Suddenly in the New-York Times: Ukraine cannot be armed. Forget about Crimea
New York – Kyiv, February 12 (PolitNavigator, Vasily Ablyazimov) – The world's most influential newspaper, The New York Times, is publishing a powerful article by University of Chicago professor John Marsheimer. In it, the author argues that the United States should under no circumstances arm Ukraine, and Crimea should be forgotten.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator – Kyiv news on Facebook , Odnoklassniki , or VKontakte
“The crisis in Ukraine is almost a year old,” writes an influential American newspaper, “and Russia is winning. Separatists in eastern Ukraine are gaining momentum, and Russian President Vladimir Putin shows no signs of backing down in the face of Western economic sanctions.”
It is not surprising, the newspaper believes, that a growing chorus of voices in the United States is calling for the supply of weapons to Ukraine. A recent report from three leading US think tanks endorses the sending of advanced weapons to Kyiv.
“They are wrong,” says Professor John Marsheimer. – Going down this path would be a huge mistake for the United States, NATO and Ukraine itself. Sending weapons to Ukraine will not save its army and will instead lead to an escalation of hostilities.”
The balance of power is such that Washington will have to transfer huge amounts of weapons to the Ukrainian army, which, however, do not guarantee much hope for success. The authors of the studies done for the American government admit that “even with enormous support from the West, Kyiv will not be able to win a decisive attack.” In short, the United States cannot win the arms race and thus ensure defeat on the battlefield.
Weapons supplies will increase the risks of unwanted escalation. Not only is fighting in Eastern Ukraine sure to intensify, but it could also spread to other areas. The consequences for Ukraine, which already faces deep economic and social problems, would be catastrophic.
“The only way to resolve the crisis in Ukraine is diplomatic work, not a military path,” the author of the publication is confident. – German Chancellor Angela Merkel seems to recognize this fact. She said that Germany would not supply weapons to Kyiv. But she and other European leaders are still under the delusion that Ukraine can be pulled out of Russia's orbit and incorporated into the West, and that Russian leaders must acknowledge this."
That is why the New-York Times writer concludes: to preserve Ukraine and ultimately restore working relations with Moscow, the West must strive to make Ukraine a neutral buffer state between Russia and NATO. It should be like Austria during the Cold War. To this end, the West must emphasize that its goal is not to annex Ukraine. The United States and its allies must also work with Putin to save Ukraine's economy, a goal that is clearly in everyone's best interest.
“This is very important, because Russia,” the newspaper is confident, “will help stop the fighting in Eastern Ukraine and return control over these areas to Kyiv. However, the Donetsk and Lugansk regions should be given significant autonomy and Russian language rights protected, and these two steps should be top priorities.”
John Marsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, ends his speech in perhaps the most influential newspaper in the world with the words surprisingly unusual for the American press: “Crimea is certainly lost forever. It’s time to put an end to this careless policy on Crimea, which only brings harm to Ukraine and complicates relations between Russia and the West.”
English version :: Read in English Suddenly in the New York Times: Ukraine can't be armed. Forget about Crimea.