I read a story the other day of how a desperate Ukrainian army battalion commander recently visited New York in the hope of crowd funding his under equipped troops struggling on the frontlines of Eastern Ukraine.

The piece, written by the editor-in-chief of the The Interpreter, an online journal that translates and analyses Russian media, told of how the commander, Ivan Rodichenko, was dismayed by the fact his men were more or less left to fend for themselves against well quipped adversaries 'backed either by Russia or from Russia."

Rodichenko talked of his men using "walkie-talkies that you see in paintball tournaments, not wars," and how these were easily located by Russian signals intelligence, leading to devastatingly accurate artillery barrages that led to "untold casualties."

Across eastern Ukraine the casualties, both military and civilian, have been mounting dramatically of late. In response, a number of diplomatic and military initiatives have taken on a fresh urgency.

Yesterday, French President Francois Hollande said he was heading to Ukraine with German Chancellor Angela Merkel to present a new peace initiative before meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin today.

Washington, meanwhile, has been talking tough, with US Secretary of State John Kerry arriving in a snowbound Kiev yesterday saying the US would not "close our eyes" to Russian tanks and fighters crossing the border.

Nato defence ministers too, have ratcheted up the pressure on Moscow, pledging to strengthen the alliance's presence in eastern Europe by setting up a network of small command centres that could rapidly reinforce the region in the event of any threat from Russia. These would include bases in

Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria.

They will likely agree to more than double the size of Nato's existing rapid reaction force to 30,000 soldiers from 13,000, and to flesh out details of a 5,000-strong "spearhead" force with a faster reaction time of only a few days.

With Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko urging Washington to send arms, the Americans find themselves in a bit of a dilemma. This, not least because several European defence ministers have spoken out against arms shipments, pointing to a potential transatlantic split if Washington gives the green light to arms supplies.

"More weapons in this area will not bring us closer to a solution, and will not end the suffering of the population," German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen insisted yesterday.

Political and economic pressure, not guns and bombs, seems to be the preferred option. That no doubt will go down well in Moscow where Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich made clear yesterday that Russia would see any decision by the US to give Ukraine lethal weapons as a threat to Russia's security.

Which way then is Washington ready to jump, and will it risk that "transatlantic split" European defence ministers warn off if weapons to Kiev are forthcoming?

For his part, Ukrainian President Poroshenko is pretty certain the guns are coming, a point he made clear in an impassioned speech in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv on Tuesday.

Washington's ultimate decision will doubtless in great part be determined by shifts within its own

domestic political sphere. Many point to a policy shift of late after earlier hesitance on arming Ukraine as President Barack Obama's second term wanes.

President Obama got the thumbs up of approval on the issue recently when a group of

influential national security experts now working outside government released a report through the influential think-tank- the Brookings Institution, forcefully urging that the president arm Ukraine.

Apparently the report entitled "Preserving Ukraine's Independence, Resisting Russian Aggression: What the United States and Nato Must Do" was brought together based on discussions last month with senior Nato officials in Brussels and senior Ukrainian civilian and military officials in Kiev and at the Ukrainian "anti-terror operation" headquarters in Kramatorsk, in eastern Ukraine.

In short they recommended that the focus should be on enhancing Ukraine's defensive capabilities, providing everything from radars to pinpoint the origin of long-range rocket and artillery strikes, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), secure communications capabilities, armoured vehicles and include

lethal defensive capabilities, especially light anti-armour missiles.

Only this week too Obama's defence secretary nominee, Ashton Carter, told the Senate that he was "inclined" to provide lethal assistance to Kiev, a break from current administration policy that he would be very unlikely to make without it being rubber stamped by the White House.

This then is where the situation stands at the moment with the stakes extremely high. As

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said yesterday if such arms supplies were to go ahead the decision would "inflict colossal damage to Russian-American relations".