Ukraine Aff and Neg - JDI 2019.docx - 1ac Plan The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and Foreign

Ukraine Aff and Neg - JDI 2019.docx - 1ac Plan The United...

This preview shows page 1 out of 170 pages.

Unformatted text preview: 1ac Plan The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and Foreign Military Sales of lethal aid to Ukraine from the United States Russia squo US lethal aid to ukraine make conflict inevitable Shabbir, 6/6/19 (Fahad, US must stop acting recklessly, engaging in disputes on russian border - state senator., Sputnik, retrieved from ProQuest) WASHINGTON, June 6 (Sputnik) - The United States has become very irresponsible as it engages in disputes on the Russian border and should stop such provocative actions given the chance that something can go wrong and trigger a thermonuclear war, Virginia State Senator Richard Black told Sputnik. In May, the US Senate Armed Services Committee approved a draft 2020 defense budget that allocates $300 million for security aid to Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly warned the United States that sending arms to Ukraine will only fuel the conflict, destabilize the country and lead to more bloodshed . "We really have become very reckless in getting involved in disputes that are right on the Russian border," Black said. "The president and our government need to always be mindful that while we may be overwhelmingly powerful in terms of our economy and controlling the banking system and so forth that Russia has nearly the same number of nuclear weapons that we have. We should not be reckless and should not be provocative on the Russian border . Because there is always a chance that something goes wrong." Black said there is a chance, however small, that a thermonuclear war may be inadvertently triggered in which every major city in United States and Russia would be destroyed. "Is that worth being reckless? I don’t think so," Black said. Black said the United States always starts out by saying it will provide non-lethal aid to partner states, but then almost immediately begins to provide weapons and in that way creates a constituency for war. "That is just a way these things are done," Black said. "The problem is once you start providing Javelin anti-tank missiles, which is what we are talking about in large measure, you develop a constituency that lobbies for war. The more weapons you provide, the more weapons manufacturers want war." Last week, US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker said that Washington is open to new military sales to Ukraine to help maintain the country's defense capabilities and continues to negotiate with Kiev on the provision of military supplies. Deterrence fails – United States assurances lack credibility because of higher Russian investment in the territory Harkins 18, Gina Harkins, "Arming Ukraine: Practicalities and Implications," Real Clear Defense, 9-52018, _113769.html dw America’s recent decision to authorize the sale and delivery of Javelin anti-tank missile systems to Ukraine was shortsighted and dangerous to all parties involved.[1] The provision of the Javelin weapons system, in particular, serves as little more than a symbolic gesture . In the end, the authorization will likely prove a maneuver in optics, not strategy. Furthermore, recent developments suggest the Ukrainian government, in an effort to secure the deal, may have interfered with the ongoing special counsel investigation in the United States.[2] The following delineates the reasoning behind this conclusion, puts forward some of the stronger arguments in favor of the authorization, and describes why they are misguided. Amid the fraught U.S.-Russia relations of late, it is vital for American policymakers to consider each geopolitical decision with the utmost care, ensuring the best interests of the United States and [its] her allies are always kept in mind.[3] An appropriate policy would include forgoing any further sale of lethal weaponry, replacing it instead with increased funds and non-lethal materiel such as counter-electronic warfare (EW) technology and the deployment of additional troops on a strictly train-and-advise basis. The conflict in Eastern Ukraine has claimed over 10,000 lives and forced over a million more to flee their homes .[4] Taking these figures into consideration, it is evident that decisive action is necessary; thus far, however, the United States has taken the wrong approach . Arming Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank missiles runs the risk of reigniting what has become a relatively static engagement between the Ukrainian Army and Russian-backed separatists.[ 5] Skirmishes occur on a daily basis, and casualties continue to accrue, but a sudden injection of Western munitions into the hands of the Ukrainian Army is likely to prompt a disproportionate response from the side of the Russians , a reaction not without historical precedence.[6] Assuming the Russians respond not in kind, but with asymmetric force, where does that leave the United States? Is the United States to perpetually provide bigger and better arms as the process persists in some sort of vicious iteration of Robert Jervis’s spiral model?[7] For now, Russia has far more at stake in this conflict. With his population’s support and at least six more years at the helm, Vladimir Putin can and will broaden his country’s efforts in the region if need be.[8] Even if the United States were committed to meet every response with more firepower, the Russians have the overwhelming advantage of geography. Russia’s shared border with Ukraine, one that is reportedly near-impossible to effectively monitor, enables expedited resupplies.[9] Putin’s relative autonomy in terms of foreign policy decisions also adds to the potential for a rapid response. Furthermore, it is prudent to consider how Ukrainians may interpret the signaling of receiving lethal arms from America. Inspired by the renewed and augmented support of the Americans, this move could embolden Ukrainians to begin launching assaults, thus producing an avoidable escalation scenario . Many like to frame the conversation as providing so-called defensive weapons rather than offensive, but in reality, there is no logical distinction between the two .[10] The Ukrainians using these weapons to go on an offensive, making the U.S. an indirect accomplice in violating the Minsk Agreement, remains a real possibility and a real concern of those monitoring the situation closely.[ 11] From a purely practical standpoint, providing Ukraine with Javelins makes little sense. While the provision of such weapons would certainly generate substantial repercussions due to the symbolism of the action, their usefulness on the battlefield would be virtually imperceptible . In fact, former commander of U.S. Army Europe remarked in 2015 that the Ukrainian Army having Javelin missiles “would not change the situation strategically in a positive way.”[12] Ukraine has no need for Javelin missiles, as it already produces its own comparable varieties of anti-tank weaponry.[13] The Ukrainian Army is well-equipped for situations that require anti-tank capabilities, thus it is redundant to provide them with more. Furthermore, the conflict has largely steered away from tank warfare, further highlighting the superfluity of Javelin sales .[14] The provision of other lethal arms in general is similarly excessive. Since the outbreak of the conflict, the Ukrainian Army has improved its capabilities in almost every aspect of warfare by orders of magnitude. Ukraine’s current air, land, and sea means are unrecognizable in comparison to those of 2014.[15] If anything, the United States should be increasing support to help Ukraine counter the innovative electronic warfare the Russian-backed separatists are waging in the east.[16] An electronic warfare package would be immensely more advantageous to the effort in Ukraine. The package could include products such as the THOR III, CREW jammer, or MODI II systems, as well as a contingent of U.S. electronic warfare specialists to train Ukrainian soldiers using a strategy akin to the one released by the Pentagon in 2017.[17] This recent Department of Defense approach lays emphasis on the integration of burgeoning electronic warfare capabilities throughout the gamut of military operations, the use of cost-effective technology in lieu of conventional arms, and the coordination of preparedness training for the rigors of conflict in the electromagnetic spectrum.[18] These systems, among others, could make a genuine difference in an electronic warfare space currently dominated by the Russians.[19] As an added benefit, Ukrainian troops could later be debriefed by their American counterparts on how the technology fared in real-world application against the current leader in electronic warfare tactics, providing valuable insight to be used in future strategic planning. To further assist, the United States could take the advice of a February 2018 Carnegie report, which suggests the problem the Ukrainian Army faces now is not one of hardware, but of structure, and a key component of successful reform is the expansion of Western training efforts.[20] It is also imperative to acknowledge the likelihood of American-made weapons systems winding up in the hands other than those for whom they were intended. Time and again, U.S.-supplied weapons are either stolen from the anticipated beneficiary or never make it there in the first place . In just the last decade, this happened in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Mexico.[21] In Ukraine, the worry would be that the Javelins provided by America could make their way into the arms of either some sort of extremist Ukrainian militia such as the Azov Battalion or the very same Russian-backed separatists the weapons were meant to combat .[22] The Ukrainian Army has lost control of countless weapons that have then found their way onto the streets and online marketplaces.[23] In one instance, Ukrainian Army vehicles were taken by separatists in broad daylight and subsequently paraded about.[24] More importantly, non-lethal U.S. military equipment, such as mortar-tracking radar technology given to Ukraine in 2015, was stolen by the separatists not long after delivery.[25] Assuming such a risk with lethal weaponry is needless and should, under present circumstances, be avoided. The advocates of arming Ukraine cite a number of well-intentioned, yet nebulous and, in some cases, erroneous motives for their position. The primary argument is that the United States must support the independence of a democratic, potential future NATO member.[26] The problem with this particular belief is that the United States is and has been supporting the independence of Ukraine for years.[27] Since the outset of the conflict, the United States has provided over $1.3 billion in monetary assistance, training, and non-lethal materiel such as radar, surveillance, and vehicles.[28] As argued above, there is no practical need for the provision of lethal arms, so the support for Ukrainian independence is, in effect, being realized. Another argument for arming Ukraine is that doing so strengthens NATO; however, one can argue persuasively that Ukraine is doing just fine without American anti-tank missiles.[29] In the same vein as the strengthening NATO argument, champions for the arming of Ukraine insist that lethal arms from America will enhance European security. European allies of the United States tend to have a different opinion .[30] Representatives of countries located within Europe, such as the former president of France, Francois Hollande; German Chancellor, Angela Merkel; and U.K. national security official, Mark Sedwell, have publicly stated their qualms with a U.S.-provided lethal arms package , echoing the concerns outlined above.[31] Also coming from within Europe, the European Council on Foreign Relations has published objections to the idea. [32] In a broader sense, current French president Emmanuel Macron has recently called for Europe to achieve greater defense autonomy and rely less on the United States. In his remarks, he suggested a move towards security cooperation with the Russian Federation if the situation in Donbas deescalates.[33] ARMING UKRAINE IS SYMBOLICALLY MORAL, BUT CHANCES AN INCREASE IN HOSTILITIES THAT COULD DEVOLVE INTO A TIT-FOR-TAT PROXY WAR, OR WORSE. There is no rational basis for providing Ukraine with Javelin missile systems, or any other lethalweaponry. Such a move has no positive effect for the Ukrainians on the battlefield. Instead, the United States is undertaking several wholly preventable risks with the prospect of realizing zero strategic ends . The Ukrainian armed forces are capable of sustaining their mission domestically. Arming Ukraine is symbolically moral, but chances an increase in hostilities that could devolve into a tit-for-tat proxy war, or worse. An entirely new U.S. policy towards Ukraine is unnecessary. Rather, the existing policy of supporting Ukraine is in need of amending, which can be achieved by a collaborative approach on the part of Congress and the executive branch. A three-pronged strategy is the best means of modifying the current U.S. strategy. First and foremost, the U.S. must transition from the provision of lethal means , to non-lethal aid paired with an advisory presence focused on countering Russian electronic warfare capabilities. Next, in lieu of any further weapons deals, Congress should author and pass a bill that allocates increased funds to be used in providing Ukraine with non-lethal materiel, surveillance drones, and, most importantly, counter-electronic warfare technology. Finally, Congress should petition the president to authorize not only the aforementioned equipment-provision bill, but also the deployment of additional troops, with a non-combat mandate, to assist the Ukrainian military with training and structural reforms. Increased weapons sales embolden Ukrainian forces without improving military capabilities Milakovsky 2017 August 28, 2017 Brian Milakovsky works for humanitarian organizations in eastern Ukraine “The Real Danger of Sending U.S. Arms to Ukraine” In 2015, after spending several months in the frontline zone I wrote that Ukraine desperately needs a “lousy peace” and not an arms race. Two years and several thousand deaths later, the idea of supplying Ukraine with U.S. arms has resurfaced. As a humanitarian worker whose greatest desire is to see the intolerable misery of Ukrainian civilians come to an end, I grapple with these questions: Would American arms increase the price of Russian aggression, causing Moscow to scale back its military project in the Donbass and saving civilian lives? Or would they incite a new round of escalation and a flood of new arms into the region? The stakes of this question are incredibly high for Donbass civilians. With both sides placing their heavy artillery adjacent to residential areas (according to the head of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) monitoring mission in the region), every escalation means more death and destruction for a population already traumatized by three years of war and civil strife. I get no pleasure from the idea of Ukrainian soldiers, the men and women I see every day at checkpoints, being outgunned by Russian-armed separatists and the barely concealed Russian army. But while I hope that anti-tank Javelin rockets be used to hold Russian aggression at bay and save civilian lives, I believe we must consider other scenarios of how the addition of U.S. arms could affect this conflict. Russian aggression is the fundamental cause, and every move Ukraine makes (defensive or offensive) is inherently a reaction to it. But this does not necessarily mean that Russia is the source of each new spike of violence in the conflict zone. I travel to frontline towns several times a week, and frequently ask residents which side starts the exchanges of artillery that crisscross above their heads. The general answer is “sometimes this side, sometimes that.” You can get the same conclusion from following the technically detailed but judgment-free patrolling reports by the OSCE. There is reason to believe that the two largest escalation events so far in 2017 began with a “creeping offensive” by Ukrainian forces to improve their positions along the frontlines . This is an understandable move for soldiers pinned under enemy fire in vulnerable positions, but it may have triggered the massive firefights near the Svitlodarsk Bulge and between the warring sides in Avdiivka and Donetsk that took a dozen civilian lives and spread destruction on both sides of the front. Importantly, almost none of the advances were sustained. A Ukrainian battalion commander told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty how his soldiers snuck into a no-man’s-land village outside Svitlodarsk called Novoluhanske and set up positions near the main employer, a pig farm. That night the separatists understood what had happened and began shelling the Ukrainian forces—and the farm, which was badly damaged as shelling continued into May. Just a small stretch of gardens separates the farm from the village, which itself has come under fire. I have spent much time in that area. In the winter of 2014–15 residents lived through the hellish “artillery duel” when the separatists and Ukrainian army pounded each other’s towns with shells and rockets. Later I helped re-equip a bombed and looted kindergarten and replace the shrapnel-scarred roof of the community center. The idea of death flying into these towns again, after they have slowly pieced together a normal life and gathered money from parents to hold the kindergarten pageant, overwhelms me. I am not suggesting that the Ukrainian forces as the sole guilty party in the continuing violence, especially considering Russia’s fundamental aggression. But whereas the creeping offensive was well discussed in Ukrainian media and even bragged about, I worry whether advocates are considering it when they calculate how U.S. arms will be used. And while we might recognize the basic moral right of the Ukrainian army to reclaim occupied land, our government has also repeatedly stated its commitment to the Minsk accords, which commit Ukraine and the separatist forces to (thus far unsuccessful) de-escalation. Many voices in the government and press have been telling the Ukrainian people for three years that U.S. arms will be a game changer. One parliamentarian and military volunteer claimed that “with American weapons, we’ll push the Russians back to Siberia.” Also, a military commander recently told the Daily Signal, “If the U.S. sends weapons, it would completely change the war the next day.” Given these claims, Kyiv might feel it must capitalize on the arms transfers to shift the balance on the front. The Pentagon is considering providing Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank rockets, which are considered defensive. But such weapons could be used to cover an advance into the separatist-held territories defended by Russian tanks. Some might hope that a Ukrainian advance would bring a conclusion to the war. But that is unlikely to be the result of any such offensive, be it creeping or galloping. In August, 2014 the Ukrainian army drove deep into the so-called “People’s Republics,” cutting Donetsk off from Luhansk and beginning to encircle them along the Russian border. The civilian casualties were awful as both sides reduced villages and city districts to rubble. I thought to myself, “This is horrific, but if it brings this war to an end, maybe it’s for the best.” It didn’t. Most observers agree that the tide was turned by massive, direct Russian military intervention, which threw back the Ukrainian forces and culminated in the death of hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers at the Ilovaisk encirclement. Five months later Russia’s direct involvement again shifted the military balance, allowing the separatists to occupy the strategic and nearly destroyed cities of Debaltseve and Vuhlehirsk. Would a Ukrainian advance produce a different outcome today? A year ago...
View Full Document

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture