Obama still weighing decision on arming Ukraine forces

“Can we be certain that any lethal aid that we provide Ukraine is used properly, doesn’t fall into the wrong hands, does not lead to over-aggressive actions that can’t be sustained by the Ukrainians? What kinds of reactions does it prompt, not simply from the separatists but from the Russians? Those are all issues that have to be considered,” he said at the White House.

Yep. Nice to see a pragmatic President.

Arming The Ukraine is a good position to ponder while the Russian/EU negotiations are taking place. It probably creates more of a push to get the diplomacy moving along. But in the end it's hard to see how supplies could be sustainable. Russia can move exponentially more items/men into East Ukraine at a fraction of the time, cost, and effort. The location makes things incredibly unbalanced for the two sides.

Personally, I'm starting to think that The Ukraine might be better off if they can jettison the East areas that have violence. It essentially stops the Russian machine and Kiev won't have to worry about Putin voting in their government. Donetsk and Lugansk are worth a lot more to Russia if they are in the Ukraine, not so much if they are in Russia. Ship them to Putin, create a wall between him and you, and start looking West.

Lovely comment, SuperLib. I assume that means "liberal"? Which would explain the lack of knowing the facts. You see, there is basically just one thing that kept the Ukrainian economy going for decades. The mines, and they all happen to be in the east. What your newspapers or Fox News will not tell you is, that the people in the east are not very happy about the fact, that for decades now, they have been living on a pretty small scale, because the profits for this go to the west. There are these "evil" "oligarchs" ( russia-friends of course) who actually own the mines and have tried to change that, but without success.

Trust me, no one in the US or Europe wants an Ukraine without the coal on their side... Merkel knows this, thats why her politics is the intelligent one.

Obama wants the Ukraine, large or small, in NATO, there is a market and "owning" the country would serve american exceptionalism. Merkel would of course also like this, but she understands what goes on, dislikes the possible consequnces and realistically considers the price that the West will have to pay for this much to expensive in the end. Merkel, as she says, understandable is also not too happy to have to deal with Nazis in a government....

Start sending those anti-tank missiles now. As SuperLib points out, it is easier for Russia to play their games given Donbass is on their border. In the unlikely event that peace is agreed to, they don't make very good offensive material anyways.

What Russia should do is invite all Russians living abroad to come and settle in Russia. Over the last twenty years they had a net population loss and being a big country in danger of being attacked and taken over they would benefit of additional ten million people.

@Zvonko I could get behind that. Then we can seal the border for good. No more crisis in Ukraine!

What Russia should do is invite all Russians living abroad to come and settle in Russia

Then Obama and NATO move into Ukraine and you get WW 3. No thanks. The Ukrainians will wake up sooner or later to the stooges that have taken over their country. Actually, some already have. Porko-shenko is going to have a hard time when he tries to forcibly draft their daughters and wives. What a scum bag.

As much as most of us disagree with Russia's involvement in Ukraine, for the U.S. to send any kind of weaponry to help Ukraine (at this point in time) would be like throwing gasoline on a fire hoping to put it out. No thanks!

Continue turning the screws with the economic sanctions.

I agree to an extent, Superlib. Certainly, it would be best for countries to respect international borders - and Putin's insistence on this may come back to bite him as Russia tries to hold together its empire; more importantly, as odious as Putin's behavior is, this is Russia's backyard, and eastern Ukraine is not worth the risk of direct war between the West and Russia.

Could western Ukraine go it alone? Here is an interesting article on untapped shale oil fields which lie in two bands, one in the west and one in the east. The article notes that it will take time and foreign expertise to tap them, but it does give some hope for an rump Ukraine independent of Russian energy. http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.jp/2014/03/could-ukrainian-shale-gas-break.html

Among all the Obama insanities, this is the worst one. Stop kicking the Russian bear! For simple geopolitical reasons, Russian CAN NOT accept a Nato expansion into Ukraine. If this turns into a shooting war, the blame is firmly with our current Western politicians, who are breaking all the promises their predecessors made.

Some of his top advisers, including Ashton Carter, his choice for new defense secretary, increasingly favor providing items like anti-tank weapons, small arms and ammunition.

It really strange - how this items can help Kiev ?

The main problem of Kiev - Ukrainian Army very bad organised and very bad supplied and low moral - that's worse of all

small arms can't help in this situation - so I think US President talking about other things - like direct intervention for example.

Today Ukrainian Army losing territory losing battles - in Kiev Ukrainian nationalists from volunteer batallions storming government buildings accusing authorities in betrayal of national interests

So "after - putsch " power in Kiev is at a brink ...

And only one solution is possible - direct intervention.

small arms - real funny.... they have a lot of Kalashnikovs but it does not help ....

Of course Obama won't make a decision which would sabotage the negotiations in Minsk upcoming. Germany opposes arms to Ukraine, so let German Chancellor Angela Merkel take ownership of the negotiations and take the lead. About time Europe steps up on their own backyard. This is your chance at diplomacy Merkel; finally let's see what you got.

volland You see, there is basically just one thing that kept the Ukrainian economy going for decades. The mines, and they all happen to be in the east. What your newspapers or Fox News will not tell you is, that the people in the east are not very happy about the fact, that for decades now,

So - one more - time - In South-East live Russian and EXACTLY there situated economical and industrial base of Ukraine (not only mines)

And they are really not happy to live in the Ukrainian Ukraine... where they are declared second sort people...

There are these "evil" "oligarchs" ( russia-friends of course) who actually own the mines and have tried to change that, but without success.

Give dog a bad name... every bad person should be "pro-Russian" - surprisingly Ukrainian oligarchs totally oriented toward West (families there money there and not in Moscow)

Merkel, as she says, understandable is also not too happy to have to deal with Nazis in a government..

Merkel as German Cancellor has no problems to deal with Nazi. The main problem - she is very weak politician. And she can't deal not with Nazi but with crisis in East Europe. She is an amateur in politics.

Among all the Obama insanities, this is the worst one. Stop kicking the Russian bear! For simple geopolitical reasons, Russian CAN NOT accept a Nato expansion into Ukraine. If this turns into a shooting war, the blame is firmly with our current Western politicians, who are breaking all the promises their predecessors made.

WilliB -- do you ever let the facts get in the way of your anti-Obama rants? Here is the actual history of Ukraine and its potential involvement with NATO:

The formal basis for NATO-Ukraine relations is the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, which established the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC), and the Declaration to Complement the Charter signed in 2009.

Now, if I am not mistaken, Clinton was the President in 1997, and Bush was President from 2001 through early 2008. So it is not like Obama has suddenly decided to start "kicking the Russian bear" as you so colorfully, but inaccurately, state. All he is doing is following through on commitments made by, and continued by, his two predecessors. In fact, if he caved into Russia at this point, in light of over 17 years of official U.S. policy, he would be crucified by Congress, especially the Republicans, and U.S word would mean nothing.

@jerseyboy Spot on. Also let's not forget the Baltic states, which joined NATO in 2004 without a whimper from Russia of late. And Russia's own treaty promissing not to violate Ukraine's territory. Only Russians would take pride in acting like animals.

I'll take the skinheads over the Russkies any day.