海角大神

Whether to arm Ukrainians fighting against Russian-backed rebels is one of the more hotly debated topics in Washington.

Within the halls of venerable think tanks like the Brookings Institution, foreign policy heavyweights debate the pros and cons. Senior Pentagon officials are divided, too.聽

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter told lawmakers that he is 鈥渧ery much inclined鈥� to arm Ukrainian fighters. 鈥淚 think we need to support the Ukrainians in defending themselves.鈥�

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, was a bit more reserved, saying that the United States should 鈥渃onsider鈥� the possibility of lethal aid, but that any such aid should flow through NATO members.聽

As a general rule, the US military tends to be more circumspect in matters such as providing arms, well aware that they can be misused or fall into the wrong hands, as in the notable and most recent cases of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.聽

Equally important in Ukraine, the US military has not given up on the novel possibility that Russia may some day 鈥渆ventually鈥� want to rejoin the international community, said聽Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the top US Army commander in Europe, in remarks to reporters at the Center for Media and Security Tuesday.

"Providing weapons is not a strategy,鈥� he added.聽More to the point, 鈥淚f you give weapons, then what?鈥�

聽The 鈥渢hen what鈥� centers around the ways in which providing lethal aid has the potential to escalate the crisis.

Already, Russia鈥檚 annexation of the Crimea (General聽Hodges prefers to call it an 鈥渋llegal occupation鈥�) one year ago has been followed by bloody battles in Ukraine.聽

鈥淭he intensity, the violence, the fighting 鈥� these are not rebels behind trees taking pot shots,鈥� he says. 鈥淭hese are tanks, massive artillery, massive rocket fire 鈥� thousands of people have been killed.鈥澛�

Proponents of providing lethal arms to Ukraine say that it would 鈥渞aise the cost鈥� for Mr. Putin.

鈥淭here are valid arguments to be made鈥� for arming Ukraine, Hodges said, citing Frederick the Great鈥檚 maxim that diplomacy without weapons is like an orchestra without instruments. 鈥淏ut saying it鈥檚 a valid argument is different from saying this should be policy.鈥澛�

There is, too, the Pentagon鈥檚 oft-cited 鈥淒IME鈥� elements of strategy 鈥� that stands for diplomacy, information, military, and economic. 鈥淓veryone I know in the military wants to see the emphasis on the 鈥楧,鈥� 鈥� he says.

To that end, the US military delayed the start of training, which will involve matching three battalions of US Army troops with three Ukrainian battalions, in order 鈥渢o try to find some more space to see if the ceasefire agreement could be successfully implemented.鈥澛�

That training is now set to begin next week, but that 鈥渄oesn鈥檛 signal an assessment that Minsk has failed,鈥� Hodges is quick to note.聽

鈥淪erious-minded people want to make sure this doesn鈥檛 derail Minsk,鈥� he added, citing the name given to the ceasefire agreement.

No fan of Russian president Vladimir Putin, 鈥淚 just don鈥檛 believe that the focus should be on the weapons,鈥� Hodges says. 鈥淲e want Russia to be a partner in a lot of things.鈥� That includes 鈥渃ombating terrorism鈥� and ventures in the Arctic, for example.聽

鈥淥ur policy ought to be about how do we get to a diplomatic solution that respects the sovereign borders of countries? And then Russia eventually rejoining the international community.鈥�

So the chief question moving forward should be 鈥淲hat do we want the security situation to be in that part of Europe?鈥� Hodges adds. 鈥淲hat is the desired end-state?鈥�