Ekaterina Blinova — Eighteen of the twenty-seven American political analysts denounced an initiative to arm the Ukrainian military forces as dangerous and futile, according to a survey.
However, instead of convincing the Ukrainian authorities to carry out necessary constitutional reforms aimed at decentralization of the power, obtaining a non-aligned status and aborting the schemes Kiev's corrupted leaders who are used to stealing huge sums of money at Ukrainians' expense, Washington is indulging Kiev's "unrealistic hope" that Ukrainian troops can become a "well-funded and well-armed proxy army in a fight between Russia and the West," the analyst underscored.
By providing defensive weaponry to Ukraine, Washington will undermine, not reinforce, the Minsk agreements implementation, while Ukraine will continue its military campaign shedding "blood and territory as long as it is on the table," warned Keith Darden.
Another expert, Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson, a young Assistant Professor at the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, called into the question the "defensive weaponry" term pointing to the fact that the armament can be used in both defensive and offensive operations. Expressing his doubts regarding the ultimate purpose of Washington's defensive assistance, the expert noted that it is unlikely that Moscow would qualify the US's actions as a "defensive aid" and consider Washington just as a "security provider."
Peace negotiations between the Ukrainian government, the rebels and Moscow will end the violence, the expert stressed, while the US "assistance" will only exacerbate the problem, prompting the two sides "to fight harder and longer, than they would."
