By Jacob W. Kipp

On March 4, 11 members of the U.S. House and Senate sent a letter to President Barack Obama calling on him to send “lethal, defensive weapons systems” to the Ukrainian military.

The letter, signed by Speaker John Boehner along with seven other ranking Republican and three ranking Democratic members of Congress, spoke of Russian aggression against Ukraine and a failed ceasefire that only served Russian interests. They called for the rapid deployment of weapons to “deter and defend against further aggression” by Russian troops and their separatist allies against Kharkiv and Mariupol.

The letter charged Obama with delaying needed military assistance while his administration sought to build a common policy with European allies. In their eagerness to send arms to Kyiv the authors have not asked what sort of fight they are prepared to enter and to what end they are willing to commit American military power.

The Obama administration has already sent some tactical weapons systems to the Ukraine, but has put more emphasis on economic sanctions as a road to a negotiated end of the fighting.

The renewed pressure for arms for Ukraine, however, reflects the serious doubts among U.S. national security elite that Ukraine’s armed forces can defend the country.

Statements about “lethal, defensive weapons systems” obscure the simple fact that weapons are neither offensive nor defensive. Transferred to Ukraine, they will be used to kill Russians. Their effectiveness in performing that task will much depend on the level of training of Ukrainian forces, not just in the weapons provided but in the art of war. And so far, the Ukrainian military has not been particularly effective in the field.

To ensure increased effectiveness, the United States will have to assume the role of trainer and adviser. Indeed, U.S. Army Europe commander Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, in remarks concerning the planned deployment of some 300 U.S. Army instructors to the Yarovorsky exercise area near Lviv in mid-March, stated that helping Ukraine with weapons would increase the stakes of war for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin: “When mothers start seeing sons come home dead, when that price goes up, then that domestic support begins to shrink.” In its turn, the Russian press described this deployment as the first step toward a larger force of U.S. advisers to serve with the Ukrainian Army.

The Russian press has depicted the U.S. as the primary cause of the revolution in Ukraine and the civil war that followed, while denying Russia’s involvement, which by this stage is an act of “implausible deniability.” Much of the Western press has described Putin as a 21st-century Hitler intent on the conquest of Europe. There would seem to be little grounds for a diplomatic solution.

In the midst of this exchange of vitriol, the White House seemed to take a step back. On March 3, Hodges told reporters in Berlin that Washington had placed the training mission on hold as it looks for signs that the Minsk II Agreement is being honored.

Dead Russians and dead Americans will not guarantee a de-escalation of the conflict. Instead, both sides are very likely going to be trapped in a dialectic of escalation.

Unchecked, such escalation raises the prospect of the use of thermonuclear weapons. Both sides seem locked in struggle to sustain an international order created by the end of the Cold War, but now in disarray. Neither side seems capable of finding the diplomatic means to address a settlement, which would end the fighting and ensure Ukrainian, European and, indeed, Eurasian peace and stability.

Jacob W. Kipp retired from federal service in 2009 and is an adjunct professor at the University of Kansas in Russian and Eurasian studies. He wrote this for the Kansas City Star.