Now that the US House of Representatives, acting in an unusually bipartisan way, has finally passed a US$61 billion aid package for Ukraine, the big question is what the Ukrainians should spend it on.
This aid comes not a minute too soon. Russia has been gathering momentum both on the ground and in the air, threatening a summer offensive that could crack the Ukrainians’ defensive lines and threaten their major cities. These include Kharkiv — the major city nearest to the Russian border — and possibly Kyiv itself, forcing the government of President Volodymyr Zelenskiy out of the capital.
CIA Director William Burns, a former ambassador to Russia, understands Russian President Vladimir Putin well. Burns last week said that unless the new tranche of US aid was forthcoming, Ukraine was in danger of losing the war within the year. However, he also said: “With the boost that would come from military assistance, both practically and psychologically, the Ukrainians are entirely capable of holding their own through 2024 and puncture Putin’s arrogant view that time is on his side.”
Illustration: Mountain People
So, with the US$61 billion of “forgivable loans” approved by the White House, what are Ukraine’s most crucial needs? How fast can the pipeline move more weapons and ammunition into the hands of Kyiv’s brave, overachieving military?
The good news is that both the US and European defense establishments have been primed for this moment over the past few months. My successor as supreme allied commander at NATO, General Chris Cavoli, has said that it is largely a matter of turning on the spigot. Cavoli’s vast command — eight full battlegroups in Eastern Europe alone — is poised to swing fully into action to deliver assistance.
Fortunately, nearly 90 percent of the money for Ukraine would be spent on purchases from the US defense industrial base. This means that procurement and logistics should run relatively smoothly down well-trodden paths. Storehouses in Europe — run by US European Command and our NATO partners in Germany, Poland and other sites in Eastern Europe — are already full of weapons, particularly artillery shells, that could move quickly into Ukrainian hands.
At the top of the list would be replenishing Ukraine’s air defenses. This means more surface-to-air missiles, ranging from the smaller systems like the National Advanced Surface-to-Air System and the MIM-23 HAWK systems, to the big Patriot batteries that proved so effective in defending Israel during the Iranian air attack earlier this month. The Patriots and even larger Terminal High Altitude Defense systems can defend against Russian cruise and ballistic missiles over broader areas. These systems would protect not only civilians and critical infrastructure like the electricity grid, but would also be useful against Russian aircraft.
Next on the shopping list is artillery ammunition. All along the hundreds of kilometers of battlefront separating the combatants, daily artillery duels are being fought. Russia is getting the better of the Ukrainians through sheer volume of fire.
As in World War I, defensive trenches can help hold off the waves of cannon-fodder foot soldiers the Russians use (including many conscripts and convicts), but their artillery can pin down and ultimately overcome the dug-in Ukrainians. The most pressing need for the Ukrainian artillery is millions of traditional 155mm howitzer rounds, alongside ammunition for smaller-caliber guns.
Ukraine would also want to use the funds to help finally get the 45 or so F-16 jets previously promised by the West into the skies. These versatile combat aircraft are capable of solid air-to-air defense against Russian fighters and bombers; pinpoint air-to-ground attacks against Russian troops in the field and in their trenches; and electronic warfare and jamming that can deceive and defeat Russian cruise missiles. Ukrainian pilots have been training for months to fly them.
Another high priority would be long-range surface-to-surface missiles. The US Army’s High Mobility Artillery Rocket System is mobile and lethal. It can use precise targeting data at ranges of more than 80km, and has been deployed with great effect on the Ukrainian battlefield. Even better is the Army Tactical Missile System, a ballistic weapon with ranges of more than 240km. Both can strike behind Russian front lines and destroy logistics centers and command-and-control hubs, notably in Crimea.
The war in Ukraine has also become the first lengthy conflict in which drones are playing a major role. Unmanned aerial vehicles have been crucial for the Ukrainians in stopping Russian advances. These drones rely on exquisite command and control — much of it provided over the Internet and connected to constellations of satellites. This might be less glamorous than ballistic missiles flying toward Crimea and fighters swooping down on Russian forces, but it is just as critical. The US loan package could allow the Ukrainians to field a stronger offensive drone force with commensurate cybersecurity abilities.
Given that this US$61 billion is less than 7 percent of the massive US defense budget, it represents an excellent return on investment for US taxpayers. Nearly all of the money would be spent back in the US, providing jobs and helping the economy, and it would help decimate the military capability of an aggressive dictator without putting a single US service member at risk.
These funds, along with the billions of dollars Europeans have already provided and pledged (in total military and economic assistance, the Europeans have given far more aid to Ukraine than the US), give Ukraine a fighting chance.
In 1941, then-British prime minister Winston Churchill said to the US: “Give us the tools and we will finish the job,” referring to defeating Nazi Germany. Today, another rapacious foe is attacking a sovereign European state and seeking to undermine Western values globally. Putin must be stopped, and with the right set of tools provided by the US and Europe together, Ukraine, too, can do the job.
James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a retired US Navy admiral, former supreme allied commander of NATO and dean emeritus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention. If it makes headlines, it is because China wants to invade. Yet, those who find their way here by some twist of fate often fall in love. If you ask them why, some cite numbers showing it is one of the freest and safest countries in the world. Others talk about something harder to name: The quiet order of queues, the shared umbrellas for anyone caught in the rain, the way people stand so elderly riders can sit, the
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
Small and medium enterprises make up the backbone of Taiwan’s economy, yet large corporations such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) play a crucial role in shaping its industrial structure, economic development and global standing. The company reported a record net profit of NT$374.68 billion (US$11.41 billion) for the fourth quarter last year, a 57 percent year-on-year increase, with revenue reaching NT$868.46 billion, a 39 percent increase. Taiwan’s GDP last year was about NT$24.62 trillion, according to the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, meaning TSMC’s quarterly revenue alone accounted for about 3.5 percent of Taiwan’s GDP last year, with the company’s
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
RSS