Ridiculous: Stingy Washington Strives to Pay for Arming Ukraine Against Russia

The US Senate and the House of Representatives agreed on the cost of military support for Ukraine. The sum is $350 million. Previously, the Senate had suggested giving Kiev $500 million - Poroshenko proudly announced it in September.

The US Senate and the House of Representatives agreed on the cost of military support for Ukraine. The sum is $350 million. Previously, the Senate had suggested giving Kiev $500 million — Poroshenko proudly announced it in September. However, the House of Representatives disagreed, and the sum was decreased.

Moreover, the Pentagon will be able to spend only half of the sum until it manages to persuade Congress that Ukraine, I quote: "Has shown significant efforts in conducting institutional reforms of its defense". So, in fact, Kiev receives only $175 million. The sum could be spent on flying defensive armaments, anti-tank complexes, for instance. According to the US, Ukraine has to defend itself primarily against Russia. The corresponding budget item is called accordingly: "measures in response to Russian aggression".

 

Washington just openly admits that the conflict in Donbass is its confrontation with Moscow. The militarization of Ukraine and the South-East are certainly not what the Minsk Agreement seeks. America's attempt to act as an intermediary starts to look frightening. It's not a secret that the reforms of the Ukrainian military are an attempt to conform to NATO-standards. Congress is ready to pay $4.5 billion for the clash with Russia, including the development of medium-range missiles, that will become, I quote again: "The US response to Russia's violation of the INF Treaty". Washington didn't bother to explain how exactly Russia violated the Treaty. Our correspondent in the USA Valentin Bogdanov is reporting on America planning to trigger a new arms race.

An attraction of unprecedented generosity straight from Capitol Hill has boosted. $700 billion of military budget for 2018 is a decade-old record. Not only did the American legislature give the Pentagon $26 billion more than asked, but also created an additional budget item for the sum the US can spend on developing land-based medium-range missiles.

And it's all despite the fact that the INF Treaty that was signed by Washington and Moscow in 1987 and directly banned this kind of developments remains in force. Under the Treaty, the USSR destroyed 1846 and the US 846 units of such weapons. And it was Russia that was abstractly accused of violating the Treaty three years ago. Now it's clear what the US had been laying the groundwork for.

Konstantin Kosachev, Federation Council: "The American side never managed to prove that Russia violated the INF Treaty. Russia, as already mentioned by our President and military experts, has absolutely no need to resort to this weapon class because the existing capabilities allow Russia to ensure its defense with exhaustive reliability".

The White House, State Department, and Pentagon are still claiming that the INF Treaty corresponds to the US interests. Washington never openly tried to withdraw from the Treaty. It's quite handy to violate an agreement without officially denouncing it, and it's the US old-school foreign policy, as well as sanctions. The bill's architects demand to impose additional limitations against Russia for nonexistent violations.

Vyacheslav Nikonov, political expert, State Duma deputy: "The allegations against Russia are needed primarily to maintain the image of Russia as an "evil empire" as a "devil incarnate" that violates all possible agreements. On the other hand, it lays the groundwork for increasing the US physical defenses in an attempt to once again break the strategic parity".

The next step of the American legislature is the House of Representatives approving Pentagon's budget proposal. After that, it goes to the Senate and only then gets signed by Donald Trump. Americans often replace the issues of global stability with their own interests.

The US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty, refused to stick to the pre-agreed methods of destroying weapon-grade uranium, and delay the disposal of chemical weapons. Their attacks against the Iran nuclear deal seem much of the same. Now they got around to missiles. Valentin Bogdanov, Ivan Utkin for Vesti from New York.