Light at the End of Putin’s Tunnel
by Walter Derzko
--------------------------
In the midst of mostly bad news from Ukraine, there is some glimmer of
hope.
In wartime, Ukraine has to utilise more misinformation
directed at Russia. It did that successfully last week, announcing that it’s
given up on Eastern Ukraine, possibly lulling Sloviansk separatists into a
false sense of security, while staging a successful surprise attacked to
recapture checkpoints around Sloviansk. But why Sloviansk?
In the event of a conventional
Russian military invasion and confrontation, Ukrainian forces would lose. But
Kyiv does have other military cards to play. Kyiv has a strategic reserve of
Kalashnikov assault rifles and other light weapons dating back to Soviet times.
According to a UK military institute: “[Kyiv] has hinted quietly but strongly
in military back channels that it might be prepared to open this strategic
reserve of weapons to eastern Ukrainians prepared to resist any Russian
military incursions. Since the stockpile consists of up to five million
weapons, the prospect would be a nightmare for Russian military planners. The
prospect of civil war and an anti-Russian insurgency on an unprecedented scale
with unpredictable consequences represents a real – if extremely dangerous –
bargaining chip for Kyiv. At least half the strategic stockpile of light
weapons on Ukrainian territory is concentrated near Slavyansk.” Hopefully they
haven’t all been stolen.
But can Ukraine actually beat Russia? That’s a question many people are asking
themselves.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former White House security
advisor noted at the Atlantic Council recently that Ukraine
will only beat Russia in one way: prolonged urban resistance, and not through
direct conventional warfare against tanks, which is what I proposed in my OPED
several weeks ago. Ukraine needs to fight a war of attrition (http://bit.ly/1lBuxz9 )
Brzezinski concludes: “I think we should be more open
to help Ukrainians defend themselves if they are attacked, because they will
only defend themselves if they are attacked, if they think we will help them.
So there is kind of a duality here. I’m not in favour of a rush of forces into
Ukraine or engaging in immediate massive shipments of weapons, but I do think
if we are to deter the Russians from moving in, we have to convince the
Russians that it will be costly and prolonged. It will only be costly and
prolonged if the Ukrainians fight. The Ukrainians will only fight if they think
they will eventually get some help from the west, particularly the kind of
weaponry that would be necessary to wage a successful defence. They are not
going to beat the Russians out in the open field where thousands of tanks move
in. They will only beat them one way. Prolonged urban resistance. Then the war
becomes costly. Then its economic costs escalate dramatically for the Russians.
And then the war becomes futile politically. But to be able to defend the city,
you have to have hand-held anti-tank weapons, you have to have hand-held
rockets, you have to have some organization to make it difficult. But city
fighting is the most difficult and most costly kind of fighting for any partner
engaged in a war, unless one partner is prepared to use weapons of total
destruction, which obviously don’t come into play here.” (see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW3Yj5jLcOs)
Brzezinski must still have some sway in US foreign
policy.
Last week a group of Republican senators in the US
Congress tabled the Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014, which
proposes far tougher sanctions on Russia and offers direct defensive military
assistance, which Obama has not supported so far.
Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014
Background: The situation in eastern
Ukraine has deteriorated in recent days. Pro-Russian separatists seized
additional administrative buildings and police stations. Russia has not
implemented the Geneva Agreement and refuses to call on the separatists to
disarm and vacate occupied buildings.
U.S. Response: The United States’
response thus far has been reactive and has failed to impose the type of cost
that will change Vladimir Putin’s calculus. This legislation seeks to change
that dynamic by providing a comprehensive strategy that strengthens the NATO
alliance, deters Russian aggression by imposing tougher sanctions, and supports
our non-NATO partners in Europe and Eurasia. In particular, the legislation
provides Ukraine with direct military assistance, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft
weapons, as appropriate.
Sanctions: The legislation
imposes immediate on four Russian banks: Sberbank, VTB Bank, VEB Bank,
Gazprombank, as well as Gazprom, Novatek, Rosneft, and Rosoboronexport. Second,
the legislation cuts off all senior Russian officials from the world’s
financial system. In addition, tough sanctions would target any Russian
entities owned by the Russian government across the banking, arms, defense,
energy, financial services, metals, or mining sectors.
Military Aid to Ukraine: The legislation authorizes $100 million worth of
direct military assistance to Ukraine, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft
weapons and small arms. It also encourages the sharing of intelligence with
Ukraine.
Let’s hope both Republicans and Democrats support this
bill in Congress and it’s done before the Russian army formally invades Ukraine
or strolls in as “peace keepers”.