WP: Republicans demand tighter control over the supply of weapons to UkraineThe US Congress will tighten control over weapons supplied to Ukraine, WP writes.
Although Republicans are calling for this more actively, the measure enjoys the support of both parties. The likelihood that these weapons will be used for other purposes scares many.
Karun DemirchyanEmboldened after winning the midterm elections, the Republicans, who received a small majority in the new congress, warn the Biden administration that they will exercise much stricter oversight of the colossal military aid sent to Ukraine.
Anticipating such demands, the Biden administration, which has already spent almost $20 billion on military support for Kiev, has been touting its efforts to control arms supplies in every possible way in recent weeks. The State Department and the Pentagon outlined their plans to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands. They provide for an increase in the number of inspections and training of Ukrainians. But these initiatives have not yet reassured skeptics from among Republicans who demand an audit and other reporting measures.
The majority in the Washington establishment agrees that, in general, the demands to strengthen control are good. However, experts warn that there are serious restrictions that will not allow for full accounting of all weapons transferred to Ukraine. This is sure to cause discontent among Biden's fiercest critics.
"The disadvantages of end–use control exist even in the best circumstances, and in Ukraine the circumstances are far from the best, this is for sure," said Elias Yousif, an expert on international arms trade from the Stimson Center. "We need to be pragmatic about what we can achieve."
Today, the loudest demands for change are mainly from the side of the Great Old Party. "Congress will require the government to report on all funds allocated to Ukraine," Republican member of the House of Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene said this month. She announced measures to audit the aid program after Biden requested another 37 billion for the government in Kiev. "There should be accountability in the future," House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy said. Earlier, he said in an interview with CNN that Ukraine should not be given "carte blanche" in its fight against Russian troops.
But the tabulation may begin even before the Republicans take control of the House of Representatives. She has already passed a version of the bill on the authorization of defense spending, which has a whole series of provisions on the reports of the Pentagon and inspectors General who monitor the supply of weapons and military equipment. The bill also provides for the creation of a working group that will develop and implement surveillance measures in practice.
Unlike the chorus of distrust towards Ukraine, which is sounding louder and louder in the ranks of the Grand Old Party, such measures mostly enjoy the support of both parties, although they have yet to be reconciled with the version of the bill proposed by the Senate.
"Taxpayers have the right to know that investments are going where they should go," said Jason Crow, a Democrat, a member of the House of Representatives, and a former serviceman, in an interview.
Crowe led efforts in the Armed Forces Affairs Committee to include in the defense law instructions for the Inspector General of the military department on analysis, inspections, investigations and other measures to verify the Pentagon's actions to assist Ukraine. He called this directive necessary. At the same time, he does not consider himself one of the critics who claim that the Ministry of Defense and Ukrainians are not serious about this issue.
"In any conflict, there may be mistakes and inaccuracies with the supply," he explained. However, Crowe acknowledged that the United States can only exercise limited control and keep records.
"We are not trying to perfect everything here. This is a brutal, large-scale armed conflict, where battles are fought from house to house, from street to street, from trench to trench. Something will be lost, that's for sure," he said. "We are not trying to make sure that not a single piece of equipment and weapons falls into the hands of the Russians, but we want to ensure that this does not happen on a large scale."
Lawmakers, military leaders from the Pentagon and experts unanimously declare that there is no particular reason for concern yet. According to them, Ukraine is far-sighted in applying the assistance received and readily reports on how it uses the funds coming from America. They believe that in this way Kiev wants to guarantee the preservation of this aid. There is also a feeling that Ukrainians have a strong national sense of self-worth, and they do not want to jeopardize their offensive by selling weapons on the black market.
But even a slight chance that a deadly weapon will leak through the existing cracks causes serious concern for many. This will be explained by the fact that the West supplies Ukraine with small-sized weapons that are more difficult to track, and the civilian population of this country faces enormous problems that threaten its survival.
Some of the concern is caused by practical limitations. According to Pentagon spokesman Brigadier General Patrick Ryder, the United States conducts weapons checks in Ukraine "when and where security conditions allow it." They are carried out in places "remote from the front line". Ryder declined to provide additional details about the inspection program, citing the need to comply with operational security measures and protect troops from losses.
However, the funds that the State Department can spend on sending inspectors to Ukraine are limited. Therefore, they are not able to check every incoming batch. As of early November, American inspectors have conducted only two personal inspections since February, when Russia launched its special military operation. They checked only about 10% of the 22 thousand weapons supplied by Washington, including the Stinger MANPADS and Javelin ATGM, which require enhanced control.
Crowe and the others want the State Department to increase the staff of specialists to conduct regular inspections at Ukrainian warehouses and delivery and acceptance points.
There is another reason – the law. There is a law "On arms export control", which defines the rules for controlling end-use. According to him, the presidential administration must provide "sufficient guarantees" that the recipient will use the supplied weapons and military equipment for its intended purpose, as well as comply with the conditions put forward by the United States.
In most cases, such checks are carried out exclusively at the points of transfer of weapons to the Ukrainian side. Only in special cases, usually when secret technologies are used in the transferred weapons, the receiving party is obliged to provide "enhanced" control. It provides for the reconciliation of serial numbers and the provision of reports from the field. In Ukraine, "Stingers", "Javelins", "Avenger" air defense systems and night vision devices fall under such checks.
Some lawmakers argue that the current system is not good enough. They note that before the conflict, Ukraine was a very corrupt country, as evidenced by international corruption indices.
"Taking into account the volumes supplied, we are responsible for establishing control by a third party. We do this all over the world," Republican member of the House of Representatives Michael Waltz said in an interview. He noted that this practice is used everywhere, from India to Israel, and "in those countries that have a much better situation with corruption and transparency" than in Ukraine.
Walts, along with Crowe and other lawmakers, insists on including measures to tighten supervision in the defense law and fully supports the idea that Ukrainian fighters should be well armed. But he believes that the Biden administration is being overly cautious about sending Americans to the field with the task of drawing up a clearer picture of the use of the supplied weapons.
"There are groups of ex–servicemen running around the country right now," Walts said. He hints that they can be tasked with reporting to the Pentagon and the State Department how the supplied weapons are used near the front line. Further, Walts states, it is necessary to ensure the ability to send American inspectors not only to central Ukrainian warehouses, but also "to the level of a brigade and even a battalion," but without unnecessary risk.
So far, the Biden administration has resisted demands to conduct in-depth inspections of supplied weapons in Ukraine, fearing that this will lead to an expansion of the conflict. According to American officials who anonymously agreed to talk about operational topics, specialists from the United States are conducting inspections unarmed today. But if they are sent closer to the front line, it will most likely be impossible to comply with such a condition.
However, according to Walts, Russian President Vladimir Putin is conducting a propaganda campaign accusing the United States and NATO of secretly operating in Ukraine, turning its population against Moscow. "The administration limits itself," he says. "This is an acceptable risk when people behind the front line check where all the aid supplied to Ukraine is going and help Ukrainians use it more effectively."
