The global food crisis, the Ukraine war, and the aid package
Clippings and cards
Russia may have stolen hundreds of thousands of tons of grain and agricultural machinery from south and east Ukraine (Zaporizhzhya, Kherson, Donetsk/Luhansk); Ukraine’s agricultural output is already massively down
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty staff, “Ukraine Accuses Russian Forces Of Stealing 'Hundreds Of Thousands' Of Tons Of Grain”, RFE/RL, April 30, 2022
Russian invading forces have stolen “several hundred thousand tons” of grain in territory they hold, Ukraine’s deputy agriculture minister said on April 30.
“Today, there are confirmed facts that several hundred thousand tons of grain in total were taken out of the Zaporizhzhya, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions,” Taras Vysotskiy told Ukrainian TV.
Ukraine is one of the world’s major grain producers and the Russian invasion has curtailed exports, pushing up world grain prices and raising concerns about severe grain shortages in importing countries.
Ukrainian Agriculture Minister Mykola Solskiy said grain theft had increased in the last two weeks.
"I personally hear this from many silo owners in the occupied territory. This is outright robbery. And this is happening everywhere in occupied territory," the ministry quoted Solskiy as saying.
He said such a situation could create food problems in areas that are currently not controlled.
"There will soon be a wheat harvest in the south. But farmers in this situation may well say: 'Here are the keys to the tractor -- go collect it yourself, if you want'," Solskiy said.
The Kremlin denied Ukraine's allegations, saying it did not know where the information was coming from.
The Ukrainian Agriculture Ministry said on April 29 that six regions in Ukraine had completed their early spring grain sowing despite the Russian invasion.
Ukraine is divided into 24 regions, but there are no plans to sow grain in Luhansk in the east due to heavy fighting there.
The ministry gave no 2022 grain harvest forecast, while analysts see output at 41.4 million metric tons this year compared with 86 million tons in 2021.
The consultancy APK-Inform said 2022/23 grain exports could total 33.2 million metric tons versus 45.5 million expected for the 2021/22 season that ends in June, Reuters reported.
The Ukraine war, and Russian and Chinese reduction and cutoffs of exports of fertilizer, pose significant issues to world food supply
Krugman, Paul, “Food, Fertilizer and the Future”, The New York Times, April 26, 2022
This hurts here in America, but it hurts much more in poorer nations, where a much larger share of family spending goes to food. What’s behind the food crisis?
One piece of the story is obvious: Ukraine is normally a major agricultural exporter, but that’s hard to do when Russia is bombarding your railroads and blockading your ports. But there’s more to the story: Russia has halted much of its own grain exports, apparently in an attempt to hold down domestic prices. Kazakhstan, the region’s third-largest agricultural exporter, has followed suit.
Then there’s fertilizer. Modern fertilizer production is energy-intensive. Before the war, Russia was the world’s largest exporter, but Russia has now suspended those exports. Yet it isn’t just Russia. As a new analysis by Chad Bown and Yilin Wang of the Peterson Institute for International Economics points out, China — another major fertilizer producer — cut off much of its exports last year, again in an apparent attempt to keep domestic prices down. And as they point out, such export bans are, if anything, a bigger issue than the tit-for-tat tariff hikes of the U.S.-China trade war.
All of this is causing big problems for agriculture around the world, especially in emerging markets, like Brazil.
Debt loads in developing countries, pre-existing economic conditions and existing high prices make the disruptions of the Ukraine war particularly bad for global food supply
Washington Post Editorial Board, “A global famine looms. The U.S. could prevent it.”, Washington Post, April 30, 2022
Bakeries in Tunisia are closing for days because they don’t have enough supplies to make bread, a staple of the Tunisian diet. In Peru and Sri Lanka, there are protests over food and fuel shortages. These are early red flags of what could soon be a global food tragedy that leaves tens of millions without enough to eat this year. Food costs have soared to the highest levels on record since the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization began keeping track in 1990.
“This is a lot worse than what we saw in 2008 or 2011,” warned Arif Husain, chief economist of the U.N. World Food Program. His organization says 44 million people in 38 countries are “teetering on the edge of famine,” and 276 million are food insecure, double the number of people from the year before the pandemic began.
Whether this precarious situation turns into a true global famine depends largely on what the United States, European Union, China and other large and wealthy nations do now. The United States must lead by example.
Food supplies are running low because of Russia’s unjustified war in Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine are large exporters of wheat, corn, sunflower seeds and fertilizer, among other agricultural products. Many of their exports went to parts of Africa and the Middle East, and there simply aren’t a lot of other extra food supplies to make up for the losses. It takes months to ramp up crop production elsewhere in the world. It doesn’t help that China is hoarding key food products, stockpiling corn and wheat to safeguard its own population.
Food prices were high even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as demand surged coming out of the pandemic. Prices have only become more exorbitant now that there’s less supply. People in developing countries don’t have enough money to pay the high costs, and their governments are struggling to come up with the funds to help. Many poorer nations spent heavily before and during the pandemic and already have massive debt loads. It’s a textbook perfect-storm scenario.
Food prices are set to increase significantly, leading to food price inflation and food shortages
Nicas, Jack, “Ukraine War Threatens to Cause a Global Food Crisis”, The New York Times, March 20, 2022
A crucial portion of the world’s wheat, corn and barley is trapped in Russia and Ukraine because of the war, while an even larger portion of the world’s fertilizers is stuck in Russia and Belarus. The result is that global food and fertilizer prices are soaring. Since the invasion last month, wheat prices have increased by 21 percent, barley by 33 percent and some fertilizers by 40 percent.
The upheaval is compounded by major challenges that were already increasing prices and squeezing supplies, including the pandemic, shipping constraints, high energy costs and recent droughts, floods and fires.
Now economists, aid organizations and government officials are warning of the repercussions: an increase in world hunger.
The looming disaster is laying bare the consequences of a major war in the modern era of globalization. Prices for food, fertilizer, oil, gas and even metals like aluminum, nickel and palladium are all rising fast — and experts expect worse as the effects cascade.
“Ukraine has only compounded a catastrophe on top of a catastrophe,” said David M. Beasley, the executive director of the World Food Program, the United Nations agency that feeds 125 million people a day. “There is no precedent even close to this since World War II.”
Ukrainian farms are about to miss critical planting and harvesting seasons. European fertilizer plants are significantly cutting production because of high energy prices. Farmers from Brazil to Texas are cutting back on fertilizer, threatening the size of the next harvests.
China, facing its worst wheat crop in decades after severe flooding, is planning to buy much more of the world’s dwindling supply. And India, which ordinarily exports a small amount of wheat, has already seen foreign demand more than triple compared with last year.
Around the world, the result will be even higher grocery bills. In February, U.S. grocery prices were already up 8.6 percent over a year prior, the largest increase in 40 years, according to government data. Economists expect the war to further inflate those prices.
For those living on the brink of food insecurity, the latest surge in prices could push many over the edge. After remaining mostly flat for five years, hunger rose by about 18 percent during the pandemic to between 720 million and 811 million people. Earlier this month, the United Nations said that the war’s impact on the global food market alone could cause an additional 7.6 million to 13.1 million people to go hungry.
The World Food Program’s costs have already increased by $71 million a month, enough to cut daily rations for 3.8 million people. “We’ll be taking food from the hungry to give to the starving,” Mr. Beasley said.
New international hunger crises will increase the risks of war
Nicas, Jack, “Ukraine War Threatens to Cause a Global Food Crisis”, The New York Times, March 20, 2022
Rising food prices have long been a catalyst for social and political upheavals in poor African and Arab countries, and many subsidize staples like bread in efforts to avoid such problems. But their economies and budgets — already strained by the pandemic and high energy costs — are now at risk of buckling under the cost of food, economists said.
Tunisia struggled to pay for some food imports before the war and now is trying to prevent an economic collapse. Inflation has already set off protests in Morocco and is helping stir renewed unrest and violent crackdowns in Sudan.
“A lot of people think that this is just going to mean that their bagels are going to become more expensive. And that’s absolutely true, but that’s not what this is about,” said Ben Isaacson, a longtime agriculture analyst with Scotiabank. Since the 1970s, North Africa and the Middle East have grappled with repeated uprisings. “What actually led to people going into the streets and protesting?” he said. “It starts from food shortages and from food price inflation.”
Countries afflicted by protracted conflict, including Yemen, Syria, South Sudan and Ethiopia, are already facing severe hunger emergencies that experts fear could quickly worsen.
Russia and Ukraine are key components of the international food system
Nicas, Jack, “Ukraine War Threatens to Cause a Global Food Crisis”, The New York Times, March 20, 2022
For the global food market, there are few worse countries to be in conflict than Russia and Ukraine. Over the past five years, they have together accounted for nearly 30 percent of the exports of the world’s wheat, 17 percent of corn, 32 percent of barley, a crucial source of animal feed, and 75 percent of sunflower seed oil, an important cooking oil in some parts of the world.
Fertilizer shortages and price inflation are expected as knock-on effects from sanctions against Russia and Belarus
Nicas, Jack, “Ukraine War Threatens to Cause a Global Food Crisis”, The New York Times, March 20, 2022
The war also threatens another longer-term shock to the food markets: a shortage of fertilizer.
Matt Huie, a farmer near Corpus Christi, Texas, said that skyrocketing prices had already forced him to stop applying fertilizer to the grazing fields that nourish his hundreds of cows, assuring that they will be skinnier come slaughter. Now he is worried he will have to also reduce fertilizer for his next corn crop, which would slash its yield. “We’ve gotten into uncharted territory,” he said.
Russia is the world’s largest fertilizer exporter, providing about 15 percent of the world supply. This month, just as farmers around the world prepared for planting, Russia told its fertilizer producers to halt exports. Sanctions already were making such transactions difficult.
Sanctions also have hit Russia’s closest ally, Belarus, a leading producer of potash-based fertilizer, critical for many major crops including soybeans and corn. But even before the Ukraine war, Belarus’s fertilizer exports were blocked because of sanctions over its seizure of an expatriate dissident who had been a passenger in a Ryanair jetliner forced to land in the country.
In another ominous signal to fertilizer customers, earlier this month European fertilizer producers said they were slowing or halting production because of soaring energy prices. Many fertilizers are made with natural gas.
The world’s major fertilizers have now more than doubled or tripled in price over the past year.
Export restrictions on food increase the risk of a global food crisis
Malpass, David, “A new global food crisis is building”, World Bank Blogs, April 8, 2022
The war in Ukraine has triggered an alarming global surge in government controls on the export of food. It’s critical for policymakers to halt the trend, which is making a global food crisis more likely.
In the space of a few weeks, the number of countries slapping on food-export restrictions jumped by 25%, bringing the total number of countries to 35. By the end of March, 53 new policy interventions affecting food trade had been imposed—of which 31 restricted exports, and nine involved curbs on wheat exports, according to the latest data. History shows that such restrictions are counterproductive in the most tragic ways. A decade ago, most notably, they exacerbated the global food crisis, driving up wheat prices by a whopping 30%.
Food crises are bad for everyone, but they are devastating for the poorest and most vulnerable people. This is because of two reasons. First, the world’s poorest countries tend to be food-importing countries. Second, food accounts for at least half of total expenditures of households in low-income countries. In 2008, the food crisis brought on a significant increase in malnutrition, particularly in children. Many households pawned family valuables to buy food. Some studies showed school drop-out rates of as much as 50% among children from the poorest households. Social and economic damage of that kind cannot be easily reversed.
For now, despite the speed with which they were mounted, export and import controls are not nearly as extensive as they were a decade or so ago. Export and import controls currently encompass about 21% of world trade in wheat, for example—well below the 74% share at the peak of the 2008-2011 crisis. But conditions are ripe for a retaliatory cycle in which the scale of restrictions could grow rapidly.
U.S. lawmakers and Biden administration officials are racing to try to counteract the worst of the damage from the oncoming food crisis
Lee, Meredith, “‘We see the storm coming’: U.S. struggles to contain a deepening global food crisis”, Politico, April 5, 2022
As Russian forces refocus the brunt of their military assault on Ukraine’s food-producing southeast, U.S. officials and lawmakers are struggling to help ward off a deepening crisis both inside Ukraine and for fragile economies around the world already reeling from climate disasters and Covid-19.
Russia’s military is pushing further into Ukraine’s wheat fields, which could jeopardize millions of tons of grain set to be harvested in July — threatening sustained shortages in countries across Africa and the Middle East that rely on Ukraine as a major source of their grain and sunflower oil to feed millions of people. The crisis has also contributed to sky-rocketing grain prices, which has made it harder for humanitarian organizations like the United Nations’ World Food Program, to respond; the agency says it needs an additional $16 billion to feed a record 137 million people for the rest of the year.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told the U.N. Security Council Tuesday that Moscow has provoked “a global food crisis that could lead to famine in Africa, Asia and other [regions] and large scale political chaos in many countries.”
White House and State Department officials are working with USAID and WFP to counteract the shortages, and President Joe Biden has pledged $1 billion in humanitarian assistance “for those affected by Russia’s war in Ukraine and its severe impacts around the world.” But after Congress approved $4 billion in humanitarian assistance for Ukraine and refugees in nearby countries in the omnibus spending package last month, many GOP lawmakers have little political appetite for further global food aid funding. And while the administration has some resources it can tap without Congress to send American-grown food to regions in need, agricultural realities, including widespread drought last year, the timing of the planting season and the rising cost of inputs such as fertilizer and fuel, limit how much U.S. crops can help fill the gap created by the crisis in Ukraine.
According to two people familiar with the plans, the administration plans to unlock additional international food aid in the coming days, including the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust — a federal cash reserve of $260 million the government keeps to buy U.S. grain and other commodities to send to foreign countries in crisis. Lawmakers are pressing Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to approve a withdrawal of the funds for USAID, which first needs to formally request it. But congressional aides acknowledge the available funding is a drop in the bucket compared to the total aid that’s needed.
Meanwhile, a push for Congress to provide additional foreign aid fell apart this past weekend. A small group of senators were trying to revive efforts to squeeze $1 to 2 billion in international funding into a Covid-19 package, including some $200 million in global food aid. But the plan crumbled after Republicans rejected Democrats’ suggested methods to pay for the aid and several Republicans demanded the Biden administration reverse a move to lift a Trump-era deportation policy for migrants, the Title 42 public health order being enforced at the southern border, according to three congressional aides.
Chris Coons (D-Del.), one of the senators pushing for the additional food aid, lamented the move as “a serious mistake” and argued that “mass starvation is a real, impending threat.” On top of that, Coons, Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and other like-minded senators are warning that such widespread food shortages could trigger mass migration and political destabilization across North Africa and the Middle East, which could in turn threaten U.S. national security. Coons said he will push for a stand-alone bill with global vaccine and food aid funding.
“We see the storm coming and we feel underprepared to deal with this,” said a senior Senate aide.
Ukraine’s wish list for the oncoming fight in the Donetsk basin include M777s, M109s and Switchblade 600s, replacing BM21s, 2S1s and other 122mm artillery like the D-30; as of April 26th, the MiG-29 deal had fallen through
Seligman, Laura, et al., “Ukraine’s wish list for the Donbas fight”, Politico, April 26, 2022
Fresh off an unannounced visit to Kyiv and a huddle with his global counterparts in Germany, Defense Secretary LLOYD AUSTIN made clear today that the U.S. military’s support for Ukraine will not waver.
“My Ukrainian friends: We know the burden that all of you carry. And you should know that all of us have your back,” the Pentagon chief said at Ramstein Air Base.
The U.S. has already sent billions of dollars of equipment to help Ukraine fend off the Russian advance, and the White House is expected to ask Congress for more funds later this week. The question now is, what will be added to the next package of aid?
If Ukrainian officials have their way, it will include a lot more heavy weaponry to counter Russia’s assault in the southeastern Donbas region. In a briefing Monday, those officials told congressional aides that the country needs a significant increase in towed M777 howitzer cannons, as well as the self-propelled M109 Paladin artillery system, the heavy multiple launch rocket system and a new version of the Switchblade drone, the 600, according to two staffers who spoke to NatSecDaily on condition of anonymity.
Additional weaponry — particularly the howitzers and the longer-range MLRS — will be crucial to preventing a Russian advance in the Donbas, providing Ukraine the ability to neutralize the barrage of Russian rockets, missiles and artillery, asserted retired Army Lt. Gen. BEN HODGES. “They need artillery, they need rocket launchers, they need drones,” he said.
Ukraine still wants MiG-29 fighter jets, one of the sources said, but a three-way deal for the aircraft with the U.S. and Poland seems to have fallen through. The agreement, should it have gone ahead, called for Poland to transfer 28 jets to Ukraine through Ramstein, while the U.S. would have backfilled the Polish Air Force with F-16s.
Fun fact: You can shoot an M777 36km using M982 Excaliburs, and they’re all-weather
Lamothe, Dan, “Long shot: Artillery battery sets lethal record”, Marine Corps Times, June 30, 2016 (via Internet Archive)
A Marine unit that recently returned from Afghanistan killed a team of Taliban insurgents with a record-setting artillery strike.
Golf Battery, 2nd Battalion, 11th Marines, out of Camp Pendleton, Calif., dropped the 155mm M982 Excalibur round on insurgents 36 kilometers away - more than 22 miles - in Helmand province. The strike was launched Feb. 12 from an M777 howitzer on a mountainside at Forward Operating Base Zeebrugge, in Kajaki, to neighboring Musa Qala district, Marines said.
It marks the longest operational artillery shot in history for the Marine Corps, said Capt. Joshua Kling, the battery commander.
It also was the longest operational shot using the Excalibur round, said David Brockway, an official with Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., one of the companies involved in its development.
The round is fielded by both the Corps and the U.S. Army, and could be used at even greater distances in the future, Brockway said. In testing, it has hit targets 37.5 kilometers away with accuracy, and can be launched over 41 kilometers with the 39-caliber M777 howitzers that are commonly used in the U.S. military, he said.
Excalibur uses a jam-resistant GPS device, maintaining accuracy even as the round travels miles through the air. It's deployable in all weather conditions, and can be used in close support situations less than 500 feet from coalition forces, according to military fact sheets outlining its capabilities.
Multiple countries are sending artillery to help Ukraine, which they need to go on the offense
Hooper, Craig, “M-109 Self-Propelled Guns Will Help Ukraine Shift To Offense”, Forbes, April 24, 2022
Russia should worry. Ukraine’s transition to NATO-standard field artillery is moving forward with incredible speed. In a matter of days, the U.S. upped their initial offering of 18 155mm howitzers to pledge a total of 90 artillery pieces, while Canada shipped in four modern M-777 howitzers, and the UK pledged to provide long-range artillery.
The same thing will happen to Ukraine’s fleet of large-caliber self-propelled guns. Self-propelled guns are, basically, artillery pieces matched to a tank or truck chassis, built to “shoot-and-scoot” before they can be targeted by an opposing force. Outside of the limelight, smaller and less heralded donations are setting the stage for a wholesale refresh Ukraine’s fleet of Soviet-era large-caliber self-propelled guns. And it’s not just for defense anymore; getting a big fleet of NATO-standard 155mm self-propelled guns into Ukraine makes a strong foundation for future offensive operations.
To supplement Ukraine’s 152mm self-propelled guns, France is sending an unspecified number of useful wheeled CAESAR 155mm self-propelled artillery systems (reports vary between “less than 10” and twelve), the Netherlands is providing an as-yet-unknown number of excellent German-built Panzerhaubitze 2000 (Pzh-2000) 155mm self-propelled guns, and Belgium seems set to offer an unspecified number of M-109A4BE 155mm self-propelled guns as well. As this essay was set to go to press, news reports suggest Italy is set to outdo everyone by offering Ukraine both Pzh-2000s and M-109s.
The U.S. has been conspicuously quiet on their potential contributions, but the U.S. has a lot of surplus M-109s available, including the relatively modern and still formidable M-109A6 Paladin.
M-109 PALADIN systems help fill a critical stopgap while more advanced PzH-2000 & CEASAR systems are brought online
Hooper, Craig, “M-109 Self-Propelled Guns Will Help Ukraine Shift To Offense”, Forbes, April 24, 2022
While European countries are handing over some top-flight modern self-propelled guns, those systems are still unlikely to be available in big numbers anytime soon. While Ukraine covets the capabilities of the German-produced heavy Pzh-2000 self-propelled gun, donor countries will be loathe to hand over the front-line platform in large numbers. But hundreds of retired, old-school M-109s are still serviceable and are likely still available in both U.S. and European warehouses. If those older but still formidable self-propelled guns can be refreshed quickly, supported, and integrated into Ukraine’s command-and-control networks, they may offer Ukraine the best near-term option—particularly if more modern systems like the Pzh-2000 and CEASAR continue to trickle into Ukraine, ready to rebuff any troublesome high-end Russian artillery threats. But large numbers of M-109s are likely to be one of the next big “gifts” the West will offer as Ukraine shifts to the offensive.
The arrival of a whole bunch of M-109s onto the Ukrainian battlefield seems inevitable. The logistical framework for wider Ukraine support for M-109s are already coming into place. Many scoffed at America’s donation of 200 old M113 armored personnel carriers, but they didn’t realize that the M-109 is basically a 155mm gun aboard an M113 chassis. Getting lots of M113s into service in Ukraine jump-starts the development of a new Ukrainian-based logistical support network required to ultimately support a big fleet of hard-hitting 155mm M-109s.
For the bedraggled Russians, it will be a repeat of the 155mm towed howitzers all over again—another hard-to-beat war-fighting innovation they will struggle to contend with. And with lots and lots of M-109s pouring in to support Ukraine’s existing fleet of Soviet-era 152mm self-propelled guns, Ukraine can start shifting over to offense, using their new artillery, “the king of battle,” to take Russia on and win in the steppes.
Ukraine’s made good use of their artillery, but they need upgrades and replacements, now, and American systems are ideal for that
Jacobson, Michael, “What Artillery and Air Defense Does Ukraine Need Now?”, War on the Rocks, April 15, 2022
The Ukrainian army has made good use of its legacy equipment over the past eight years of combat in the Donbas and during the first seven weeks of the Russian invasion, but that equipment is largely destroyed, run-down, ineffective, or outdated. As the campaign goes on, this legacy equipment will continue to breakdown and be destroyed in combat. Logistics and maintenance for this equipment will become ever more difficult as Ukraine’s supply of lethal munitions for equipment on hand dries up. The Ukrainian army lacks sufficient counter rocket, artillery, and mortar capabilities, which is particularly critical in defending its own counter-fire radar systems. Perhaps the most effective capabilities the Ukrainians do have in their inventory are Russian air-defense systems. The S-300, gifted to Ukraine by Slovakia, is an effective long-range system, but even with outside help provided thus far, Ukraine does not have the right systems and missile magazine depth for this to be a viable long-term option.
Ukrainian artillery such as BM-21, 2S1, and D-30, as well as air-defense capabilities such as the SA-6 and the SA-13, stem primarily from lower-tech Soviet, domestic, or regional production. Ukraine does not have the latest technology in self-propelled howitzers. While older systems are useful for imprecise area fires, the latest NATO systems and their munitions are faster, more lethal, and more survivable. They would allow Ukraine to do things it cannot currently do well: quickly determine locations of enemy artillery and target them with counter-battery fire, and destroy tanks and other armored vehicles with artillery, rather than only with anti-tank guided missiles and other tanks.
Further, these newer artillery systems are fully digitized and integrated with precision equipment based on internal, gyroscopic, self-locating devices supplemented by GPS updating. They also have modular components that can be swapped out, thus simplifying repairs. This is important because Ukraine currently lacks the ability to produce munitions and repair parts, especially as Russian forces bombard Ukrainian industrial facilities. Most newer systems require a relatively brief period of training on individual weapon systems and munitions. They are easy to use and employ for artillerymen already trained in basic field craft.
Private industry training and support is key right now
Jacobson, Michael, “What Artillery and Air Defense Does Ukraine Need Now?”, War on the Rocks, April 15, 2022
The United States and its allies should also support Ukraine’s artillery arsenal with the necessary doctrine, materiel, and training, as well as logistical support in terms of maintenance and supply. Those NATO countries that produce many of the artillery systems have the industrial base to continue to supply repair parts and munitions for the foreseeable future. The United States and its NATO allies often use contracted logistics support as a stop-gap measure. This essentially involves personnel from Western defense firms going into theater, including forward positions in a conflict zone, in order to perform important maintenance and logistics activities for newly fielded weapons systems. Due to recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are many professionals and technicians from Western defense companies who have experience working in war zones. While this happens, Ukrainian military personnel can train and become familiar with the new equipment both at forward locations and in the rear. For major repairs and overhauls, the systems would be transported back to neighboring NATO countries.
Adapting and integrating NATO techniques and systems will enable the Ukrainian army to benefit from speed and data already enjoyed by its NATO partners. Training on many of the tactical systems can be completed in as little as a month since many of the fire-control complexities are accomplished by onboard computers. Training on sustaining and repairing these complex systems will take longer but can be supplemented by contracted logistics support while sustainers are in training. Fielding NATO-developed and integrated equipment will enable NATO member states to aid with targeting and battle-damage assessments from outside the combat zone. The secure nature of much of the NATO equipment will also stymie Russian efforts to gather intelligence on Ukrainian tactical activity.
As time goes on, individual NATO countries have begun considerations to supply various advanced western weapon systems on their own. Rumors have been circulating that Slovakia is considering sending Zuzana II howitzers, while the German arms consortium Krauss-Maffei Wegmann has flown trial balloons regarding the Panzerhaubitze 2000. Both systems represent advances over current Ukrainian systems, but the initiatives are disjointed and don’t take into account the important aspect of counter-battery radar, digital input to firing data, and the lethal munitions associated with the platforms.
The Artillery Fight is Here
Much has been written and said in recent weeks about the need to field weapons to the Ukrainians that can be immediately employed to stop the Russian offensive. That was wise counsel and has achieved its ends. Those weapons should continue to flow. The argument that more sophisticated weapons aren’t viable because of the associated training and follow-on logistics support simply isn’t correct given where Ukraine now finds itself in the fight. As the war settles in for a longer-term artillery duel, more appropriate and sustainable weapons systems should be brought to bear. The training to use those systems is not overly complex and can be accomplished in neighboring NATO countries in relatively brief periods of time. The maintenance and other tasks above the operator level can be performed by contracted logistics support in the operational environment as well as in neighboring countries for depot-level maintenance. Most importantly, the precision, lethality, and efficiency to be successful against Russian artillery systems is best provided by the more sophisticated capabilities available from NATO. Just as NATO has provided sophisticated systems — such as the Javelin, the Next generation Light Anti-tank Weapon, Stinger, Starstreak, and Panzerfaust 3 — NATO should provide similar levels of sophistication for Ukraine to succeed in this next phase and mitigate the human suffering there as much as possible.
Statements like “don’t arm Ukraine if you want peace” echo a Russian talking point used to justify attacks on NATO aid to Ukraine
DeYoung, Karen, “Russia warns U.S. to stop arming Ukraine”, Washington Post, April 14, 2022
Russia this week sent a formal diplomatic note to the United States warning that U.S. and NATO shipments of the “most sensitive” weapons systems to Ukraine were “adding fuel” to the conflict there and could bring “unpredictable consequences.”
The diplomatic démarche, a copy of which was reviewed by The Washington Post, came as President Biden approved a dramatic expansion in the scope of weapons being provided to Ukraine, an $800 million package including 155 mm howitzers — a serious upgrade in long-range artillery to match Russian systems — coastal defense drones and armored vehicles, as well as additional portable antiaircraft and antitank weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition.
The United States has also facilitated the shipment to Ukraine of long-range air defense systems, including Slovakia’s shipment of Russian-manufactured Soviet-era S-300 launchers on which Ukrainian forces have already been trained. In exchange, the administration announced last week, the United States is deploying a Patriot missile system to Slovakia and consulting with Slovakia on a long-term replacement.
On Friday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova confirmed the diplomatic note, and said that similar démarches on arms shipments to Ukraine were sent to “all countries,” including the United States, Russia’s Interfax news agency reported.
Shipment of the U.S. weapons, the first wave of which U.S. officials said would arrive in Ukraine within days, follows an urgent appeal to Biden from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, as Russian forces were said to be mobilizing for a major assault on eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region and along the coastal strip connecting it with Russian-occupied Crimea in the south. Russian troops have largely withdrawn from much of the northern part of the country, including around the capital, Kyiv, following humiliating defeats by the Ukrainian military and local resistance forces.
“What the Russians are telling us privately is precisely what we’ve been telling the world publicly — that the massive amount of assistance that we’ve been providing our Ukrainian partners is proving extraordinarily effective,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the sensitive diplomatic document.
The State Department declined to comment on the contents of the two-page diplomatic note or any U.S. response.
Shortfalls in the Donbas campaign will likely result in attacks on aid convoys and escalation
DeYoung, Karen, “Russia warns U.S. to stop arming Ukraine”, Washington Post, April 14, 2022
Russia experts suggested that Moscow, which has labeled weapons convoys coming into the country as legitimate military targets but has not thus far attacked them, may be preparing to do so.
“They have targeted supply depots in Ukraine itself, where some of these supplies have been stored,” said George Beebe, former director of Russia analysis at the CIA and Russia adviser to former vice president Dick Cheney. “The real question is do they go beyond attempting to target [the weapons] on Ukrainian territory, try to hit the supply convoys themselves and perhaps the NATO countries on the Ukrainian periphery” that serve as transfer points for the U.S. supplies.
If Russian forces stumble in the next phase of the war as they did in the first, “then I think the chances that Russia targets NATO supplies on NATO territory go up considerably,” Beebe said. “There has been an assumption on the part of a lot of us in the West that we could supply the Ukrainians really without limits and not bear significant risk of retaliation from Russia,” he said. “I think the Russians want to send a message here that that’s not true.”
Ten Republicans voted against Lend-Lease (and didn’t have particularly good answers for why)
Schnell, Mychael, “Here are the 10 Republicans who voted ‘no’ on the Ukraine lend-lease bill”, The Hill, April 28, 2022
GOP Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Dan Bishop (N.C.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Scott Perry (Pa.) and Tom Tiffany (Wis.) voted against the bill, and Reps. Rick Allen (Ga.), Troy Nehls (Texas) and Chris Stewart (Utah) did not vote on it at all.
The Hill reached out to the lawmakers for more information on their votes, or about why they did not cast a vote.
A spokesperson for Allen told The Hill that the congressman is isolating after testing positive for COVID-19.
Massie said on Twitter on Thursday that it was “insane” that Congress “authorized Biden to transfer virtually any weapon of war, other than a nuclear weapon, to Ukraine.” He included a screenshot of the statutory definition of “defense article” included in the bill.
Asked for comment, Perry told The Hill in a statement on Friday that “Handing President Biden a blank check to fix Ukraine is like passing out anchors to drowning victims — it doesn’t end well.”
In a statement to The Hill, Gosar suggested that he did not support the bill out of concern that it could bring the U.S. closer to war with Russia. He called for “peace talks” and a resolution to end the conflict.
“Every vote to provide military assistance to Ukraine draws us closer to a war with Russia. This is not our fight. I reiterate my hope for immediate peace talks and resolution of hostilities. Sending more weapons of war is counter to peace and will extend the death and destruction,” Gosar said.
Tiffany in a statement said the U.S. should only intervene in a conflict through blank-check military assistance when American national security interests are at stake.
“Intervening in an overseas military engagement – whether through the deployment of US personnel, or a blank-check for military assistance – is among the most serious decisions an American leader can make,” Tiffany said. “It is a step that should only be taken when clear, vital national security interests of the United States are at stake.”
A spokesperson for Gaetz told The Hill that the congressman “supports weapons for Ukraine” but “opposes waiving America’s future rights for repayment.”
In a video statement posted to Twitter on Friday, Biggs laid out a number of reasons why he objected to the bill, including that it does not have a statutory time limit and does not explicitly have a cap on the amount of money the U.S. would lend or lease. He also said the bill does not include a requirement for Ukraine to provide anything in exchange.
Thursday was not the first time Massie and some of his GOP colleagues voted against a largely popular bill pertaining to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
On Wednesday, Massie and Greene were two of eight lawmakers to vote against the Asset Seizure for Ukraine Reconstruction Act, a nonbinding bill that urges Biden to confiscate assets from sanctioned Russian oligarchs and use the liquidated funds to support Ukraine. The Kentucky Republican said of his vote on that legislation that “giving Joe Biden unilateral authority to seize property in the United States without any due process sets a dangerous and disturbing precedent.”
Who The Heck Is That Tom Tiffany Guy Who Got Mentioned
Daily Kos community, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day: Tom Tiffany”, Daily Kos, June 20, 2021
Welcome to what is the 995th profile here at “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day”, where we’ll be profiling the sitting U.S. House Representative from Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District, Tom Tiffany, who after losing in races for Wisconsin State Senate in 2004 and 2008 and served one term in the Wisconsin State Assembly in 2010-2012. He then greased himself up with his prior jobs in the petroleum industry to grab a spot in Congress in a special election in May of 2020 to replace the utter dumbass who we kept track of for years, former Congressman Sean Duffy. Barely 13 months into the gig, we’re not sure of who’s worse, but in a short amount of time, Tiffany has made it more of a debate then we thought there possibly could be.
We’re not even kidding that it didn’t take long, as only two days after Tiffany had won his special election, he made headlines for using the racist term “Wuhan Virus” to refer to Covid-19 in a letter where he called for the Wisconsin Secretary of Health to resign, furious that she recommended business closures to prevent the spread of the pandemic, attacking her and Governor Tony Evers:
“The recent Supreme Court ruling confirmed that Ms. Palm’s power grab exceeded her authority. Her shotgun approach to lock down Wisconsin has produced disastrous consequences. New data shows us how we can make a targeted response to the Wuhan virus, but Ms. Palm will hear none of it. A native New Yorker, ally of Hillary Clinton’s, and Washington, D.C. insider, Ms. Palm understands very little of our Midwestern values or how her decisions have devastated our way of life.
Wisconsin’s economy and health care system are collapsing. Small businesses are closing their doors for good. Tens of thousands of people are struggling to apply for unemployment in an attempt to survive the storm she caused. Ms. Palm came here as Governor Evers’ hired gun, and she will leave with Wisconsin’s corpse if she continues.”
Facing a November rematch with the Democrat he defeated in the special election, Andrea Junker, Tiffany released a “Back the Blue” ad in October of 2020 that accused Junker of wanting to “defund the police”. Which, of course, isn’t something that Junker actually wanted to do. Meanwhile, Junker pointed out something we’ll note below, that Tom Tiffany was one of only 17 Republicans who voted against a resolution to condemn the Qanon conspiracy theory after one Congressman started getting death threats, and Tiffany claimed he voted against it because it was “political posturing” by Nancy Pelosi.
Which, holding a posture that isn’t sympathetic to conspiracy theorists motivated to threaten to kill a member of Congress might be y’know, just having a backbone at all. Like supporting democracy and not being an active participant in “The Big Lie” post-election and the build-up to January 6th. If he had any principles, he wouldn’t show up to a maskless rally only DAYS after an attempted coup in our nation’s capitol to speak at a forum hosted by a right-wing radio host who openly called for “war” over the results of the election.
Y’know, not that such rhetoric isn’t exactly the sort of incitement that caused 1/6 in the first place.
But what Tom Tiffany will take a stand on? Anti-vaccination paranoia, like in March of 2021, when he made it a point to tell everyone that he was advising his daughters not to get the Covid-19 vaccine, while also lying and claiming that no one their age had died of the virus (At least two had at the time in Wisconsin.) He did this unmasked, at a town hall, filled with people who were also unmasked.
Way to have a potential super-spreader event a year into the pandemic when we should know better and set a good example for the public, s***bird.
Rather than focus on the pandemic, Tom Tiffany worried about the voters in his district… by traveling the opposite border, over a thousand miles away, to throw tantrums about the less fascist approach the Biden administration was taking on undocumented migrants, and act like all fifty states were under attack by Mexico. Yes, within the same fortnight.
Pairing the $33 billion aid package with COVID funding is holding up the aid package; Republicans aren’t happy about it
CNBC staff, “Biden’s $33 billion Ukraine aid request hits early snag over Covid funding in Congress”, CNBC, April 29, 2022
President Joe Biden’s request for $33 billion in aid to Ukraine hit an early snag on Capitol Hill, where a dispute over immigration policy threatens to hamstring an otherwise urgent ask to assist Kyiv against Russia’s invasion.
The administration’s massive request to Congress, which includes more than $20 billion for military equipment like artillery and armored vehicles, is popular among Democrats and Republicans.
But Republicans are protesting a new effort by Democrats to link the $33 billion with a separate bipartisan compromise providing $10 billion in additional Covid relief funding.
Biden made the pairing explicit on Thursday in his formal request for Ukrainian aid to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
“To avoid needless deaths in the United States and around the world, I urge the Congress to include this much needed, life-saving COVID funding as part of this supplemental funding request,” he wrote.
Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, helped negotiate the Covid relief funding, but the rest of his party is blocking the bill.
As part of the debate over more Covid funds, most Senate Republicans insist on forcing a vote on the Biden administration’s controversial decision to end a pandemic-era policy called Title 42, which allowed border agents to turn away migrants at the southern border.
That’s not an attractive option for Democrats and the White House, which has acknowledged reversing Title 42 will likely lead to an increase in illegal border crossings.
Asked about binding the two priorities together, Pelosi told reporters on Friday that she’s “all for that.”
“I think it’s very important. We have emergencies here. We need to have the Covid money. And time is of the essence,” she said, referring to the ongoing war in Ukraine. “This is called legislating and we’ll have to come to terms on how we do that.”
Neither side of the political aisle is eager to see a delay in support to Ukraine, prompting key Republicans to challenge the Biden administration on its attempt to pair the two efforts.