ランド研究所は、ウクライナにおける代理戦争［proxy war in Ukraine］は米ネオコンの計画的犯罪だということを、2019年時点で既に書面で残してるや。あとは2014年以降、ドンバスにおけるウクライナ人よるウクライナ人の「ジェノサイド」のエスカレートがロシア侵攻の原因だというスイス元軍事情報将校ジャック・ボーの観点を受け入れるか否かにかかっているだろうよ、ミアシャイマーの観点も同様だ。
|
◼️Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground Published by the RAND Corporation, 2019 PDF |
|
An increase in U.S. security assistance to Ukraine would likely lead to a commensurate increase in both Russian aid to the separatists and Russian military forces in Ukraine, thus sustaining the conflict at a somewhat higher level of intensity.20 Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, the former commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, argued against giving Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine for precisely this reason.21 Alternatively, Russia might counter-escalate, committing more troops and pushing them deeper into Ukraine. Russia might even preempt U.S. action, escalating before any additional U.S. aid arrives. Such escalation might extend Russia; Eastern Ukraine is already a drain. Taking more of Ukraine might only increase the burden, albeit at the expense of the Ukrainian people. However, such a move might also come at a significant cost to Ukraine and to U.S. prestige and credibility. This could produce disproportionately large Ukrainian casualties, territorial losses, and refugee flows. It might even lead Ukraine into a disadvantageous peace. |
|
Some analysts maintain that Russia lacks the resources to escalate the conflict. Ivan Medynskyi of the Kyiv-based Institute for World Policy argued, “War is expensive. Falling oil prices, economic decline, sanctions, and a campaign in Syria (all of which are likely to continue in 2016) leave little room for another large-scale military maneuver by Russia.”22 According to this view, Russia simply cannot afford to maintain a proxy war in Ukraine, although, given Russia's size and the importance it places on Ukraine, this might be an overly optimistic assumption. |
|
There is also some risk of weapons supplied to the Ukrainians winding up in the wrong hands. A RAND study conducted for the President of Ukraine found reasons for concern about the potential misuse of Western military aid. While Ukraine has been tarred by Russian propaganda claims that it mishandled Western military aid, the RAND team also found that “Ukraine's paper systems for tracking equipment are outdated and vulnerable to corruption.”23 Moreover, the RAND team also expressed concern that, absent reforms to Ukraine's defense industry, Western military equipment might be reverse- engineered and enter the international market in competition with U.S. suppliers.24 Ultimately, the team concluded, “The perception of misuse or corruption, whatever the reality, is sufficient to deter donors that might otherwise provide free equipment or supplies, and to make U.S. or other officials concerned that Ukraine cannot be trusted with high-tech systems.”25 The RAND team also concluded, however, that these problems are fixable and offered recommendations to Ukraine on how to overcome them. On the other hand, Ukraine is certainly a more capable and reliable partner than others to whom the United States has provided lethal equipment—for instance, the anti-Russian Afghan mujahidin in the 1980s. |
|
One might imagine an unacknowledged U.S. effort to provide Ukraine with weapons of non-U.S. origin, but such efforts likely would not remain secret for long; furthermore, Ukraine can probably procure such weapons itself on the open market. Finally, if the United States were to boost aid to Ukraine against the advice of its principal European allies, it could endanger European support for the Russia sanctions regime, which relies more heavily on European adherence than on U.S. adherence. While NATO members located close to Russia, such as Poland, generally take a more hawkish approach to Ukraine, most Western European governments remain cautious. According to a 2015 Pew survey, 59 percent of Frenchmen, 65 percent of Italians, 66 percent of Spaniards, and 77 percent of Ger-mans opposed NATO sending arms to Ukraine.26 Indeed, according to reporting by the German newspaper Der Spiegel, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Philip Breedlove viewed the German government as one the major obstacles to boosting aid to Ukraine.27 |
日本の国際政治学者ってのはこういったことを知ってか知らないでかはいざしらず、少なくとも隠蔽してこの3カ月のあいだ「寝言」を語り続けてきたんだよなあ。あいつらも事実上「戦争犯罪人」じゃないかね。
で、あいつらの寝言を鵜呑みにしてきた日本の一般大衆のみなさんってのは何だろ？ ーー《一方は完全ロバと、もう一方は自分の墓掘人どもの才気ある同盟者》（クンデラ『不滅』）
※付記
米ネオコンは次の「利益」が高い施策を中心に、計画的にやってんだよ
