Why arming the Ukrainians is necessary

Yet another cease-fire agreement on Ukraine has been signed in Minsk. It went into effect Sunday amid low expectations of success.

This is the second such agreement to come out of Minsk. The previous deal was signed in September. It collapsed almost immediately. There is precious little confidence that Minsk II will pan out any better. The best that German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who helped negotiate the deal, could say was that it offered a “glimmer of hope.”

The timing of the agreement was no accident. The fighting was getting more intense because the Russians were escalating the conflict. In response, Washington and Brussels started talking about the need for more sanctions against Moscow. This set off alarm bells in Berlin and Paris.

When American legislators proposed arming the Ukrainians, Mrs. Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, who oppose this, swung into action. They began negotiations with the Russians without direct U.S. involvement. The hope appears to have been to nip the arms proposal in the bud with a cease-fire agreement.

European queasiness over arming the Ukrainians may be understandable. After all, they argue, it’s their neighborhood and a war with Russia would hit them directly. But they need to consider that not arming the Ukrainians may make war more likely, not less.

First of all, we are talking about defensive, not offensive weapons. The military package being discussed involves anti-tank/armor weapons that would be effective against the Russian T-72 tanks used by the Kremlin-backed separatists in Ukraine. Also contemplated is counterbattery radar that could help the Ukrainian forces locate the origins of artillery strikes. Other materials could include secure communication equipment and unmanned aerial vehicles that would improve the situational awareness of the Ukrainian forces on the battlefield.

More