Peters/Fowler 1
1AC V2.5
Whomever our opponents may be, please do not open our case until we
have begun speaking.
Peters/Fowler 2
The United States’ current use of small arms sales as a diplomatic tool causes
several problems and requires reform. The conflict in the Donbass region of
Ukraine puts millions of lives at risk and empowers extremist terror groups and
while tens of thousands of lives have been lost as a result, we, as a nation, have
the capability to end this conflict.
It is for these reasons that we affirm the resolution: Resolved: The United States
federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or
Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States.
Peters/Fowler 3
Harms
The continuation of the Ukrainian conflict puts millions of civilian lives at risk
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2019,
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/New%20UN%20Human%20Rights%20Report%20on%20Ukraine_Full%20text
reporting period = February 16 to May 15, 2019
“When the shelling starts at night, I put him to bed and tell him it is just rain drops falling.” - A woman on
how she explains the hostilities to her four-year-old grandchild in Oleksandrivka 23. During the reporting period,
_ENG.pdf
hostilities continued to affect, directly or indirectly, the lives of 3.9 million civilians residing in the
conflict zone of eastern Ukraine.17 Regular exchanges of fire across the contact line
continue to expose those residing nearby to a constant threat of death or injury, while
their civilian property and critical civilian infrastructure continued to be damaged, often in
disregard for the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution. In addition to the threat of shelling,
civilians continued to be at risk from mines and explosive remnants of war. OHCHR continued
to observe the presence of militaryk personnel or objects within, or near, populated areas on both sides of the contact line. Over the
reporting period, OHCHR documented nine cases in which Ukrainian forces established a presence in, or near, residential areas.
For instance, in Verkhnotoretske (Donetsk region), OHCHR observed trenches belonging to Ukrainian forces approximately 15
metres from the nearest inhabited house.18 Over the reporting period, the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (OSCE
SMM) identified at least 10 cases of military positions or weapons in or near residential areas in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk
people’s republic and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’. For instance, in Verkhnoshyrokivske (formerly Oktiabr) in Donetsk region, OSCE
SMM observed three tanks close to a probable mortar position next to houses.
US small arms escalate the conflict in Ukraine
Shabbir, 6/6/2019 (Fahad, US must stop acting recklessly, engaging in disputes on russian
border - state senator., Sputnik, retrieved from ProQuest) WASHINGTON, June 6 (Sputnik) The United States has become very irresponsible as it engages in disputes on the Russian border
and should stop such provocative actions given the chance that something can go wrong and trigger a
thermonuclear war, Virginia State Senator Richard Black told Sputnik. In May, the US Senate Armed Services Committee approved
a draft 2020 defense budget that allocates $300 million for security aid to Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly warned the United
States that sending arms to Ukraine will only fuel the conflict, destabilize the country and
lead to more bloodshed​.​ "We really have become very reckless in getting involved in disputes that are right on the
Russian border," Black said. "The president and our government need to always be mindful that while we may be overwhelmingly
powerful in term of our economy and controlling the banking system and so forth that Russia has nearly the same number of nuclear
weapons that we have. We should not be reckless and should not be provocative on the Russian border. Because there is always a
chance that something goes wrong." Black said there is a chance, however small, that a thermonuclear war may be inadvertently
triggered in which every major city in United States and Russia would be destroyed. "Is that worth being reckless? I don’t think so,"
the United States always starts out by saying it will provide non-lethal aid
to partner states, but then almost immediately begins to provide weapons and in that way
creates a constituency for war. "That is just a way these things are done," Black said. "The problem is once you start
providing Javelin anti-tank missiles, which is what we are talking about in large measure, you develop a constituency that lobbies
for war. The more weapons you provide, the more weapons manufacturers want war."
Black said. Black said
Peters/Fowler 4
Small arms sales embolden the Ukranian military without increasing fighting
capacity
Milakovsky 2017 August 28, 2017 Brian Milakovsky works for humanitarian organizations in eastern Ukraine “The Real
Danger of Sending U.S. Arms to Ukraine”
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-real-danger-sending-us-arms-ukraine-22088?page=0%2C1
In 2015, after spending several months in the frontline zone I wrote that Ukraine
desperately needs a “lousy peace” and
not an arms race. Two years and several thousand deaths later, the idea of supplying Ukraine with U.S. arms has resurfaced.
As a humanitarian worker whose greatest desire is to see the intolerable misery of Ukrainian civilians come to an end, I grapple with
these questions: Would American arms increase the price of Russian aggression, causing Moscow to scale back its military project
in the Donbass and saving civilian lives? Or would they incite a new round of escalation and a flood of new arms into the region?
The stakes of this question are incredibly high for Donbass civilians. With both sides placing their heavy artillery adjacent to
residential areas (according to the head of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) monitoring mission in
the region), every escalation means more death and destruction for a population already traumatized by three years of war and civil
strife. I get no pleasure from the idea of Ukrainian soldiers, the men and women I see every day at checkpoints, being outgunned by
Russian-armed separatists and the barely concealed Russian army. But while I hope that anti-tank Javelin rockets be used to hold
Russian aggression at bay and save civilian lives, I believe we must consider other scenarios of how the addition of U.S. arms could
affect this conflict. Russian aggression is the fundamental cause, and every move Ukraine makes (defensive or offensive) is
inherently a reaction to it. But this does not necessarily mean that Russia is the source of each new spike of violence in the conflict
zone. I travel to frontline towns several times a week, and frequently ask residents which side starts the exchanges of artillery that
crisscross above their heads. The general answer is “sometimes this side, sometimes that.” You can get the same conclusion from
following the technically detailed but judgment-free patrolling reports by the OSCE.
There is reason to believe that the two largest escalation events so far in 2017 began with a
“creeping offensive” by Ukrainian forces to improve their positions along the frontlines.
This is an understandable move for soldiers pinned under enemy fire in vulnerable positions, but it may have
triggered the massive firefights near the Svitlodarsk Bulge and between the warring sides in Avdiivka and Donetsk
that took a dozen civilian lives and spread destruction on both sides of the front. Importantly, almost none of the
advances were sustained.
A Ukrainian battalion commander told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty how his soldiers snuck into a no-man’s-land village outside
Svitlodarsk called Novoluhanske and set up positions near the main employer, a pig farm. That night the separatists understood
what had happened and began shelling the Ukrainian forces—and the farm, which was badly damaged as shelling continued into
May. Just a small stretch of gardens separates the farm from the village, which itself has come under fire. I have spent much time in
that area. In the winter of 2014–15 residents lived through the hellish “artillery duel” when the separatists and Ukrainian army
pounded each other’s towns with shells and rockets. Later I helped re-equip a bombed and looted kindergarten and replace the
shrapnel-scarred roof of the community center. The idea of death flying into these towns again, after they have slowly pieced
together a normal life and gathered money from parents to hold the kindergarten pageant, overwhelms me. I am not suggesting that
the Ukrainian forces as the sole guilty party in the continuing violence, especially considering Russia’s fundamental aggression. But
whereas the
creeping offensive was well discussed in Ukrainian media and even bragged
about, I worry whether advocates are considering it when they calculate how U.S. arms will be used. And
while we might recognize the basic moral right of the Ukrainian army to reclaim occupied land, our government has also repeatedly
stated its commitment to the Minsk accords, which commit Ukraine and the separatist forces to (thus far unsuccessful)
de-escalation.
Many voices in the government and press have been telling the Ukrainian people for three years
that U.S. arms will be a game changer. One parliamentarian and military volunteer claimed that “with American
weapons, we’ll push the Russians back to Siberia.” Also, a military commander recently told the Daily Signal, “If the U.S. sends
Given these claims, Kyiv might feel it must
capitalize on the arms transfers to shift the balance on the front. The Pentagon is
considering providing Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank rockets, which are considered defensive. But
such weapons could be used to cover an advance into the separatist-held territories
defended by Russian tanks.
Some might hope that a Ukrainian advance would bring a conclusion to the war. But that is unlikely to be the
result of any such offensive, be it creeping or galloping. In August, 2014 the Ukrainian army drove
deep into the so-called “People’s Republics,” cutting Donetsk off from Luhansk and beginning to
encircle them along the Russian border. The civilian casualties were awful as both sides reduced villages and city districts
weapons, it would completely change the war the next day.”
Peters/Fowler 5
to rubble. I thought to myself, “This is horrific, but if it brings this war to an end, maybe it’s for the best.”
the tide was turned by massive, direct Russian military
intervention, which threw back the Ukrainian forces and culminated in the death of
hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers at the Ilovaisk encirclement. Five months later Russia’s direct
involvement again shifted the military balance, allowing the separatists to occupy the
strategic and nearly destroyed cities of Debaltseve and Vuhlehirsk.
It didn’t. Most observers agree that
Elena Racheva from the independent
Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta interviewed soldiers and civilians on both sides of the frontlines. She reported on
Would a Ukrainian advance produce a different outcome today? A year ago
mutual military buildup and the itchy desire of frontline troops on both sides to go on
the offensive. This would set off a bloodbath, she wrote, “And if war returns, no one that I talked to will remain
the
alive.” Evgeny Shibalov, an activist who provided emergency humanitarian assistance to his neighbors in Donetsk before being
deported by the separatist authorities, related to me that in thime first artillery exchanges on the outskirts of Donetsk ambulance
records showed one military death to twenty-five civilians. As the sides have settled into more defined positions that civilian casualty
ratio has dropped considerably. But Shibalov is deeply unnerved by frequent talk in Kyiv and the Ukrainian media about emulating
Operation Storm, a military operation conducted by the NATO-backed Croatian and Bosnian forces that drove Serbian separatists
from the Krajina region. The modest arms transfers proposed by the Pentagon are unlikely to inspire the Ukrainian army to make
such a bold assault, but any significant move to redraw the frontline could incite the kind of massive civilian casualties not seen
since the terrible summer of 2014.
We also must consider how Moscow will interpret the “language of force.” Proponents of arming Ukraine
claim it will send home more dead Russian soldiers, thus demonstrating to Putin that he cannot prop up
the separatists with impunity. Seeing this U.S. resolve, he will reduce Russian provocations in Ukraine. But
perhaps if we are underestimating the tolerance of Putin and his elite for the death of their soldiers and the
numerous Ukrainian and Russian “volunteers” in the frontline trenches. I lived in Russia for the first year and a half
Putin had staked his
legitimacy with the Russian public on this confrontation with America. Military defeat or
even significant military setback for the separatists would be defeat for Moscow, only
compounded onto a geopolitical scale.
I fear that Putin’s understanding of the language of force will be entirely different. Regardless of the
actual impact of Javelin rockets, he could regard U.S. arms transfers as a symbolic test
of who dictates conditions in the Donbass warzone. He could counter with a new wave of military
hardware to demonstrate his resolve. The result could be a miniature arms race with lots of artillery
being fired symbolically into the homes of living, breathing Donbass civilians. And that means death and
of the Ukraine crisis and experienced the totality of Moscow’s information campaign. I left believing
shattered lives, destroyed homes and livelihoods, and descent into basement bomb shelters and root cellars—where hope for a
normal life rots in the dark. Two years of working in frontline communities has shown me that while the current status quo is awful,
civilians have so much to lose. I visited the towns near the Svitlodarsk bulge for the first time in March 2015. Gaping windows,
cratered walls and smashed storefronts greeted the eye everywhere. Many whitewashed little houses were blasted into rubble.
Today, with the efforts of Ukrainian volunteers, international NGOs and competent administrators the scars of war are barely visible.
Small factories and workshops are re-opening and looking for workers. In Stanytsia Luhanska, the rural suburb of Luhansk that was
ruthlessly shelled by both sides, small farmers are returning from refuge elsewhere in Ukraine or Russia, filling in bomb craters in
their massive gardens and repairing destroyed greenhouses. They sell their tomatoes and cucumbers through the “border crossing”
to Luhansk, using the proceeds to fix their homes and repay debts accrued from two years without a harvest. “Of course we want to
live like we did before the war,” I constantly hear. “But the way it is now, we can survive. Just so that the war doesn’t come back.” I
know many proponents of sending arms to Ukraine sincerely believe it will check Russian aggression and save lives. If the sales go
forward and it indeed helps reduce violence in the frontline zone, I will be delighted to have been wrong. But if this move instead
triggers escalation and subjects Donbass civilians to a new round of death and misery, will proponents still be paying attention?
http://theconversation.com/ukraine-us-arms-sales-making-big-business-money-while-or
dinary-people-pay-the-price-114238
Peters/Fowler 6
Inherency
Small arms sales to Ukraine are actively increasing
Mike Eckel, Christopher Miller, June 11, 2019 20:57 GMT, Next Up For U.S. Weapons
Supplies To Ukraine? Possibly Surface-To-Air Missiles,
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-us-missiles-russia/29994114.html
Over the five years of grinding war that has pitted Ukrainian forces against Russia-backed
fighters, the United States has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in military gear:
night-vision goggles, flak jackets, vehicles, counter-battery radars, among other things. Last year, after years of internal debate
that preceded his administration, President Donald Trump began supplying Ukraine with sophisticated anti-tank
missiles known as Javelins (small arms) -- a move that some feared would antagonize Moscow.
Now, U.S. lawmakers are moving to up the ante again, with legislation that would
authorize supplying Kyiv with surface-to-air missiles. The effort comes in an amendment being attached
to legislation providing funding for the Defense Department; the amendment removes existing language
prohibiting the sale of such missiles, known as man-portable air-defense systems, or
MANPADS. Sponsored by the two top lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs Committee -Democrat Eliot Engel and Republican Michael McCaul -- the measure, which is expected to pass easily, does not
mean that the weapons will be supplied right away.
Any final decision would have to go through multiple approval processes at various U.S. agencies, including the U.S. Defense
Department.
Peters/Fowler 7
Plan
Plank 1:
The United States federal government will substantially reduce Direct
Commercial Sales and Foreign Military Sales from the United States by prohibiting
the sale of small arms to Ukraine
Plank 2:
The Department of State (DoS) will enforce this plan in conjunction with the
Department of Defense (DoD)
Plank 3:
This plan will be funded via a 0.001% surtax on corporate income tax (This will
procure approximately 2.05 million dollars) Any surpluses or deficits in this
tax will be adjusted for each fiscal year
Plank 4:
As the affirmative, we claim fiat, right to clarify, and legislative intent.
Peters/Fowler 8
Advantage: Fascism
Small arms sold to Ukraine are funneled to the Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi branch
of the country’s national guard
Max Blumenthal, November 17, 2018,
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/11/17/blowback-us-funded-ukraine-neo-nazis-mentor-us-white-supremacists/
Last month, an unsealed FBI indictment of four American white supremacists from the Rise
Above Movement (RAM) declared that the defendants had trained with Ukraine’s Azov Battalion,
a neo-Nazi militia officially incorporated into the country’s national guard. The training took place
after the white supremacist gang participated in violent riots in Huntington Beach and Berkeley, California and Charlottesville,
Virginia in 2017.
The indictment stated that the Azov Battalion “is believed to have participated in training and radicalizing United States-based white
supremacy organizations.”
After a wave of racist violence across America that culminated in the massacre of twelve Jewish worshippers at a Pittsburgh
synagogue, the revelation that violent white supremacists have been traveling abroad for training and ideological indoctrination with
a well-armed neo-Nazi militia should cause extreme alarm.
Not only are white supremacists from across the West flocking to Ukraine to learn from the combat experience of their fascist
brothers-in-arms, they are doing so openly — chronicling their experiences on social media before they bring their lessons back
home. But U.S. law enforcement has done nothing so far to restrict the flow of right-wing American extremists to Azov’s bases.
There is one likely explanation for the U.S. government’s hands-off approach to Azov recruitment: the extremist militia is fighting
the United States has directly armed the
Azov Battalion, forking over anti-tank rocket launchers and even sending a team of Army
officers to meet in the field with Azov commanders in 2017.
Though Congress passed legislation this year forbidding military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology, the
Trump administration’s authorization of $200 million in offensive weaponry and aid to the
Ukrainian military makes it likely new stores of weapons will wind up the extremist
regiment’s hands. When queried by reporters about evidence of American military
training of Azov personnel, multiple U.S. army spokespersons admitted there was no
mechanism in place to prevent that from happening.
Today, Azov boasts combat experience, unlimited access to light weapons, and supporters
honeycombed throughout the upper echelons of Ukraine’s military and government. No
longer just a militia, the organization has developed into a political juggernaut that can
overpower Ukraine’s government. Two years ago, the group flexed its muscle on the streets of Kiev, bringing out
pro-Russian separatists as a front-line proxy of Washington. In fact,
10,000 supporters to demand that the government bend to their will or face a coup.
“With
its military experience and weapons, Azov has the ability to blackmail the
government and defend themselves politically against any opposition. They openly say that if the
government will not advance an ideology similar to theirs, they will overthrow it,” Ivan Katchanovski, a professor of political science
at the University of Ottawa and leading expert on Ukraine’s far-right, commented to me. He continued, explaining:
Currently the organizations that are fascist are stronger in Ukraine than in any other
country in the world. But this fact is not reported by Western media because they see these organizations as supportive of
the geopolitical agenda against Russia. So condemnations are limited to violence or human rights abuses.”
The revelations of collaboration between violent American white supremacists and a neo-Nazi militia armed by the Pentagon add
another scandalous chapter to a long history of blowback that dates back to the 1950’s, when the CIA rehabilitated several
Ukrainian Nazi collaborators as anti-communist assets in the Cold War.
an axis of fascism that stretches across the Atlantic, from the
Ukrainian capital of Kiev to the sun-washed suburbs of Southern California, where some of the most
rabid modern white supremacist gangs were born.
The almost unbelievable story exposes
Peters/Fowler 9
Solvency
Small arms sales to Ukraine are making diplomatic resolution impossible
Daniel DePetris, NOVEMBER 28, 2017 / 9:36 AM,
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-depetris-ukraine-commentary/commentary-why-the-u-s-shoul
dnt-send-arms-to-ukraine-idUSKBN1DS1XZp
The National Security Council is reported to be on the verge of recommending the export of $47 million worth of defensive arms to
Ukraine. The package will reportedly include a cache of Javelin anti-tank missiles, weapons that would reliably and efficiently disable
the hundreds of tanks that the Russian-supported separatists in the country’s east have acquired since the conflict began.
To advocates who believe that sending weapons to the Ukrainian government will bloody Russia’s nose and send President Vladimir
Putin a message, this pending decision couldn’t have come soon enough.
Arming Kiev is a popular prescription
supported by top military officers and many lawmakers in both parties.
Popular, however, doesn’t mean smart. Opening up America’s stockpile to Ukraine is not
in Washington’s national security interest. In fact, it is bound to make a conflict that is
mostly frozen into a more deadly one and it complicates any reasonable chance of a
diplomatic resolution.
While it may be uncomfortable to admit, the political orientation of Ukraine and how Ukrainians choose to manage
(or mismanage) their economy and political system doesn’t directly affect the United States. As Rajan Menon
and William Ruger wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine last month , “Ukraine matters more to Russia than it does to the
United States.”
To Washington, Ukraine is a post-Soviet state whose oligarchic politics and systemic corruption have severely handicapped the
country’s economic outlook.
U.S. security interests in Europe are not wedded to whether Kiev succeeds in
establishing a more democratic and accountable form of government. At best ,
Ukraine is a peripheral country that the
United States doesn’t have a treaty obligation to defend if its territory is invaded.
To Putin, however, Ukraine is an integral puzzle in his grand strategy of making Russia as relevant a
global player as it was during the Cold War. A wholesale Westernization of Ukrainian politics, from associations with the
European Union (EU) to a possible membership in NATO, would destroy that ambition and ruin a significant portion of Putin’s
political legacy. Indeed, the possibility of Ukraine
increasing its trade relationship and political direction with the
United States and Europe was enough of a national security threat to Putin that he was willing to deploy
Russian soldiers, paratroopers, and special forces on Ukrainian territory to carve out a zone of influence there. Putin’s
belief that a Russian-friendly Ukraine is a national security imperative for Moscow won’t
be changed by a couple dozen anti-tank missiles from the United States.
The second concern for the Trump administration is how Putin might respond to any escalation. As former National Security Council
official Charles Kupchan argued in the Washington Post: “The
notion that Russian President Vladimir Putin
would give up his hold on Donbass [Eastern Ukraine] if a few more Russians come home in
body bags is to dramatically misread the Kremlin.” Yet this false assumption is what
undergirds the arguments from proponents of lethal assistance to the Ukrainians.
It’s impossible to understand why some U.S. legislators are so confident that Moscow will react in the way they expect. The
three-and-a-half year long war has shown that Russia is ruthless in escalating its involvement and investment in the conflict to
prevent a military victory for Kiev. In fact,
to expect that Moscow would respond to more Russian casualties by
suing for a peace settlement is to ignore completely how Putin has behaved since Russia’s 2014 invasion
of Ukraine.
When separatist units in Donetsk and Luhansk were losing ground to pro-Kiev forces early in the war, Russia came to their rescue.
In the summer of 2014,
when pro-Ukrainian troops were retaking towns that Kiev previously lost, columns of
Russian tanks, artillery, heavy weapons, and soldiers crossed the border into Ukraine to ensure that there
were no more Ukrainian territorial advances in strategic areas. When the stalemated battle in the city of Ilovaisk was
Peters/Fowler 10
slowly moving Kiev’s way, conventional Russian soldiers and weapons were fast-tracked to the frontline in what would turn out to be
one of the deadliest days for Ukrainian troops in the war.
Months later, when the separatists were in jeopardy of retreating from the strategic town of Delbatseve, Russian tanks were
deployed and quickly forced an undermanned, disorganized, demoralized, and tired contingent of Kiev forces to withdraw. There’s
no reason to think that Putin would respond less violently now if Washington sent defense shipments to Ukraine.
The most negative impact of additional U.S. involvement is that it will likely spoil Moscow’s
willingness to cooperate on a Ukrainian peacekeeping proposal. While Moscow has insisted that the
2014 and 2015 Minsk protocols are the only way the war in Ukraine can end peacefully, Putin has openly acknowledged that there
may need to be greater international involvement if that peace is to be sustainable. He broached the subject of deploying U.N.
troops along the contact line this September and even agreed to explore greater access to peacekeepers in separatist-controlled
territory after a call with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The concept is now being discussed within the Trump administration
and between the U.S. and Russian special envoys to the conflict, suggesting sincerity on the Russian side.
A White House authorization to send equipment to Kiev could stop that dialogue .
It’s difficult to understand why the
United States would escalate the war when there may finally be an opening to explore a
U.N.-enforced cessation of hostilities that could lead to a political settlement to the
conflict.
The Russians could respond to increased U.S. involvement in Ukraine in other ways too. Moscow could,
for example, use its veto power in the U.N. Security Council to block U.S.-led efforts to stop North Korea’s
nuclear program. Putin could expand military and intelligence cooperation with Iran to undermine the
Trump administration’s policy of containing Iranian expansionism.
The costs to the U.S. of turning Ukraine into a proxy war against Russia overshadow the benefit of increasing Moscow’s casualty
count.
Sending arms to Kiev will do very little to help resolve the conflict. Sometimes the best course
of action for the White House is not to get more involved on issues peripheral to American grand strategy .
President Zelensky is ready for peace talks, and ending small arm sales allows
these to occur
Samantha Raphelson, September 7, 2019 5:18 PM ET,
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/07/758652882/russia-and-ukraine-conduct-prisoner-exchange-rene
wing-hopes-for-talks
Russia and Ukraine conducted a major prisoner swap on Saturday that released 70
people who had been imprisoned in both countries, a deal aimed at easing tensions sparked by
Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea.
While several obstacles still stand in the way of peace negotiations between the two countries, the exchange
renews hopes that Moscow and Kiev will hold talks. France and Germany have been working behind the scenes to make such a
summit happen.
It was an emotional scene at Ukraine's Boryspil International Airport on Saturday, when 35 Ukrainian prisoners stepped off an
aircraft and were reunited with their loved ones, as NPR's Lucian Kim reports. Meanwhile, a Russian plane carrying 35 people who
were previously detained by Ukraine landed in Moscow.
the agreed mutual release of persons held in Russia and Ukraine as a positive signal that should
be followed by other important steps to break the impasse in the current situation in
Russia-Ukraine relations," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who greeted the released prisoners at Kiev's main airport, said he is
ready to schedule talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss a possible
resolution to the ongoing dispute.
Zelensky pledged to take all possible steps "to finish this horrible war" in Russian-controlled
"We view
eastern Ukraine, where
violence has killed 13,000 people since 2014. The Ukrainian president, who was elected in May,
has vowed to end the persistent clashes between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian rebels.
Peters/Fowler 11
For Russia, participating in the prisoner exchange could mean a rollback of European sanctions that have been leveled against the
country for its role in the conflict, Ukrainian political analyst Vadim Karasev told The Associated Press.
Trump congratulated Ukraine and Russia on the prisoner exchange, tweeting that it could be "a first giant step
to peace."
President
Peters/Fowler 12
Conclusion
In conclusion, our plan ends the conflict in Ukraine,saving millions of lives,
deescelates tension between nations, and prevents the growth of fascist terror
groups. For these reasons, we urge a ballot in affirmation.