“We should help Ukraine defend itself,” by Stephen Blank, The Hill, August 18 (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/347125-why-we-should-help-ukraine-defend-itself):
The decision whether or not to provide Ukraine with weapons has now reached the White House. Both the State Department and Pentagon approved this policy and Kurt Volker, President Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, has also done so.
Nevertheless, opponents of this policy have again flooded the media arguing against giving Ukraine these weapons. …
Russia already is and will be provoked whatever we do. But doing nothing encourages it to continue escalating its aggression against Ukraine as it has done with relative impunity. Russia has created armies and divisions against Ukraine and brought its best weapons there, notably not against the Baltic states where it faces NATO.
…Beyond this it has sponsored terrorism in Ukraine and wages an unrelenting information and economic warfare against Ukraine. Finally, it has launched information warfare and constant threats against all of Europe and the U.S. …
By giving Ukraine weapons we raise the cost to Russia when it can least afford it and adopt Moscow’s long-standing tactic by helping Ukraine fight and talk simultaneously. We thus replicate the way we helped drive Soviet forces from Afghanistan and fully accords with our policy since 1947 of helping people who wish to be free defend themselves against naked aggression.
…helping Ukraine defend itself and fulfilling our own prior assurances of its sovereignty and integrity in the 1994 Budapest document would strengthen allied confidence unlike the craven past policy of abandoning our commitments once Russia invaded Ukraine. …
It is clearly in our interest as the guarantor of European and Ukrainian security as well as the upholder of a liberal world order that aggression not be rewarded. Therefore failure to act not only rewards Russian aggression it actually increases the chances of U.S. troops fighting in Europe. …
“Has Trump Noticed Putin Has Cut Off Ukraine’s Black Sea Ports?,” by Daniel Kochis, Newsweek, August 23; The Daily Signal, August 21 (http://dailysignal.com/2017/08/21/closure-kerch-strait-russias-latest-attack-ukrainian-sovereignty/:
In May 2015, Russia began constructing a planned 11.8-mile bridge across the Kerch Strait, a body of water that sits between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. The Russian bridge project is meant to connect the Russian mainland with the Crimean peninsula…
Two weeks ago, Russia announced temporary closures of the Kerch Strait to accommodate bridge construction. The closures have cut off Ukraine’s southeast coast… it is the latest example of Russia’s ongoing illegal aggression against Ukraine. …
Since the time of Crimea’s annexation, almost 5 percent of Ukraine’s landmass and more than half of its coastline have been under illegal Russian occupation. In addition, Russia has also claimed rights to valuable underwater resources off the peninsula.
Militarily, Russia greatly expanded its military footprint in occupied Crimea, allocating $1 billion to modernize the Black Sea fleet by 2020 and stationed warships equipped with Caliber-NK long-range cruise missiles in Sevastopol. Last August, Russia deployed S-400 air defense systems to Crimea.
Recent reports that the Trump administration is considering sending lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine are promising. Every country has the right to self-defense, and the U.S. should supply these weapons to Ukraine.
However, such a move should be incorporated within a larger strategy for assisting Ukraine. This larger strategy should include the issuance of a nonrecognition statement on Crimea, as well as the condemnation of Russia’s ongoing illegal actions in Crimea and the Black Sea region, such as Russia’s closure of the Kerch Strait. …
“Washington Remains United Behind NATO,” by Kay Bailey Hutchison, The New York Times, August 30 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/opinion/washington-remains-united-behind-nato.html?mcubz=3):
… There is a strong consensus that a renaissance of NATO offers the best hope to unite our Western allies against threats including intolerable Russian aggression in Ukraine, international terrorism, nuclear and missile capacities of rogue nations, and efforts to wipe out religious and individual freedoms around the globe.
NATO is the most successful alliance in world history. It was founded on the conviction that a potent joint effort by the democracies of Europe and North America was the most effective way to deter and counter Communist expansion and prevent World War III. That idea held the alliance together more than 40 years, through many changes of government, and it won the Cold War.
…New security challenges have appeared, and not only in the form of Russia’s military aggression in Ukraine. We also face attacks aimed at the heart of our democratic institutions, and terrorism has become a worldwide threat, notably in Europe…
In my meetings with senators this summer, I was heartened to see unified bipartisan commitment to NATO. There was no space between the priorities of Republicans and Democrats about our duty to defend our common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Congress and the Trump administration believe that an alliance of 29 Western democracies is far more effective at ensuring our security than one country acting alone. That unity sends an important message to friends and adversaries alike.