RFE/RL's news desk has issued this item on Russia response to the U.S. Congress passing a bill to provide military assistance to Ukraine:
Russia has voiced "deep regret" about U.S. legislation that would approve fresh sanctions against Moscow and allow U.S. President Barack Obama's administration to provide lethal military assistance to Kyiv for its fight against Kremlin-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich said the approval of the so-called Ukraine Freedom Support Act by both houses of the U.S. Congress on December 11 was "openly confrontational" in its nature.
The bill was scheduled for a second vote by lawmakers on December 12 due to technical reasons and still must be approved by the White House to become law.
It would open the way for the provision of up to $350 million worth of military hardware to Ukraine -- including the delivery of antitank and antiarmor weapons, radar, surveillance drones, and communications equipment to Ukrainian forces.
Lawmakers in Kyiv welcomed the approval by U.S. lawmakers on December 11 as a "historic decision."
(Reuters, AP, AFP)
This item from our news desk is not directly related to Ukraine, but still resonates considering what's going on in that part of the world:
Russia has reacted angrily to accusations from Washington that Moscow is violating its nuclear treaty obligations with the United States, saying it would not follow "American diktat" on their Intermediate-Range Nuclear Treaty.
The statement on December 12 by Russia's Foreign Ministry also said that Washington is following "the logic of confrontation" in its dealings with Russia.
The statement was a response to remarks made at a December 10 congressional hearing by U.S. Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller.
Brian McKeon, Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of Defense, said Washington is considering possible countermeasures in response to Russia's violation of the treaty.
The 1987 treaty bans ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles capable of flying a distance of 500 to 5,500 kilometers.
(With reporting by Reuters)
We are now closing the live blog for today. Don't forget that you can keep abreast of all our ongoing Ukraine coverage here.
Good morning. We'll start today's live blog by pointing you in the direction of an interesting op-ed by John Guida in "The New York Times," which looks at potential different approaches for the West to adopt toward Vladimir Putin and Russia generally. Here's a taster:
At The Interpreter, a blog published by the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney, Matthew Sussex offers a blueprint for the West to re-evaluate its approach to Russia.
“If the U.S. and E.U. lose Russia, they risk driving it completely toward China and thereby recreating bipolarism in a messy globalized environment,” he writes. “The West already faces an uncomfortable reality: its own normative vision of democratic individualism will have to compete with other narratives seeking to shape legal, institutional and trading arrangements.”
Mr. Sussex offers an alternative: “maneuver Russia into a ‘pivot’ position between East and West. That would allow Moscow to sell its policies to domestic audiences via exceptionalism and great power imagery; it would ensure that energy and resources continue to flow; and it will turn Russia into a massive buffer zone between China and the transatlantic space.”
As it happens, Mr. Sussex says, this is “precisely what the Kremlin wants, too.” Russia does not want to become “China’s mine and petrol pump.”
“It is better to have Russia as a part-time partner than a recurring problem to be managed,” Mr. Sussex adds. To create such a partnership, he says, the West must recognize that Russia will not become a liberal democracy anytime soon. And he believes “European security structures are in urgent need of renovation,” and that any reform must be one “that Russia can join on an equal footing.”
Read the entire article here