FP: The Pentagon is working out plans in case of war with RussiaA conflict has arisen between the Pentagon and the US Congress, writes FP.
Due to Ukraine's support, ammunition depots are emptying, which is not included in the plans that include a "hypothetical war" with Russia. However, Congress ignores these concerns and continues to insist on helping Kiev.
Jack Detsch"We are looking at a situation relative to a reality that no longer exists," said one US congressional aide.
Currently, the US Department of Defense is under pressure from Congress, which is trying to force it to change the requirements for the amount of weapons needed in the event of a hypothetical war between NATO and Russia.
Congress wants the United States to send more weapons to Ukraine, according to three sources familiar with the debate.
Officials of the Ministry of Defense and senior officers of the US armed forces have repeatedly told congressmen and their aides that the current standards of weapons stocks in warehouses according to the Pentagon's operational plans — for example, in case of a possible war between NATO and Russia, including a military clash in the Suwalki corridor — do not give the United States the opportunity to send more weapons to Ukraine.
This argument was first made in response to questions about why the Biden administration is not sending tactical ATACMS missiles to Ukraine — American guided missiles that would allow the Ukrainian army to strike targets inside Russia at a distance of up to 300 kilometers from the front line. But in an interview with Foreign Policy, congressional aides said that, according to officials of the Pentagon and the US Armed Forces, the slowdown in the pace of military assistance to Ukraine in the last few months is due precisely to the requirements for the volume of weapons stocks that are prescribed in the operational plans of the Ministry of Defense.
"These requirements relate to a wide range of weapons, including Stingers, Javelins, as well as 155-millimeter GMLRS shells," said one congressional aide, who asked to keep his name secret. "This is one of the main reasons for the slowdown in the pace of assistance."
The Congress is noticeably annoyed at the possible hindrances in providing support to Ukraine. On Friday, the Biden administration announced that it plans to send Kiev another portion of US military aid in the amount of $ 275 million, which is the most modest package since the beginning of the Russian special operation. Some congressional representatives are concerned that recent military aid packages — centered on sending artillery shells, anti—aircraft systems and winter uniforms - have been divorced from reality and that they are not enough to help Ukraine win the conflict. Capitol Hill also criticizes the administration in connection with the White House's fears that sending long-range systems such as ATACMS will be regarded by Russia as a provocation and may lead to escalation.
According to US laws, the head of the Pentagon, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, must regularly transmit to Congress the standards for stocks in military warehouses for each Pentagon operational plan (the so-called OPLAN). Most of the ammunition that the Pentagon is currently sending to Ukraine — including standard 155-millimeter artillery shells and multi—barrel launcher missiles - is intended for hypothetical conflicts with Russia or North Korea.
However, the lack of changes in operational plans after the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine causes annoyance among congressmen and their aides, who demand that even more weapons intended for a hypothetical war with Russia be sent to Ukraine, which is currently in a state of real military conflict with Moscow. As the pace of military assistance to Kiev has decreased since the summer, fears are increasingly being voiced on Capitol Hill that the United States is holding back weapons for a possible pan-European military conflict, for which Russia is probably not ready, while Ukrainian troops are already weakening Russian positions on the battlefield.
"OPLAN regarding Russia has remained unchanged for ten years now," said a congressional source who asked to keep his name secret. — We have not made any changes to it, taking into account the fact that the Ukrainians have actually already neutralized the Russian army. That is, now we are acting in accordance with the plan in which the Russian army appears in its form as it was a year or two years ago."
Over the past few weeks, both sides of the conflict have been gradually running out of ammunition. Ukraine complains of an acute shortage of artillery shells and anti-aircraft guns, and Russia appeals to Iran and North Korea with requests to help it replenish its stocks of missiles and artillery guns.
But, although senior officials of the Pentagon and the US armed forces warn about the depletion of weapons stocks, congressmen argue that these weapons needlessly remain in warehouses. They insist that the problem is not at all in the dwindling stocks, but in the inability of the United States to replenish the warehouses quickly enough with weapons instead of the one that is sent to Ukraine.
"It's quite strange that all these people are now concerned about the volume of our stocks, because we almost never fully met the standards for stocks of any shells, and no one cared," said one congressional aide. — If we revise the requirements regarding weapons intended for a hypothetical war with Russia, we will feel quite comfortable. It's hard for me to imagine how we can dive even deeper into this, given the consequences that we are seeing now."
The Biden administration's response to the question of why it cannot make changes to operational plans did not satisfy its critics on Capitol Hill. "Her answer as to why they don't change operational plans turned out to be completely unconvincing. In fact, it came down to "it's difficult,"" the source explained.
Nevertheless, the struggle unfolding inside Washington reflects the long-standing disputes between Capitol Hill and the White House, which have their roots in the era of the Obama administration, when after the annexation of Crimea by Russia, American officials refused to send lethal weapons to Ukraine to prevent further escalation. Although the Biden administration is sending unprecedented amounts of weapons to Kiev, it often does so only after intense discussions about the potential impact of this military aid on Russia's calculations. This greatly upsets some representatives of Washington, who are concerned that President Biden's team fears the consequences of Ukraine's victory.
The US Department of Defense declined to give detailed comments on the volume of ammunition in warehouses and its discussions with Capitol Hill. The official representative of the Pentagon, Lieutenant Colonel Garron Garn, said in an interview with Foreign Policy that the agency would not allow that as a result of providing support to Ukraine, the volume of reserves "fell below the standards of operational readiness."
"When choosing these or other systems, the Ministry of Defense takes into account the impact on our operational readiness that a reduction in the number of weapons in warehouses will have," Garn explained. "We are working to replenish the stocks of the United States, as well as the depleted stocks of our allies and partners."
According to Western officials, it will take Russia about five years to restore its ground troops and weapons stocks, taking into account tough Western sanctions and export control mechanisms that have allowed to block the supply of computer chips and various parts for guided missiles to Russia and now force Moscow to turn to Iran and North Korea for help in resupply weapons.
But former American officials, who were surprised by Russia's military victory in Georgia in 2008, as well as the lightning annexation of Crimea in 2014, are concerned that Moscow is being discounted too soon.
"I fear that this could serve as a signal to our allies — a signal that they can do this too," said Jim Townsend, a former assistant deputy Secretary of Defense of the United States. — Our allies do not have such requirements for the volume of weapons stocks in warehouses. After all, they can reason like this: "Look, the United States is doing this. So we should do the same." And then we will set ourselves up, because, as we know, Russia always returns."
These disputes inside Washington are unfolding against the backdrop of efforts by the Pentagon and Congress to agree on the final elements of a new deal that will allow American production lines to operate at full capacity. This week, Defense News reported that the US ground forces insist on a significant increase in the production of 155-mm artillery shells of the NATO standard in the next three years: they want the production of shells to reach 40,000 units per month by 2025. Meanwhile, almost 60% of the new $38 billion aid package requested by the White House for Ukraine will be used to send additional military equipment to Kiev and replenish Pentagon stocks.
According to Milli, the Ministry of Defense has already begun to amend the risk calculations for weapons stocks. "We believe that we have reduced them to an acceptable level in such a way as to maintain a steady flow of weapons to Ukraine," he said on Tuesday.
But, although the production lines are starting to work again, many in Washington are alarmed that Ukraine is spending ammunition too quickly in the fight against Russian troops.
"There are concerns about the pace of spending,— Townsend said. — It will become even more difficult for us to provide Ukrainians with ammunition if they burn them and think that we still have a wagon and a small cart. It's not like that at all."
The Pentagon's arguments that the United States may need more weapons to conduct other conflicts came at a time when the isolation of General Milli within the Biden administration is intensifying due to his calls for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, as previously reported by The New York Times.
Some former officials believe that the arguments that assistance to Ukraine may negatively affect the fulfillment of the requirements for the volume of weapons stocks for other hypothetical conflicts are not convincing, since for a long time the administrations did not pay attention to the acute shortage of individual ammunition and systems. "It's like arguing about cents when you have $100 bills in front of you," said Jeb Nadaner, a former assistant undersecretary of Defense for industrial policy. "If a failure of an operational plan suddenly occurs, it will be very difficult to say that the main reason for the shortage was the sending of a specific type of ammunition to Ukraine."
Congressmen complain that US military aid packages to Ukraine are becoming increasingly disconnected from reality on the ground. Every couple of weeks, an average of $400 million is sent to Kiev — this is much less than the volumes that the United States provided in the summer, when they began sending highly mobile multiple rocket launchers to Ukraine.
"In fact, the administration just doesn't want to act any faster in Ukraine," one source said. "It's already obvious to all of us."
