Ukraine’s military has lost control of the Donetsk airport, and the rebels have launched another offensive. Fortune could yet smile upon Kiev, but as long as Russia is determined not to let the separatists fail, Ukraine’s efforts likely will be for naught.

As I pointed out on Forbes.com, “Only a negotiated settlement, no matter how unsatisfying, offers a possible resolution of the conflict. The alternative may be the collapse of the Ukrainian state and long-term confrontation between the West and Russia.”

Ukraine’s most fervent advocates assume anyone not ready to commit self-immolation on Kiev’s behalf must be a Russian agent. However, there are numerous good reasons for Washington to avoid the fight.

1) Russia isn’t Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.

While the Obama administration has resisted proposals for military confrontation with Moscow, a gaggle of ivory tower warriors has pushed to arm Ukraine, bring Kiev into NATO and station U.S. men and planes in Ukraine. These steps could lead to war.

Americans have come to expect easy victories. However, Russia would be no pushover. In particular, Moscow has a full range of nuclear weapons, which it could use to respond to allied conventional superiority.

2) Moscow has more at stake than the West in Ukraine.

Ukraine matters far more to Moscow than to Washington. Thus, the former will devote far greater resources and take far greater risks than the allies will. The Putin government already has accepted financial losses, economic isolation, human casualties and political hostility.

3) Alliances should enhance U.S. security, not provide foreign charity.

It’s impossible to blame Ukraine for wanting the West to protect it. But it makes no sense for the allies to do so. Adding Ukraine to NATO would dramatically degrade U.S. security by transforming a minor conflict irrelevant to Washington into a military dispute between America and Russia.

4) Security guarantees and alliance commitments often spread rather than deter conflict.

NATO advocates presume that membership would dissuade Russia from taking military action. Alas, deterrence often fails. In World War I alliances become transmission belts of war.

5) U.S. foreign policy should be based on the interest of America, not other nations.

The greatest distortion to U.S. foreign policy may come from ethnic lobbying. There’s nothing wrong with having affection for one’s ancestral homeland, like Ukraine. But U.S. foreign policy should be designed to benefit America, not other nations.

Some advocates for Kiev argue that Ukraine deserves support since France helped the American colonists win their independence. But France intervened in the American Revolution because Paris believed it was in France’s interest to weaken Britain. Going to war with Moscow would offer Americans no similar benefit.

6) It’s Europe’s turn to act.

If Ukraine matters geopolitically, it is to Europe. But most NATO members continue to shrink their militaries. It is time Europe did the military heavy lifting.

7) A negotiated settlement is the only solution.

Unfortunately, weaker parties often must make accommodations. During the Cold War, Finland maintained its domestic liberties by not antagonizing the Soviet Union.

The world is similarly unfair to Ukraine today. Military victory is unlikely. Stalemate threatens Ukraine with economic crisis.

The allies hope that sanctions will force Russia to concede. But Vladimir Putin won’t retreat voluntarily.

Massive public discontent could spark a popular revolution. However, foreign penalties more often cause people to rally around their governments. As of last month, Putin’s popularity was at 85 percent.

Moreover, the prospect of Weimar Russia should cause Ukrainians and their friends in the West to be careful what they wish for. A Russia in crisis likely would not be democratic and docile.

Moscow could say no. If so, it is better to find out now than to do so only after suffering through an extended Cold War lite.

The Ukraine-Russia conflict is an unnecessary tragedy. Thankfully, the ongoing battle doesn’t much threaten America. However, the only ending in something other than disaster is likely to come through negotiation. Instead of acting as a belligerent party, Washington should focus on shaping a diplomatic solution.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. This article first appearedon the Cato Institute website.

(Newsweek)

Rep. Molly White asks Muslim visitors to pledge allegiance to America

A newly elected Texas state lawmaker is under fire for a divisive Facebook post asking Muslim visitors attending an event at the state capitol in Austin to pledge allegiance to the United States.

The event, Texas Muslim Capitol Day, was organized by the Texas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

"Today is Texas Muslim Capital [sic] Day in Austin," Molly White, a House Republican,wrote on her Facebook page Thursday. "The House is in recess until Monday. Most Members including myself are back in District. I did leave an Israeli flag on the reception desk in my office with instructions to staff to ask representatives from the Muslim community to renounce Islamic terrorist groups and publicly announce allegiance to America and our laws. We will see how long they stay in my office."

The post followed a similar Facebook message that was posted along with a report from the "Right Wing News" website about a Dallas community creating a voluntary sharia court to dispense Islamic justice.

"Remember, in the Koran, it is ok to lie for the purpose of advancing Islam," she wrote. "Texans must never allow fringe groups of people to come here so that they can advance their own culture instead of becoming an American and assimilating into the American way of life. That, I can assure is not the intent of most Muslims who move to America."

The posts drew immediate criticism from many Facebook users.

"You can't seriously be this clueless," Fatima Ahmed wrote. "Not very 'Christian' of you. We should organize a group to come visit you and shower you with love in return for your hate. That's would Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) would do. But what would you know about that. #Islamophobia #Bigotry #MollyWhite #TAKEONHATE."

"Just like the extremist groups hiding under the Muslim label, it looks like we've got an extremist here hiding under the label of Christianity," Kelly Pfeiffer wrote.

"Next can you ask all white people visiting the capitol [to] denounce the KKK?" Laura Wright asked. "When you do, please ask your staff to make a youtube video! I’d watch it!"

"I came here to call you a bigot, but I see everyone else beat me to it," John Glover wrote.

"This is a gross misuse of a political office," James Propes wrote.

But White, a 56-year-old anti-abortion conservative from Belton, Texas, dismissed the criticism.

"I do not apologize for my comments above," she wrote. "If you love America, obey our laws and condemn Islamic terrorism then I embrace you as a fellow American. If not, then I do not."

White did not immediately respond to a request seeking further comment.

In response, CAIR sent a letter to Texas House speaker Joe Straus asking if White had violated any House rules in discriminating "against certain religious minorities trying to meet with her or her staff."

"Are House members prohibited from making constituents take oaths before meeting with their elected representatives or house staff?" the letter asked.

White's comments come after the deadly terror attacks in France carried out by Muslim extremists earlier this month.

Lauren McGaughy ✔ @lmcgaughy Follow Anti-Islam protesters at Texas Muslim Capitol Day screaming "go home!" and "Mohammad is dead!" #txlege 11:45 AM - 29 Jan 2015 93 RETWEETS 13 FAVORITES

Thursday's event drew several dozen protesters, who gathered outside the Texas state capitol holding signs ("Radical Islam Is the New Nazi," one read) and shouting "Go home!"

The annual gathering of Texas Muslims began in 2003. Organizers told the Texas Tribune that this the first year there have been protests.

A carnival committee ditches the plan after hearing concerns from locals about public safety.
Heightened fears in Europe

Washington (AFP) - The US military will no longer divulge facts and figures about its costly effort to assist Afghan security forces, declaring the information top secret, officials said Thursday.

The move marks an about-face for the Pentagon, which for the past six years has reported a range of data about the $65 billion program to build up the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).

The information included how US taxpayers' money has been spent and the state of the troubled country's police and army.

John Sopko, special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction (SIGAR), voiced disappointment with the change and said the classification of such a volume of information was "unprecedented."

"The decision leaves SIGAR unable to publicly report on most of the $65 billion US-taxpayer-funded efforts to build, train, equip and sustain the ANSF," Sopko's office said in its latest report.

The US commander in Afghanistan, General John Campbell, defended the move, saying the information -- which includes an assessment of the combat readiness of Afghan units -- could prove helpful to Taliban insurgents and needed to be kept secret.

"With lives literally on the line, I am sure you can join me in recognizing that we must be careful to avoid providing sensitive information to those that threaten our forces and Afghan forces, particularly information that can be used by such opposing forces to sharpen their attacks," Campbell wrote to the inspector general in a letter dated January 18.

Data about the assistance program has provided a key measure for gauging the effect of the US-led effort to bolster the Afghan forces, particularly as some of the details have exposed the shortcomings of the Afghan military.

View gallery

NATO's ISAF Commander General John Campbell attends a handover ceremony before the British and U …

The inspector general's regular updates on the state of the program have highlighted the Afghan force's problems with "attrition," as large numbers of recruits have died on the battlefield, deserted or quit.

The decision to withhold facts about the effort raises questions about the condition of the Afghan security forces after the withdrawal of most NATO troops last year.

A small, mostly American contingent of about 12,000 troops remains on the ground to advise and assist the Afghans.

Lawmakers criticized the secrecy, saying it undermined attempts to hold the government accountable for massive reconstruction projects.

"I'm offended that this previously unclassified information is now being classified, in a move deeply detrimental to our efforts to root out waste and fraud," said Senator Claire McCaskill, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

- 'No answers' -

The New York Times condemned the move on its editorial page, saying "it strains credulity to believe that insurgents would become more proficient fighters by poring over lengthy inspector general reports about an increasingly forgotten war."

The newspaper, which first reported the change, added that keeping the information secret "unreasonably prevents American taxpayers from drawing informed conclusions about the returns on a $107.5 billion reconstruction investment that, adjusted for inflation, has surpassed the price tag of the Marshall Plan."

According to the SIGAR report, the military gave classified or restricted answers to more than 140 questions posed by the inspector general.

This included the total amount of US funding for Afghan forces for the current year, details of contracts for literacy training and an assessment of anti-corruption initiatives.

The State Department also was not forthcoming about its aid projects when contacted by the inspector general's office, the report said.

Despite a legal obligation for federal agencies to provide requested information to the inspector general, "the State Department did not answer any of SIGAR’s questions on economic and social-development this quarter, and failed to respond to SIGAR's attempts to follow up."

But the State Department said Thursday there was no intention to withhold information and that officials had told the inspector general the delivery of the latest data would be delayed.

Congress has approved $107.5 billion for reconstruction in Afghanistan, with $15.3 billion yet to be disbursed.