Despite Russian threats, Ukraine has to take the risk of a Russian invasion to take eastern Ukraine or Russia will take the region anyway with their subliminal invasion spearheaded by Russia's Spetsnaz and intelligence operatives.
That effort is under way, and the Russian defenders are prepared:
Two Ukrainian helicopters were shot down and their pilots killed on Friday morning, both sides said. The Ukrainian Security Service said one of the helicopters was shot down with a surface-to-air missile, which it said undercut Russia's claims that the city is under control of civilians who took up arms.
Apparently, Russian aid to their side in this war isn't restricted to MREs and socks.
But we wouldn't want to militarize the conflict (remember that Hillary Clinton worry about that effect of arming Syrian rebels 150,000 dead ago?) by sending Ukraine anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons along with other assistance to help make their existing military more effective in fighting the Russians, now would we?
I have no interest in fighting Russia over non-NATO Ukraine. But I have a lot of interest in helping Ukraine defend themselves. Why our president has to rule out the latter by insisting that opponents of his hands-off policy are eager to use military force is beyond my limited nuance comprehension.
UPDATE: Here's an interesting RUSI piece on a reason for Slovyansk's importance. I did not know this:
Kiev knows that it has a strategic reserve of Kalashnikov assault rifles and other light weapons stored in Ukraine as a mobilisation reserve dating back to Soviet times. It has hinted quietly but strongly in back channels between Ukrainian and Russian military establishments that it might be prepared to open this strategic reserve of weapons to an eastern Ukrainian population prepared to resist any Russian military incursions. Since the stockpile consists of up to five million weapons, the prospect would be a nightmare for Russian military planners if they realistically prepared to move into eastern areas of Ukraine. The prospect of civil war and an anti-Russian insurgency on an unprecedented scale with unpredictable consequences represents a real – if extremely dangerous – bargaining chip for Kiev.
The stark fact is that at least half the strategic stockpile of light weapons on Ukrainian territory is concentrated near Slavyansk.
Huh. I did not know that.
What the heck are they doing being stored so close to Russia? In one narrow location? (Although I assume not in one depot--that's a lot of weapons--and ammo, I assume.) Another legacy of Cold War days when Ukraine's military was poised for action against NATO to the west, I assume.
I wonder what the light weapons are? Not just rifles, they say. And where is the other half stored? Sure, if Russia neutralizes half of the arsenal, that's great. But 2-1/2 million weapons elsewhere in Ukraine to arm resistance to a Russian invasion is still a huge arsenal.
And Russia could quickly occupy Slovyansk with conventional military forces if they invade, so what is the threat of those particular weapons being distributed to anti-Russian Ukrainians?
This is certainly an interesting fact. But is it really so crucial? Couldn't Ukraine threaten to start distributing (or at least dispersing to guarded locations) the other half of the arsenal if the Slovyansk arsenal is lost?
This certainly means that my wish that we'd supply small arms to Ukraine is misplaced. Ukraine has that taken care of (assuming enough are in working order). But I can't believe the only shortage the Ukrainians have are MREs and helmets, and the camping items we've agreed to send.
