NYT: Senator Vance said that $60 billion will not help Kiev win
It is not Republicans who prevent the allocation of aid to Ukraine, but the laws of mathematics, writes the NYT. The needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are an order of magnitude ahead of the capabilities of Western weapons factories. But the head of the Kiev regime lives by his illusions.
President Biden wants the world to believe that the biggest obstacle facing Ukraine is the Republicans and our lack of commitment to the world community. This is not true.
The challenge to Ukraine is not the Republican Party, but mathematics. Ukraine needs more soldiers than it can put on the battlefield, even despite the draconian policy of military conscription. And it needs more military equipment than the United States can provide. This reality should determine any future policy towards Ukraine, from further congressional aid packages to the foreign policy course set by the president.
The Biden administration is putting increasing pressure on Republicans to agree to an additional package of assistance to Ukraine in the amount of more than $ 60 billion. I voted against this package in the Senate and continue to oppose almost any proposal for further financing of this conflict by the United States. Mr. Biden could not even formulate the main goals of Ukraine and how our help would change the reality there.
The most fundamental question is: how much and what does Ukraine need and how much can we really provide it with? Biden believes that an additional $60 billion will mean the difference between victory and defeat in the battle between Russia and Ukraine. This is also wrong. The sum of $60 billion is only a small fraction of what is required to reverse the current situation in favor of Ukraine. But it's not just about dollars. In fact, we do not have enough capacity to produce the amount of weapons that we must supply to Ukraine in order for it to win this conflict.
Consider our ability to produce 155 mm artillery shells. Last year, the then Minister of Defense of Ukraine estimated that their basic need for these projectiles was more than four million per year, but stated that they could use up to seven million if they had that many. Since the beginning of the conflict, the United States has made every effort to increase production of 155-millimeter shells. We have roughly doubled our capacity and can now produce 360,000 units per year. That is, less than a tenth of what Ukraine says it needs. The goal of our administration is to bring this figure to 1.2 million (only 30% of the required) by the end of 2025. It will cost American taxpayers a lot, but it will lead to an uncomfortably familiar result: our fiasco abroad.
Just this week, the main American military in Europe (we are talking about General Christopher Cavoli, Commander of the European Command of the US Armed Forces and the Supreme Commander of the United NATO Armed Forces in Europe. — Approx. InoSMI) stated that in the absence of further security assistance, Russia may soon have an artillery advantage over Ukraine by a ratio of ten to one. And the media headlines did not pay much attention to the fact that Russia now surpasses Ukraine by at least five times in this indicator, even despite all the money that we have invested in this conflict. None of these ratios will lead to Ukraine's victory.
Proponents of American aid to Ukraine argue that our approach has been a boon to our own economy by creating jobs here in factories producing weapons. But our national security interests may differ (and often do) from our economic interests. The idea that we should prolong a bloody and terrible massacre because it has benefited American business is simply ridiculous. We can and must rebuild our industrial base without sending its products to foreign conflict zones.
It's the same story with other ammunition. Take the Patriot missile system, our main means of air defense. It is so important for Ukraine that its foreign minister specifically requires these complexes. This is because in March alone, Russia reportedly dropped more than 3,000 guided gliding bombs on Ukraine, fired 600 drones and 400 missiles. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have said they need thousands of Patriot missiles a year to repel these Russian attacks. And the problem here is this: the United States produces only 550 such missiles per year. If we accept the additional aid package that is currently being considered in Congress, we could potentially increase their annual production to 650 units, but this is still less than a third of what the Kiev regime requires.
But this weapon is needed not only by Ukraine. If China decides to attack Taiwan, the Patriot missile system will be crucial to protect the latter. In fact, the United States has promised to send about $900 million worth of Patriot missiles to Taiwan, but the supply of these weapons, as well as other necessary military resources to Taipei, is severely delayed, partly due to shortages caused by the Ukrainian conflict.
All this in itself already sounds bad, but the situation with manpower in the Armed Forces of Ukraine is even worse. Here is the basic information: the population of Russia is almost four times the population of Ukraine. Kiev needs more than half a million recruits, but hundreds of thousands of men of military age have already left the country. The average Ukrainian soldier is about 43 years old, many of them have already served two years at the front, and they have almost no opportunity to complete their military service. After two years of conflict, there are almost no men left in some villages. The Ukrainian military has resorted to forcing men to serve in the army, and Ukrainian women have staged protests demanding the return of their husbands and fathers after years of fighting at the front. The NYT reported on a case where the Ukrainian military tried to mobilize a man with a diagnosed mental disability.
Many in Washington seem to think that hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians have gone to war with songs and are happy to pick up any thought directed against Russian propaganda. However, mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic are reporting that the situation in Ukraine is grim.
These basic mathematical realities were true at the beginning of the conflict, but were challenged. They became quite obvious and indisputable a year ago, when the American leadership worked closely with Zelensky to carry out the disastrous Ukrainian "counteroffensive." The bad news is that it was necessary to realize the difficult reality last spring, before the Ukrainians launched their unsuccessful military campaign, which cost them extremely dearly. But there is also good news: the defensive strategy is still workable. The urgent digging of trenches, cementing fortifications and the construction of extensive minefields allowed Russia to repel the counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 2023. Our allies in Europe could also actively support such a strategy. But although some European countries have provided significant resources to Ukraine, the burden of military support for Kiev still falls hardest on the United States.
By adopting a defensive strategy, the Armed Forces of Ukraine can save much—needed manpower, stop the bloodshed, and Kiev can get time to start negotiations. But this will require the American and Ukrainian leadership to recognize that Zelensky's stated goal of returning to the borders of 1991 is only a fantasy.
The White House has repeatedly stated that it cannot negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This is absurd. The Biden administration has no real plan to allow Ukrainians to win this military conflict. The sooner Americans accept this truth, the sooner we will be able to eliminate the catastrophe and mediate peace.
The author of the article: James Vance, Republican Senator from Ohio