
(d) the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
7
Answer Key
1. All of the following are arguments the PRO author uses to convince the reader of his point,
EXCEPT:
(a) the need to support NATO allies
(b) maintaining the role of U.S. role in a post-Cold War world
(c) keeping up the eectiveness of sanctions
(d) preventing further actions by Putin in Eastern Europe
2. Read the nal paragraph from the PRO author:
Otherwise, well surely see more brazen Russian attacks both in Ukraine and beyond, forcing
Washington to ponder what comes next and how much more it will let Putin chip away at
the U.S.-led global order.
What broader point is the author trying to hammer home in this nal paragraph?
(a) Russias threat to U.S. interests
(b) Putin as a threat to eastern Ukraine
(c) Russia losing its power to U.S.
(d) Washingtons inability to deal with Ukraine
3. Both authors touch on how foreign policy shows the separation of powers between Congress
and the president. What larger principle of how our government works does this highlight?
8
Note: you may need other texts outside of the PRO/CON arguments for the answer.
(a) veto power
(b) foreign policy
(c) military intervention
(d) checks and balances
4. In which document can you nd the rule stating that Congress votes yes on a law before the
president signs it? Note: you may need other texts outside of the PRO/CON arguments for
the answer.
(a) the Bill of Rights
(b) the original U.S. Constitution
(c) the Declaration of Independence
(d) the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
9