A farewell to arms?

The other day, former Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko made a statement in which he announced European arms deliveries to Ukraine. According to him, at the NATO summit, agreement was reached on Western military advisers and supplying sophisticated weapons from the United States, France, Italy, Poland, and Norway. 

This statement has caused considerable reverberations both in Ukraine and in the world media. Most of the countries mentioned have already refuted Lutsenko’s statement. The response of the major suppliers of weapons was summarized by the Reuters news agency: 

"A senior U.S. representative, speaking “on the condition of anonymity”, told the agency that the United States did not plan to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons.” It is worth noting that the White House recently launched an initiative to provide military assistance to Ukraine in the amount of $60 million.”
The sources in the governments of Poland, Italy and Norway gave Reuters comments similar in tone and meaning to the Americans. The agency also reported that a representative of the Ministry of Defense of Italy said that his country, like other members of NATO and the EU, planned to supply Ukraine with non-lethal military assistance, in particular, helmets and body armor. 

Newsweek magazine quoted Norwegian Ministry of Defense spokesperson Lars Gjemble: "We are involved in exercises in Ukraine at the level of staff officers, but we do not deliver weapons to Ukraine." Jacek Sonta, the spokesperson for the Polish Defense Ministry, said that "no agreement about the supply of modern arms from Poland to Ukraine was reached at the NATO summit.” 

Although, it’s a somewhat different situation with Iraq. Terror of the group "Islamic Caliphate" (ISIS) in Iraq has consolidated the public opinion in the West around the idea of arming the Kurdish militia – which the West sees as the only combat-ready force that is able to stop the Islamists in Iraq. German Chancellor Angela Merkel addressed the German parliament with arguments in favor of supplying arms to the north of Iraq. Strictly speaking, according to law, the German government is not required to report to Parliament on the supply of weapons, as deputies’ consent is required only in the case of sending German troops abroad. However, apparently feeling confident in her position, based on the acute rejection of ISIS by German public opinion, Merkel addressed the parliamentarians anyway, who eventually supported the government's plan. Only the Greens and Left Party (Die Linke) strongly advocated against such supplies – that is the opposition factions which have traditionally criticized the government for militarism and consistently advocated for an end to arms deliveries abroad. 

In addition to the traditional arguments condemning "humanitarian" intervention, deputies talked a lot about the dangers if German weapons were to fall into the hands of the terrorists against whom they were directed. For example, the media reported that during an attack on one of the airports, ISIS militants captured German anti-tank missiles. However, the German government issued a statement that the missiles were produced back in the ‘80s. Incidentally, the press writes also about the Donbass rebels’ widely-used trophies captured from the defeated Ukrainian units - alluding to the fact that such a fate would await weapons provided to Kiev from the European Union. 

 Most likely, the Kurds in northern Iraq will have a serious military arsenal. It was reported that in mid-September, Kurdish militias received anti-tank grenades, machine guns, grenade launchers, grenades, and more. In addition, Germany will supply the Kurds with vests, radios, night vision goggles and other military equipment. 

But Ukraine is another thing. Official Kiev has made statements about its desire to get NATO weapons. However, on the question of Ukraine, the German government has taken an absolutely adamant position. Berlin believes that the supply of arms from the EU to Ukraine completely blocks the possibility of a diplomatic and political solution to the conflict. The German press previously reported that Merkel’s Cabinet even blocked a permit for the shipment of German body armor ordered by Kiev from German private companies. The information that large German companies are not allowed to export such items to Ukraine became widespread in German political circles. 

A change in tone by CNN, which began to talk about civilian casualties in the Donbass, may indicate that the United States are also trying to find a compromise on the Ukrainian question. Of course, one should not overestimate the role of CNN in reflecting the official position of the American administration, but there is hope for easing of the tensions. Despite the fact that the "War Party" is quite strong, the general meaning of the statements of foreign ministries and government officials of the EU can be reduced to finding a political solution to the crisis in Ukraine and NATO military neutrality. Most likely they will talk more about tightening economic sanctions and strengthening political pressure on Russia. 

In any case, neither the European Union nor even the United States want a new world war, about which Ukrainian persons of narrow (obsessed with the cult of guns and violence) dream aloud. Not yet. Of course, the West long fueled such sentiments in Ukraine, pushing the right-wing government for the war in the east - in order to ensure the economic and political interests of their imperial policy. But the risks of global conflict are too great. 
Thus, the West will not fight for Kiev And it is not even willing to give Ukraine new weapons for a more effective continuation of the massacre. Although Ukrainian politicians are trying to hide it from the public, this is a really encouraging fact. 

Sergei Kirichuk

Translation: Greg Batterfield

Source: Liva

08.09.2014