More boots on the ground

THE announcement on February 24th by the British prime minister, David Cameron, that Britain is to send 75 military trainers to Ukraine next month has been interpreted by some commentators as an escalation of Western attempts to deter Russian aggression. In fact, the deployment was agreed during NATO’s summit in Wales last September along with a range of other support measures. About 800 American troops will also be arriving in western Ukraine in March to train three Ukrainian battalions in battlefield tactics.

According to NATO, five other member countries are thinking about sending in trainers, while Canada and Germany have also agreed to help upgrade the Ukrainian army’s antiquated command and communications systems—orders from senior officers are given using old radios or mobile phones that the Russian-backed separatists have no difficulty intercepting. The British trainers will help with improving the Ukrainian army’s intelligence, logistics and battlefield medical procedures as well as more basic infantry training.

Over time, the NATO training mission may have some worthwhile military effects. But if, as many expect, the separatists, egged on by the Kremlin, launch a spring offensive in defiance of the most recent ceasefire agreement it is likely to be too little and too late to have any real influence on the course of the conflict.

If that happens, it seems certain that calls for providing the Ukrainians with “lethal aid” will grow again. Earlier this month, Barack Obama, with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, at his side, said that he was looking “at all the options” that might change Vladimir Putin’s “calculus” but had not yet reached a decision on sending weapons. Mrs Merkel and most other European leaders remain opposed and, for now, Mr Obama is putting the highest priority on maintaining Western unity.

However, pressure is growing from Congress for lethal aid. On February 10th the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mac Thornberry, and the ranking Democrat, Adam Smith, introduced legislation calling for a $1 billion package of immediate lethal defensive aid to help Ukraine secure “its sovereign territory against foreign aggressors”, bolstered by further $1 billion tranches in each of the next two financial years. During his recent nomination hearing, Mr Obama’s new defence secretary, Ash Carter, also suggested that he too favoured sending the Ukrainians weapons, although he has since snapped back behind the president’s more cagey approach.

A range of equipment is being considered to enhance the Ukrainian army’s ability to inflict heavier costs on the aggressor. These include: light anti-armour missiles; counter-battery radars to identify and target the Grad rockets and artillery that are responsible for about 70% of Ukrainian casualties; medium-altitude surveillance drones to improve tactical situational awareness; electronic counter-measures to disrupt opposing UAVs; secure communications; armoured Humvees; and fully-equipped field hospitals to cut the high death rate among injured soldiers.

The intention would be for any new kit to be supplied only to Ukrainian regular units rather than the many volunteer battalions fighting in the east. The influx of Western trainers would be able to ensure that Ukrainian forces learned how to use more sophisticated systems before they were deployed. They may also be able to play some role in integrating irregular units into the army—an essential step towards more coordinated command and control.

How much of a difference might all this make on the ground? Nobody suggests that it would be enough to repel a determined advance led by professional Russian troops of the kind that was seen last August. However, by raising the cost of further aggression to the Kremlin it may give it what some are describing as an “escalation dilemma”. The war is losing popularity in Russia and Mr Putin might not want to deal with the political consequences of increased numbers of Russian soldiers returning home in body bags. It may also give separatist fighters, who have enjoyed a string of fairly easy victories in the past few months thanks to superior firepower, a reason to settle for what they have rather than pushing on at the next opportunity.

Critics, however, contend that giving Ukraine even purely defensive weapons will mean intensifying the conflict and raising the number of casualties. On past form, Mr Obama probably leans in their direction. Whether he can continue to do so probably depends on the survival of the current messy ceasefire, something few would put money on.