Ukrainian test for the USA

Barack Obama is opposed to growing pressure from congressmen requiring the supply of weapons to Ukraine

On Thursday, American lawmakers sharply increased the level of pressure on the White House, urging President Obama to begin supplying military weapons of the Ukrainian army. Eleven congressmen, including the speaker of the House of Representatives, John Bayner, signed a letter from US President Barack Obama, in which Russia's actions against Ukraine are characterized as "egregious violation of international laws."

In a letter signed by John Beiner and ten of his colleagues who are on key posts in the Committee Security Committees, legislators resort to an extremely sharp assessment of Russia's actions and make serious warning regarding the consequences of such a policy of Moscow, trying to include President Obama in favor of the provision of weapons of the Ukrainian army. The president must realize that the reaction to the Ukrainian crisis is a geopolitical test for the United States, the test that the United States can fail, the authors of the letter insist. They call the Kremlin’s behavior “egregious violation of international laws, a challenge to the West, an attack on the international order established by such a high price as a result of the Second World War.”

Last year, Congress adopted a resolution signed by President Obama, authorizing the supply of weapons to Ukraine. However, official representatives of the White House say that President Obama has not yet made a decision on this issue. Despite the overwhelming support of the idea of military assistance to Ukraine by representatives of both parties in Congress and many prominent commentators and analysts, she has very serious opponents - important European allies of Washington. For President Obama, who emphasizes joint actions with the European Union in the confrontation with Moscow, this is a very serious counterargument. The congressmen write that they understand the president’s desire to act in conjunction with Europe, but now, in their opinion, the United States needs to take on the leader’s role: “We are calling you to lead Europe and challenge this attack on international order ... The lack of a general strategy of the United States in the face of Russian aggression has not yet helped to convince our friends and allies in the region, which, for obvious reasons, feel themselves. Vulnerable.

Public calls and pressure will hardly force President Obama to abandon their extremely cautious approach to the issue of the supply of military weapons to Kiev, the American political scientist and economist Paul Gregori , professor at the University of Houston, commentator for Forbes magazine believes:

He came to power on an anti -war platform, and he is trying to avoid steps that could involve the United States in military conflicts. The President continues to focus on the need to implement the Minsk agreements, he puts them in the most positive light, forgetting about the attack on Debaltseve and other similar events

- I think that President Obama desperately does not want to provide weapons to Ukraine. And he is looking for reasons not to do this, despite persistent calls from both the House of Representatives and from the Senate. Acting in this way, the president reacts to the mood of a significant part of the electorate, demonstrating anti -war sentiments. He came to power on an anti -war platform, and he is trying to avoid steps that could involve the United States in military conflicts. The President continues to emphasize the need to implement the Minsk agreements, he puts them in the most positive light, forgetting about the attack on Debaltseve and other similar events. So I think that in order for Barack Obama to sanction for the supply of weapons to Ukraine, something extremely dramatic must happen.

- In other words, do you think that the White House will continue to adhere to the tactics of waiting, contrary to the loud calls of supporters of the weapons of Ukraine?

- In order for the supply of weapons to Kyiv to begin, something dramatic must happen, as I said. What could it be? So far, two events of a similar scale have occurred, which forced the West to take decisive action. The first is the destruction of the Malaysian airliner over the territory held by the separatists, after which the first serious sanctions against Moscow were imposed. The second is an almost open entry into Ukraine in August last year of Russian troops. The third such event, in my opinion, was the capture of Debaltsev separatists after the entry into force of the next Minsk agreements. In my opinion, it was supposed to cause the decisive answer of the West, but this did not happen. I assume that if the separatists, with the support of Russia, go on the siege of Mariupol, this will force the White House to go to the supply of weapons to Ukraine. It is possible that the Kremlin realizes this and therefore beware of such a step, says Paul Gregori.

To the reluctance of President Obama, to respond positively to the persistent calls of Kyiv to help him with weapons treat some prominent American military with understanding. Former Chairman of the United Committee of the Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Mayers, agrees with the force of the main argument of the opponents, which consists that such supplies of weapons will only aggravate the conflict:

“As a military man, I would be concerned that in the case of supplying weapons to Ukrainian forces, Russia can easily respond with a sharp increase in support for separatists with technology and manpower,” says General Mayers in an interview with FoxNews. “We can never prevail in such a battle.” I am completely not sure that we must enter this path. I would continue to stay the current course: in cooperation with the allies, Putin to convince Putin that he acts outside international norms and the price of such actions for Russia will increase.