Translated material
Battle for weapons for Ukraine
In the United States, doubts about the help of a country that is not yet able to help itself
Why is the White House refused persistent calls to provide Ukraine with military weapons? How serious is the arguments of the opponents of the weapons of Ukraine? Can corruption in Ukraine impede American assistance? Will the West prevent the collapse of the Ukrainian economy?
We are discussing these and other issues with Daniel Gure , a former high-ranking Pentagon officer, Paul Gregori , a professor at the University of Houston, a commentator on the magazine Forbes, Yuri Yarym-Agaev , an employee of the Huveri Institute, Gregori Grushko , Executive Director of the American financial firm HWA.
In the United States, doubts about the help of a country that is not yet able to help itself
On Monday, the House of Congress Representatives in a symbolic demonstrative gesture by the vote - 348 versus 48 - approved the resolution calling for the White House to begin the supply of combat defensive weapons to Ukraine. This document formulates the motives of the actions of American legislators:
"The refusal to stop this aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, in particular, unprovided armed intervention into a sovereign state ... undermines the foundations of the international order established after the Second World War." A few months earlier, the Congress adopted a law that has been granted formal powers to provide all kinds of, including military assistance to Kyiv. The opinion of supporters of the provision of the Ukrainian Army of Weapons now dominates in Congress, where legislators blame the president to refuse to confront aggression, both in the press and among analysts. Even in the Obama administration, votes are heard in favor of the weapons of Ukraine. In support of such a measure, the Minister of Defense of the United States, Azhton Carter, the commander of the NATO troops, was almost directly reminded of General Bridlav constantly reminds of the dangers of Russia and the need to support Ukraine with all the measures available to the West. But the White House is unsolvedly responds to calls with a standard phrase: the president continues to consider the possibility of supplying combat defensive weapons of the Ukrainian army.
Commentators suggest that President Obama is worried that a sharp escalation of the conflict of Moscow will be a possible response to such a decision. His European allies Angel Merkel and Francois Hollande do not hide their decisive opposition to the idea of the military support of Ukraine, which is caused by this fear. Nobody wants a full -scale war in Ukraine. There is another consideration popular among opponents of the weapons of Ukraine. According to them, the Ukrainian army in its current state will not even be able to use the weapon that it requests. Because, for example, well -trained specialists are required to use anti -tank or anti -rack systems. They are not in Ukraine, but there is a chance that weapons will fall into the hands of separatists and the Russian army.
How much such considerations can be justified? There are grounds for worries, according to Daniel Gure , a former high-ranking Pentagon employee, vice president of the Lexington Institute, but the potential result is at risk.
- Indeed, we are talking about a very complex Western military equipment. In many cases, the problem for an unprepared army can be not only its use, but also maintenance. Also, we must not forget that anti -tank, anti -missile systems that Ukraine would like to receive are not used, so to speak, on their own. Their action should be coordinated with the actions of radars and other equipment that ensures the effectiveness of shooting. We are talking about the need to collect accurate intelligence information in order to ensure the guidance of these systems, which requires drones. We are talking about the use of anti -artillery radars, complex technology. This requires well -trained handling personnel, special units, which, as I understand it, are not in the Ukrainian army. Moreover, the maintenance of this equipment is a no less difficult task than using. Technics specialists are required in order to repair this complex equipment. It seems to me doubtful that the Ukrainian army, after the twenty -year period of fragmentation, now has the necessary qualifications for the effective use of modern Western weapons.
- In this case, from your point of view, how reasonable is the idea of providing such weapons to Ukraine?
Increasing the combat effectiveness of the Ukrainian army will put Putin before a very difficult dilemma: either entry into an open war, or a quiet retreat
- There is no doubt, in my opinion, that if Ukraine receives the Western equivalent of the technique that Russia provided to the rebels, this will have exceptionally serious consequences for the situation on the battlefield, because our weapons are better than what is available in Russian arsenals: whether it is about tanks, anti -tank weapons, and anti -missile systems. Even the portable anti -tank installations of the Western model are much more effective than what Ukraine now has. In my opinion, a true step would be a gradual increase in the supply of military equipment to Ukraine. You can start with simple systems and, in the meantime, conduct the preparation of Ukrainian units that can use more complex equipment. An increase in the combat effectiveness of the Ukrainian army will put Putin before a very difficult dilemma: either entry into an open war, or a quiet retreat.
- It is believed that Ukraine is not able to prevail in the conflict with Russia simply due to the incommensurability of the values of two sides. Can, let’s say, theoretically, the Ukrainian army successfully resist the opponents in the war in which Ukraine was?
- I would raise the question like this: given the weakness of state institutions, is the Ukrainian army an army today only on paper? This institution is corrupt, the salaries of the military are low, in this state the army is not able to fulfill its tasks. But if she receives the necessary financing and support from the state, if the system of training military personnel is restored, the Ukrainian army will no doubt prevail over the separatists and their Russian sponsors. Can the Ukrainian army resist the Russian army? No. But it is possible that in five years I will give a different answer to this question.
- What can be the motives of President Obama, refusing to provide weapons to Kiev? Question to Yuri Yarym-Agaev , an employee of the Guuver Institute in California.
- The White House still does not want to recognize the fact of war between Russia and Ukraine, still occupies the position that these are internal contradictions, within Ukraine. And all the more, he does not want to admit the fact that this is no longer a regional conflict, but in fact a global conflict, that in fact, Putin's comrades declare completely directly, that this war is actually not against Ukraine, but against America. They interpret this as a classic war by the wrong hands, similarly to the Vietnamese or Korean wars, which the Soviet Union waged against America. This is my opinion. But the White House does not want to recognize anything closely, accordingly, he does not want to participate in this, first of all he does not want to give weapons.
- Paul Gregori, you are decisively advocating the support of Ukraine with weapons in your comments in the magazine Forbes. What do you think this did not happen, despite the powerful pressure on the White House from the side of both Congress and the American press, because supporters of such a step in the United States are incomparably more than opponents?
- I think this is part of the ideology of Obama. He does not like war, he is not very interested in the reasons in this war, ”says Paul Gregori . -I doubt that he will once give help-it does not depend on how much Congress will try to influence him, this is a completely useless thing.
- Do you completely exclude the practical considerations of the White House? For example, the unpreparedness of the Ukrainian army to use modern weapons, fears regarding their fellow separatists?
Ukrainian troops have already proved that they can fight against separatists, they simply cannot fight against the Russian army
“ I think this is nonsense,” says Paul Gregori. - Ukrainian troops have already proved that they can fight against the separatists, they simply cannot fight against the Russian army. I spoke with experts who know military science, they emphasize the importance of weapons and so on. And with such weapons it will be possible to do something against the Russian army, the problem in participating in the war of the Russian army, not in the separatists.
-Yuri Yarym-Agaev, you apparently believe that such a weapon can be entrusted to the Ukrainian army?
- I think there is no such problem. At the same time, I am completely not inclined to idealize the state of Ukraine, it is really weak, corrupt, like its army. But at the seminar, which Paul and I recently organized at the Guver Institute, I proposed a formula for supporting Ukraine. In Russian it sounds like controlled support. That is, we must give weapons to Ukraine, but we should not give it uncontrollably, we must simultaneously send our advisers there, and at the level of both tactical, which will train the use of these weapons and strategic, which will help the Ukrainian army organize the right actions. We must also conduct training and training of Ukrainian warriors. And if this is done comprehensively with the participation and even under the control of American experts, then it will be a working and correct approach that will help the Ukrainian army use this weapon very effective and provide real resistance.
- Does this mean the direct intervention of American advisers in the Ukrainian conflict, which, as we understand, no one wants?
- It is impossible to avoid this-this is an ostrich policy, ”says Yuri Yarym-Agayev. - America does not have a way out in this situation. She wants or does not want, she needs to admit a fact. I do not urge to send American troops there, the Ukrainian army is able to fight, and it becomes stronger and stronger. America must understand that she is an ally, that the issue of supporting the Ukrainian army is no longer just charity about Ukraine. And in our interests, American interests to support the most Ukrainian army, which takes on the main blow in this war.
And yet, speaking of other considerations. On Wednesday, on a press briefing in the State Department, after the resignation of Igor Kolomoisky from the post of head of the administration of the Dnipropetrovsk region, journalists asked the question of whether on the plans of American assistance to Ukraine to the next confirmation that Ukraine remains a deeply corrupt country. The press secretary of the State Department replied that assistance was ongoing. Gregory Grushko, maybe this is not such an attractive aspect of the image of Ukraine to harm the country in the eyes of the American leadership, to be partially an obstacle to providing real assistance?
- I agree that Yuri just said, one might say, the formula “trust, but check,” says Gregori Grushko . - The fact that Ukraine is a deeply corrupt country, I think no one doubts this. The Ministry of Defense of Ukraine is still deeply corrupt-also a fact, both the SBU, and other power structures. Therefore, of course, there are always fears that we will supply weapons to where it will either be incorrectly used, or will not be used, or will fall into enemy hands. These fears exist. And the latest events in Ukrainian domestic policy support these fears to a certain extent.
- If you judge the total volumes of assistance provided by Ukraine by the United States, because they look small. What is it connected with?
“ First of all, this is due to the American unwillingness to be inserted into the conflict between Russia and Ukraine,” says Gregori Grushko. - Financial assistance, of course, is primarily restrained by the fear of Ukrainian corruption.
- Paul Gregory, I want to ask you a question as an economist: is it possible to provide effective assistance to a country whose state system, as we all understand well, is corrupt, is it possible to help a country that is not ready to help itself, at least it is seen from the outside?
Ukraine resists the Russian army, and the victims on the Russian side are large
-It is impossible to expect from Ukraine that there will be some kind of clean, one hundred percent government. But this is a good government. I think we are greatly exaggerating this problem. If it was our factor to decide whether to give or not give, I think we gave almost nothing to anyone, Egypt and so on. Anyone who says that Ukraine does not want to help itself, I think this is stupidity. Ukraine resists the Russian army, and the victims on the Russian side are large. This means that they are really ready to sacrifice. I don't understand such questions at all.
“ But they are inevitable if, after eight months of the reign of the new president, we witness what looks like oligarchic showdowns against the background of war and the crisis that threaten the existence of the country.” Gregory Grushko, you carefully observe what is happening in Ukraine, can you say that there are real reforms or not?
Inside the country, for sure, we can guess, speaking, speaking the language of Putin, some kind of "fifth column"
- The reforms are actually a lot, they are not as significant, which the whole world will talk about. For example, the Ministry of Economics, Economics Development is constantly working to reduce the quantity of taxes and licenses that small business should receive. That is, they improve the business climate. Today, for example, Poroshenko announced the creation of a group to return the stolen money to Ukraine. Great plan. Why didn’t he take place, say, six months ago? Because there were some other problems. There was a revolution, there is a war that distracts a lot of attention and a lot of resources in the country. And of course, within the country, we can probably guess, speaking, speaking, speaking Putin’s language, some “fifth column” of people who cannot be trusted and who are actively resisting any reforms, any positive changes within the country.
-Yuri Yarym-Agaev, is Ukraine capable of helping itself or is there a danger that all this help will go into a bottomless barrel?
We need the help of serious American experts, you need to create a team how it was created in Chile
-Let 's say directly: if Ukraine were so ideal, not corrupt, not weak, not destroyed to some extent, then it would have coped at all without any support from America and anyone. The question is about support forms. We need not to resolve the issue, yes or no, but we need to find adequate forms of support, taking into account all the circumstances that we recognize: the weaknesses of power, corruption of power, etc., the absence of specialists. The same approach should be in the economy and in military things. We must give money, but we must send our advisers, economists and financiers with money, who will help Ukraine work with this. There are not enough their personnel. The reforms that Gregory spoke of, mainly a tactical nature, need to develop a strategic position, economic position of Ukraine. This requires the help of serious American experts, you need to create a team how it was created in Chile.
- Yuri, why hasn't this happened so far? After all, we know that the Ukrainian authorities tried to create such a team, Ukrainians came to many leading posts from abroad, people with Western experience, and while we do not see the results.
- Unfortunately, the people who are assigned to these positions are very weak people, I looked at their biographies. I do not want to criticize, but neither the level of their Minister of Finance, nor the level of their Minister of Economics corresponds to the complexity of the tasks that are worth it. I do not know by what principle they chose these people. But in addition to the appointment of people for ministerial positions, as I said, when economic reform was carried out in Chile, the main people who developed this reform - they were Americans, they were not appointed to the posts of ministers, it was a separate team that developed this reform project in America. There is no such team, America can do it. Again, Obama does not want to show any initiative on this subject. In principle, this can be done in addition to Obama, such a team can be created by a congress, a Senate, to allocate resources to this, to agree at the level of, of course, the highest level of Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk, so that this team influences, and make this a condition for issuing the necessary resources and loans for this reform. The same is with the military.
– Пол Грегори, наш собеседник предлагает Соединенным Штатам взять так сказать, тотальное шефство над Украиной, иначе у нее ничего не выйдет?
– Я немножко не согласен с Юрием по вопросу качества правительства. По моему мнению, это в большинстве случаев профессиональные молодые люди с Запада и так далее. Думаю, важнее, чем экспертиза – это как они думают, а они думают, как западный человек, они думают, как войти в Евросоюз и так далее. Я думаю, что они хорошие молодые люди с хорошим образованием. Теперь есть время начинать это дело. Думаю, невозможно было до выбора Рады, до выбора президента.
– Господа, мы много говорим о том, сколь серьезны проблемы Украины, признаков улучшения ситуации, насколько я понимаю, пока не видно, Киев держится исключительно поддержкой западных столиц. А насколько вероятна перспектива экономического краха или превращения страны, извините за слово, в Гаити, государство, живущее благодаря щедротам других. Вот, например, что Джордж Сорос только что сказал в интервью новостной службе "Блумберг":
– Есть две возможности, одна – произойдет реальный коллапс Украины. Это самый предпочтительный для Путина ход событий. Он бы хотел финансового краха Украины, внутриполитические потасовки, с тем чтобы он мог в конце концов сказать: я к этому не имею отношения, я хороший человек, отменяйте санкции.
– Юрий Ярым-Агаев, Сорос говорит о возможном коллапсе Украины?
– Я не думаю, что есть опасения, что она рухнет или превратится в Гаити. Вопрос не в том, что я критически отношусь к существующему правительству Украины, я к нему отношусь положительно, но это совершенно не исключает необходимости оказать этим же людям максимальную поддержку со стороны Америки в виде таких групп, о которых я говорю. И это не только экспертная поддержка – это еще поддержка авторитетов украинских американских экономистов и финансистов, американских генералов и других людей. Это то, что может помочь молодым талантливым людям, о которых говорил Грегори и Пол, осуществлять их реформы.
– Пол Грегори, как вам кажется как экономисту, какова вероятность того, что Украина все-таки рухнет под давлением этих экономических обстоятельств? Ее экономика, насколько я понимаю, и так уже практически уничтожена или нет?
– Украина рухнет без денег. Главное, что Запад может дать, – это деньги. Украина может рухнуть, если будет стопроцентная атака русской армии на Украину. С деньгами и без прямой атаки, я думаю, не будет конца Украины. Если берем экономический спад Украины, сколько это из-за войны, сколько из-за экономических проблем, думаю, 60-70 процентов потерь – это из-за войны. Главное – это деньги. Если Запад не готов дать денег – это может быть конец Украины.
– Грегори Грушко, выживет украинская экономика под таким давлением войны, коррупции, багажа прошлого?
Украинская экономика не рухнет, я более чем уверен, что Запад будет продолжать содержать украинскую экономику, будет выдавать необходимые кредиты
– Украинская экономика не рухнет, я более чем уверен, что Запад будет продолжать содержать украинскую экономику, будет выдавать необходимые кредиты. Но без стабильной и растущей экономики Украина, конечно же, не может быть независимой страной. И вопрос стоит, добьются ли украинские реформы, которые уже объявлены, успеха, если да, то Украина будет успешна. Если же Украина повязнет внутри олигархических войн, клановых схваток и так далее, то это процесс либо живой, либо мертвый, будет продолжаться еще довольно долго.
– Юрий, как вы считаете, стоит ли все-таки Киеву рассчитывать на военную и финансовую помощь Соединенных Штатов?
– Я думаю, что стоит, – говорит Юрий Ярым-Агаев. – В конечном итоге финансовую – да, военную, я надеюсь, что тоже да, хотя я согласен со скепсисом Пола по поводу администрации Обамы. Но насколько я понимаю, возможно оказание этой помощи через другие страны, например, через ту же Великобританию, что для Украины не имеет принципиального отличия. На самом деле это частично уже началось. Я думаю, что рассчитывать на это частично можно, но нельзя строить свою политику, только на это полагаясь, надо, конечно, бороться за это. Еще одну вещь, которую я хочу сказать, что украинское правительство просто очень неопытное в этом смысле, очень мало делает для того, чтобы влиять на американскую политику в этом вопросе. Они воспринимают обамовскую политику как полностью уже заданную и не считают, что они, работая с американской прессой, с американским Сенатом и Конгрессом тоже могут оказывать давление и влияние на эту политику.
– Пол, получит в конце концов Украина помощь военную от Соединенных Штатов?
- No. Все зависит от Обамы, он не хочет давать. Финансовая – это другой вопрос.
- Финансовая помощь вне всяких сомнений будет оказываться, а военная помощь, многое, если не все, зависит от Путина, – говорит Грегори Грушко. – Усиление военных действий России и ее наемников в Украине, конечно же, заставит даже администрацию Обамы начать поставлять оружие в Украину.