Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
US secretly sent long-range missiles to Ukraine after months of resistance
Updated 1:43 PM EDT, Wed April 24, 2024
In this handout photo from the US Army, an early version of an Army Tactical Missile System is tested December 14, 2021, at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. John Hamilton/US ArmyCNN —
The US delivered long-range missiles to Ukraine earlier this month that the Biden administration had previously refused to send following a directive from President Joe Biden, the Pentagon said Wednesday.
Biden secretly approved the transfer of the long-range ATACMS missiles in February for use inside Ukrainian territory. The ATACMS missiles were then quietly included in the $300 million aid package announced on March 12 and ultimately delivered to Ukraine earlier this month, according to Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Garron Garn.
“It was not announced that we are providing Ukraine with this new capability at the time in order to maintain operational security for Ukraine at their request,” Garn said, deferring questions about their use to Ukraine’s military.
The Biden administration had resisted sending the long-range missiles in part because of readiness concerns. The powerful missiles require time and complex components to produce. Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the ATACMS missiles, is in full-rate production and produces approximately 500 missiles per year, a spokesman for the company said in September.
The US worked behind the scenes to address the readiness concerns, which included buying more ATACMS missiles and filling US military stocks.
“As a result, we were able to move forward with this provision of ATACMS while also maintaining the current readiness of our armed forces,” said Pentagon spokesman Maj. Charlie Dietz.
Biden also directed his team to take this step following Russia’s procurement and use of North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukraine, and Russia’s attacks on civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, a US official said.
“We had warned Russia against acquiring North Korean ballistic missiles and against renewing its attacks against Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure,” Dietz said. “With our readiness concerns resolved, we were able to follow through on our warning and provide this long-range capability to Ukraine.”
More of the missiles are expecting to be included in the new military assistance package the Pentagon announced on Wednesday after Biden signed into law an aid package providing nearly $61 billion in assistance for Ukraine following months of delays in Congress.
Last fall, the US first sent Ukraine the mid-range variant of the ATACMS missile system, which can reach about 100 miles, while the longer-range version can reach as far as 190 miles.
Ukrainian officials have been asking the US in private and in public for the long-range missiles to target deeper behind Russian lines. American officials have previously resisted, citing supply issues and concerns about further provoking Moscow if they are deployed.
Thirty-one Republicans joined with 48 Democrats to pass the legislation. That's nine more Republicans than supported the aid package when the Senate last considered it in February.
Two Democrats -- Sens. Merkley and Welch -- as well as independent Sen. Bernie Sanders voted against the legislation along with 15 Republicans.
___________
You can hear the collective sigh of relief around the nation this morning. Regardless, there's been a remarkable transformation for Speaker Johnson from where and what he was in May 2022 until today. It took a lot for him to get from there to here and, indeed, a lot has happened. Thank you to AR for posting the WAPO article.
The good guys win again...and for all the right reasons. I made a comment earlier that's gone unacknowledged regarding further packages. This (translated) from tatarigami UA (a Ukrainian blogger of some worth) via that very left forum from which this RINO gathers too much of his topical news, DAILYKOS.COM -
"From repeated frank conversations with both analysts of American think tanks and lobbyists in the United States, I concluded that such a large aid package may be the last this year. Moreover, there is a fairly high probability that all subsequent aid packages for Ukraine will be much smaller in size. One such representative has said frankly (published with his permission) that we should no longer expect funding for major operations, as was the case in preparation for an offensive operation in 2023.
The United States will continue to develop production and supply Ukraine with 155 mm ammunition, GMLRS, as well as self-defense and air defense equipment. However, this is not enough to achieve military parity with Russia, not to mention successful army-level offensive operations, for which it is necessary to replenish dozens of brigades with both equipment and personnel. I want to repeat that this does not mean that the States will stop helping at all, but if you look at it frankly, such volumes will only be enough so that the front does not crumble."
Steve,
As much as this sucks the truth is we are in a major election year. The bipartisanship on foreign affairs we grew up with during the Cold War is long gone. Speaker Johnson has probably expended as much political capital he had for this year by getting this passed. Anything further will likely be for Israel and none for anything which hurts Russia. That is just realpolitik. If the House flips and Senate holds chalk we may see more. Ammo is in. ANd I could see Presidential Drawdown Authority for Patriot systems...but we are pretty stretched right now as much of the fleet are going through rebuild...and the number of our commitments worldwide are rising and not receding. I could see more M1s & M2s and some ( 2 or 3 squadrons) of F-16s...there just aren't a lot of spare F-16s in US stocks sitting around. There will be in 2 years but not now as F-35 production has not fully ramped up.
But DOD needs a LOT of areas addressed. Major systems needed, Recruiting goals missed. Tuition assistance monies drying up. We have had too many CR "budgets" for 2 long and the chickens are coming home to roost. Worst impact on DOD operations since Sequestration of a decade agao.
Any idea whats happening re: ground based air defense and F-16s AR?
I have no special insight on equipment systems, only munitions. I just know our marching orders on what packages can be prepped. However I am scrubbing all the usual suspect sites and will post further info as soon as I become aware of it unless others post first.
You can hear the collective sigh of relief around the nation this morning. Regardless, there's been a remarkable transformation for Speaker Johnson from where and what he was in May 2022 until today. It took a lot for him to get from there to here and, indeed, a lot has happened. Thank you to AR for posting the WAPO article.
The good guys win again...and for all the right reasons. I made a comment earlier that's gone unacknowledged regarding further packages. This (translated) from tatarigami UA (a Ukrainian blogger of some worth) via that very left forum from which this RINO gathers too much of his topical news, DAILYKOS.COM -
"From repeated frank conversations with both analysts of American think tanks and lobbyists in the United States, I concluded that such a large aid package may be the last this year. Moreover, there is a fairly high probability that all subsequent aid packages for Ukraine will be much smaller in size. One such representative has said frankly (published with his permission) that we should no longer expect funding for major operations, as was the case in preparation for an offensive operation in 2023.
The United States will continue to develop production and supply Ukraine with 155 mm ammunition, GMLRS, as well as self-defense and air defense equipment. However, this is not enough to achieve military parity with Russia, not to mention successful army-level offensive operations, for which it is necessary to replenish dozens of brigades with both equipment and personnel. I want to repeat that this does not mean that the States will stop helping at all, but if you look at it frankly, such volumes will only be enough so that the front does not crumble."
When the House passed a $40 billion emergency funding bill for Ukraine in May 2022, support for Ukraine was largely still a bipartisan issue. But a little-known conservative congressman from Louisiana was one of the 57 Republicans to oppose it.
Now, just six months after his unlikely elevation to speaker of the House, Mike Johnson (R-La.) has pushed through a $60 billion effort to bolster’s Ukraine arsenal, along with funding for Israel and the Indo-Pacific.
House passes $95 billion Ukraine, Israel aid package
The House passed a $95 billion package to aid Ukraine and Israel on April 20. The Senate is expected to consider the measures early this week. (Video: Reuters)
The move marks a major victory and dramatic turnabout for the speaker who is trying to gain control of a bitterly divided Republican conference. The far right is fiercely against Ukraine aid — 112 Republicans, just over half of the conference, opposed it on the House floor Saturday and he had to rely on unanimous Democratic backing — and Johnson’s decision to greenlight a floor vote could come at great political cost. He could very well lose his job as speaker over it.
It is also a major rebuke to former president Donald Trump, who publicly backed Johnson at a recent Mar-a-Lago event but has long criticized Ukraine while repeatedly sympathizing with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Johnson appears fully aware of the consequences of his decision to send money to Ukraine for its grinding war against Russia. He made the difficult decision despite threats from an angry and vocal minority of hard-right Republicans — ironically, the ones who helped catapult him into power — who are using their conservative bully pulpit to challenge Johnson and threaten his job.
He seems to have accepted his fate.
“Look, history judges us for what we do,” said an emotional Johnson, holding back tears and with a quivering lip at a news conference last week in response to a question from The Washington Post. “This is a critical time right now, critical time on the world stage. I could make a selfish decision and do something that’s different, but I’m doing here what I believe to be the right thing.”
Johnson’s son will be headed to the U.S. Naval Academy in the fall. “To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine, than American boys,” he said. “This is a live-fire exercise for me and for so many American families.”
The speaker’s torturous path to embracing Ukraine aid is the result of many factors: high-level intelligence briefings as a House leader, his faith, the counsel of three committee chairs named Mike, and a realizationthe GOPwould never unite on Ukraine. This story is drawn from interviews with more than than a dozen lawmakers and staff, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss Johnson’s evolution. The speaker’s office did not respond to an interview request.
Johnson rose topower as a member of the conservative, isolationist camp with little influence in the party. After the 2020 election, he spent his political capital encouraging his colleagues to help overturn the results. He had never had a high-level intelligence briefing, had never met President Biden, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). He had no meaningful relationship with House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.)
In a matter of moments, Johnson became second in line to the presidency. The day after he was elected speaker last October, he met with Biden and the three House national security panel chairs — Reps. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio), Michael McCaul (R-Tex.) and Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) — who brought him to the White House for a worldwide threats briefing heavy on Ukraine. Former CIA director and ex-secretary of state Mike Pompeo became an informal adviser.
The new speakerheard from evangelical Christians in the United States and Ukraine about the persecution of Ukrainian Christians by Russia. Over the next months, the other congressional leaders twice brought him to the White House to meet with Biden, where he got an earful about the importance of this moment in history from the president, McConnell and Schumer.
It was eye opening.
One Republican House member recalls: “I’ll never forget Johnson one time said, ‘I’ve gone from representing my district only to representing the entire [House] and the country.’ For someone to go from where he was to where he is now as quickly as he did … is remarkable.”
But as Johnson was warming to Ukraine aid, some say as early as December or January, the issue continued to create deep fissures within the GOP. The anti-Ukraine hard-liners grew louder and more steadfast as pro-Ukraine Republicans quietlyand privately grewmore frustrated and impatient with Johnson and their colleagues.
At a meeting this month of conservative members of the Republican Study Committee, freshman Rep. Max L. Miller (Ohio), stood before three dozen of his fellow Republicans with tears in his eyes.
He told his colleagues that two-thirds of his family had been exterminated in the Holocaust, insisting that his personal story could have ended differently had the United States intervened earlier in World War II. The same unnecessary story of lives lost could happen in Ukraine, he warned, if the United States ends its financial and militaristic support.
Ultimately, Johnson decided on advancing a Senate foreign aid bill broken into three parts with a minor modification. A portion of the $60 billion House bill for Ukraine wouldbe a loan.A second bill would provide about $17 billion in weapons for Israel, as well as just over $9 billion in humanitarian aid for Gaza and elsewhere. The third bill wouldcontain $8 billion for the Indo-Pacific region to deter China. To appease his members, he’d add a fourth bill of Republican priorities, including banning TikTok and seizing Russian assets.
All four bills passed overwhelmingly on Saturday and will be taken up in the Senate this week. But until the 11th hour, Johnson, who many Republicans lamented was an indecisive leader, searched for consensus.
Johnson momentarily retreated after the anti-Ukraine faction expressed outrage hours after he released hisproposal Monday. He convened a meeting of about a dozen ideologicallydiverseRepublicans on Tuesday, which lasted four hours, well past 11 p.m.,and was described by participants as heated, intense and angry. “The battle lines were very clear in the end,” one Republican said.
National-security-consciousRepublicans tried to impress upon farther-right members the importance of imminently funding U.S. allies. Turner, Rogers and McCaul shared their latest assessments with the group based on intelligence.
But the hard-liners didn’t care. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.),who was responsible for sparking the ouster of former speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), had defended Johnson. Gaetz now warned Johnson that if he moved forward with his plan, he would be toppled from thespeaker’sjob. He cautioned other Republicans that if they backed Johnson’s plan, hard-liners would attack them on social media and endorse primary challengers.
Johnson had a whiteboard and searched frantically for a path of least resistance. Numerous ideas werefloated but the most serious was to put forward a slimmed-down Ukraine bill includinglethal aid only and tied to a harsh border security bill, which is what the hard-liners wanted.
Multiple participants said the meeting wasn’t constructive except foronediscovery: Several membersforthefirsttimeheard some of the hard-liners declare they would refuse to back Ukraine aid under any circumstances.
The meeting ended without resolution. But Johnson mostly stayed the course.
Throughout the process, other members of leadership had little insight into Johnson’sthinking.But, publicly, they backed him as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), the far-right member who wants Johnson out, gained additional support.
The pro-Ukraine Republicans rallied around Johnson, who has called himself a member of the MAGA wing. At a meeting Wednesday evening with Main Street Republicans, a conservative but pragmatic group, they applauded when Johnson entered. “How does it feel to be a RINO?” one asked jokingly, referring to an insult aimed at Republicans who appear to have gone soft.
Johnson gave a simultaneous shrug, awkward chuckle and a gentle pump of his fist.
“He came out of the meeting realizing that the people he used to hang out with … that they do not have his best interests at heart,” one Republican in the room said. “And a group of men and women that he barely knew are going to help him navigate through the disaster that is on Capitol Hill.”
“Mike Johnson was dealt a terrible hand of cards,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), who chairs the Main Street Caucus. “Not all politicians make that same choice. That was not a foregone conclusion on the day he was elected speaker.”
Path to yes
Early this year, Johnson started to suggest in conference meetings that he was open to funding Ukraine, making statements about being a “Reagan Republican” who believed in “peace through strength.” That’s when a far-right whisper campaign started as early as January about ousting Johnson if he dared move on Ukraine without first securing the southern border.
Meanwhile, the Senate was haggling over a bipartisan border security measure as part of its foreign aid package, including help for Ukraine. Those months-long negotiations bought Johnson time. But when Republicans in both the House and the Senate, led by Trump, immediately rejected the bipartisan border security plan, it became clear there was no chance suchameasure could pass Congress.
That meant Johnson would have to choose whether to rely on support from the sizable pro-foreign aid faction of House Republicans and Democrats to back Ukraine aid or acquiesce to demands by his right flank and do nothing.
The Senate passed a $95 billion foreign aid bill in February with 70 votes, significant bipartisan supportomittingany border security component. But Johnson dithered even as Ukraine struggled on the battlefield, running out of ammunition and morale. He vowed to address must-pass legislation with deadlines first, including funding the government and approvingan extension of foreign surveillance legislation known as FISA.
In fact, tensions amongRepublicans had beensimmering for months. At aFebruary leadership retreat in Florida, a group of over a dozen committee chairs and members of leadership kicked staff out of the room and got into a heated argument over Ukraine. Pro-Ukraine members sparred with those who argued there’s no point in sending aid to the country.
Republican infighting only grew. Many Republicans dismissed what the intelligence showed or refused to attend briefings, causingalarmed Republicans to say that misinformation and Russian propaganda has seeped into the Republican Party. Evangelical Christians tried to bend Johnson’s and his staff’s ear, pointing to the influence of propaganda from the Russian Orthodox Church. Johnson met with Pavlo Unguryan, a Ukrainian evangelical leader, who had been pushing for U.S. support.
Johnson is a devout Southern Baptist andhis faith “guides him in every major decision he makes,” one Republican member said.
Johnson was given polling from the American Action Network, the policy arm of the Republican affiliated super PAC, that found a large majority of voters favor aid to Ukraine in battleground districts and that favoring Ukraine aid was not a principle deciding factor for Republican primary voters. The polling reassured Johnson there was little political risk to funding Ukraine, an important data point when working to persuade his GOP colleagues.
This month, Johnson started to turn his attention to Ukraine behind the scenes. His most vociferous critic, Greene, introduced a motion to ultimately toss him from the speaker’s chair if Ukraine aid came to the floor. Many Republicans believed that Johnson would ultimately move a Ukraine bill, but the speaker remained coy.
Johnson was still searching for a solution that would appease the hard-liners while also satisfying the national security hawks. He was in search of a path that was as painless as possible and one that would preserve his job.
He opened discussions with the White House to see if they would accept any Republican demands, including turning the aid to Ukraine into a loan and seizing Russian assets. The White House maintained that it preferred the Senate bill.
Johnson also received a private, classified and sobering briefing from CIA director William J. Burns about the status of the war in Ukraine and its implications.
A steady stream of European leaders and ministers have knocked on Johnson’s door in recent months, telling the congressman from Louisiana that his place among global statesmen is assured if he got this done.
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron applied some debonair wit. Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, one of Ukraine’s sharpest backers, told Johnson what it was like to live in a nation that borders Russia. Just last week, Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala met with Johnson and told him that the world’s eyes were on him.
“I really do believe the intel and in the briefings that we’ve gotten,” Johnson said last week. “I believe [Chinese President] Xi [Jinping] and Vladimir Putin and Iran really are an axis of evil. I think they’re in coordination.
Ultimately, Johnson put a Ukraine bill on the floor. And he may lose his job because of it.
“I think he figured out the best way possible in a really terrible situation to allow people to vote,” Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) said. “It takes some semblance of fortitude to do that.”
So the next question I guess is what exactly does al that money get Ukraine? And someone please tell me it includes some serious extended range munitions and lots of artillery shells.
In a word...yes. ATACMS are in this package as well as a LOT of 155mm ammo.
Specifics will come out once the Senate passes and the President signs the bill into law.
So the next question I guess is what exactly does al that money get Ukraine? And someone please tell me it includes some serious extended range munitions and lots of artillery shells.
My eyes are on the NEXT package. This bill won't, by itself, get it done from America and I must worry that we see this drill with each subsequent package that must follow. Further, to what extent is this administration prepared to acknowledge they've done far too little, IMV, to facilitate VICTORY. Why? Where and with whom within this administration does fear and trepidation reside that prevents our pursuing a COA designed to overmatch the Russian effort?
I ask because the evidence is in that our sum collective efforts thus far have barely sustained Ukraine's defense. Were the amounts spent too little? The sums from all, in aggregate, seem huge. Was it that the amounts spent were distributed in a hesitant and incremental fashion with no regard to strategic considerations thus lacking a timely impact? Consider the 2022 counter offensive that ran out of gas on Kremmina's doorstep (with photos of the Ukrainian flag on the city's outskirts). As we saw the offensive unfold, did we anticipate need and appropriately back-fill?
Gotta wonder.
Therefore, it's not just how much we give but also when, what and why. None of this makes sense without acknowledging that VICTORY is NECESSARY, therefore our right and proper goal. If so, is this hesitant, fitful stop-start pattern thus far working to that end?
Leave a comment: