The armed conflict in eastern Ukraine between government forces and Russian-backed separatists is heating up again, and many U.S. policymakers are calling for President Obama to resolve the conflict by giving Ukraine weaponry to defeat the separatists and Russian supporters.
This is a disastrous policy that would undermine the efforts of EU leaders to craft a negotiated solution to the crisis, and could in fact instigate a massive escalation of the conflict.
Almost alone in the Senate, Maine Sen. Angus King has been asking tough questions about this dangerous and complex issue and trying to make sure his colleagues consider the risks involved. We should thank him for his mature, responsible approach to crafting our nation’s foreign policy.
At a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Angus grilled three hawkish witnesses who claimed that only giving arms to Ukraine can increase risks and costs to Russia (“more dead Russian soldiers”) and force Putin to the negotiating table. But their testimony and the supportive comments of committee chair John McCain were rife with dangerous assumptions and blind spots.
“You guys are assuming a static universe. We arm the Ukrainians and nothing else happens,” Angus said to the witnesses. “But Putin would obviously respond in some way. And he’s sitting on the side of the poker table with most of the chips because it’s on his turf.” He’s right — Putin has thus far met and raised every offensive of the Ukrainian army by providing more arms and fighters to the rebels. Angus also asked whether U.S. arms transfers would play into Putin’s carefully crafted narrative of an existential struggle with the West over Ukraine.
These are critically important questions. As I wrote in a February OpEd for the B DN, the ideological mobilization of the Russian public for war with the West is alarming. We risk engaging in a game of chicken with the Russians, which for them has all the moral gravity of a crusade, but which for us is just a poorly understood distraction from our major focus in the Middle East. I am certain the results will not be like the rosy scenarios of “rolling back the Russians” that the witnesses tried to sell to Angus at the hearing.
And if the conflict escalates, the greatest cost would be paid by the civilians of the Donbas region. At least 6,200 people have died and 2 million have fled their homes. I have spent the past month and a half volunteering with refugee aid organizations and have met so many decent, hardworking people — single mothers, miners, town office clerks — who have seen their homes and workplaces bombed into rubble as the two sides continue their yearlong artillery duel.
In the town of Schastye (“Happiness”), I met a refugee named Natalya, who fled the shelling of Luhansk by government forces and now with her children is living through rebel shelling of their new home. She told me, “This is how people resolved their differences in the Middle Ages. Why is this still happening to us? I hope the international community can get involved and convince them to stop shooting at each other. They need to sit down and negotiate. And we need peace.” I have heard some version of that statement from nearly every frontline civilian and refugee I have met here.
If U.S. policymakers want to help Ukraine, they should join their EU colleagues in demanding that both sides implement the agreement for peaceful resolution hammered out in February in Minsk. In it Ukraine will give the Donbas significant autonomy, early elections, amnesty for fighters and special economic relations with Russia, in exchange for an end to the separatist campaign. This matches the desires of the large majority of Ukrainians, who recent nationwide polling shows prefer negotiations to a renewal of the military campaign, and who see increased autonomy for the Donbas as an acceptable compromise.
Unfortunately, such a viewpoint is not often heard in Congress, where “help” usually means “more guns.” But in asking tough questions and thoughtfully weighing the risks of U.S. involvement, King is making a place in the debate for people like Natalya, who often must face the consequences of U.S. policies over which they have no influence. And he is looking after our national interests as well.
Brian Milakovsky is from Somerville, Maine. For the past six years he has lived and worked in Russia and Ukraine as a forest ecologist. He has been volunteering in eastern Ukraine since February, and writes about the Ukraine crisis at milakovsky.livejournal.com.