Mediaboss Marketing

The Republicans victory in the mid-term elections gives them control of the U.S. Senate and a greater voice in foreign policy. With a Republican senate majority, legislation opposed by Obamas Democratic anti-war wing can no longer be kept from the floor, as it was under the outgoing Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid. The expected new Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, indeed vowed, in his first post-election press conference, to expeditiously move legislation to the presidents desk for his signature (or veto). Ukraine can hope that pending pro-Ukraine bills will go to the front of the queue, especially if Ukrainian, Baltic and Polish Americans make their voices heard, let alone those who understand the global threat that Putins Russia poses.

The two bills to provide Ukraine with defensive and lethal weapons that are poised to be taken up by the new Republican senate majority are:

Barack Obama can scarcely veto a bi-partisan pro-Ukraine bill. He can no longer refuseto supply weapons to Ukraine because of his long-standing concern that arming Ukraine would provoke Moscow into afurther escalationthat could drag Washington into a proxy war. The Kremlin has little more to escalate other than an outright attack on Kiev or a NATO country. His support of the illegal Donetsk and Luhansk elections, moreover, makes clear that Putin has no interest in a peaceful solution of the Ukraine crisis.

An Obama rejection of Ukraine military aid would put him at odds with powerful Congressional foreign policy voices from both parties (Ben Nelson, Sander Levin, Jim Gerlach, Gerland Connoly, Robert Menendez, John McCain, Bob Corker, to name just a few), with American foreign-policy experts (MikeMcFaul, StrobeTalbot, to name just two), and with military establishment figures (Generals Martin Dempsey, PhilipBreedloveet al.). They agree with former CIA chief and defense secretary, Leon Panetta that we must give Ukraine the means to defend itself. Likely presidential candidate and former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, also sees the anti-Putin writing on the political wall. She has described Putin as a mortal threat to sovereign European countries and U.S. interests, to whom we have to stand up and encircle and choke off his ability to be so aggressive.

The Ukraine military aid bill may even come from the new Congress with a veto-proof super-majority, leaving Obama with no choice in the matter, even if his anti-war faction is outraged.

The people of Ukraine and its leaders have puzzled why the United States has refused to help them. After all, they have been fighting alone against Russian expansion on behalf of Europe and the United States. On his last visit, the Pentagon sent Ukraines President Petro Poroshenko off with a banalpledgeof continued U.S. support for Ukraines efforts. In effect, Obama ushered Ukraine out the door with a good luck and have a nice day.

The Minsk ceasefire has collapsed, and Putins conquest of the rest of his Novorossiya is about to resume. Ukraine is desperately sending ill-equipped troops to defend the encircled port city of Mariupol and other vulnerable towns and cities of southeast Ukraine. Russian troops are massing on the border and Russian military supply convoys cross into Ukraine via unguarded borders to supply the pro-Russian separatist/mercenaries virtually on a daily basis.

Even with expeditious passage of a military aid bill for Ukraine, precious time will be lost in getting the cogs of Washington machinery moving. Also, Ukrainian troops must be trained on the new equipment. Skeptics could ask whether the U.S. simply waited too long to oppose the behemoth of the Russian military.

No, it is not too late as long as an independent Ukraine continues to stand, willing to fight for its existence. Putins vulnerability is that he cannot tolerate substantial battlefield losses. His propaganda describes the Ukrainian conflict as a civil war fought by Ukrainians against Ukrainians. Of course, Putins media says, Russia is helping the good side, but there is no need for young Russian conscripts to die. Putin has gone to great lengths to cover up some two thousand or more casualties among Russian service men, but the loss of sons (in a country of one child families) cannot go unnoticed by their mothers, who form committees of mothers of soldiers, which Putin cannot brand as foreign agents.

Putins other vulnerability is declining Russian living standards associated with sanctions and the collapse of the ruble. The Kremlin promised an antiseptic humanitarian campaign to protect the enslaved Russian population of Ukraineat no cost to the Russian people. The Russian people are not stupid. They make the connection and wonder why they should make personal sacrifices for the people of remote Crimea, Donbass or a Novorossiya that does not even exist on most maps. Patriotism is a good thing but not if it comes with a high price tag, such as the loss of lifetime savings to inflation and lower pensions.

See the original post:
What Can A Republican Senate Majority Do For Ukraine? - Forbes