ARLINGTON, Virginia, January 5 (IPS) – More than 10 months since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the United States and its allies continue to seek the most effective military, humanitarian, political and economic means to support Ukraine.
During his visit to Washington in December 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is said to have reiterated his desire for advanced American weapons; Ukraine’s wish list includes Abrams tanks and F-16 fighter jets. Responding to President Zelensky’s request for U.S. fighter jets and tanks would be a significant escalation in the U.S. military commitment to Ukraine and could further increase the risks associated with that commitment. .
The situation is becoming tense with threats of conventional war extending beyond Ukraine’s borders and even the possible use of nuclear weapons, as well as uncertainty about the capabilities of arms suppliers. in ensuring that firearms are delivered to their intended users and are not redistributed.
Risk of transferring weapons and ammunition that could be used to attack Russia
The US weapons that have been delivered to Ukraine so far are mainly defensive; These include anti-aircraft and anti-armor systems. The United States is said to have failed to provide the longest-range weapons for systems such as missile launchers, making it more difficult for Ukrainian forces to strike beyond the Ukraine-Russia border.
In contrast, weapons such as battle tanks and fighter jets that can be used in offensive roles could increase Russia’s ability to retaliate against the United States and our European allies. In particular, the delivery of weapons that can reach deep into Russian territory could increase the likelihood of escalation, with Russia potentially responding by attacking countries in Europe that have supported the war effort. Ukrainian paintings.
Through its actions, the U.S. government seems to implicitly assume that the Russian government will view these transfers the way the U.S. government wants them to — defensive in nature. There is no guarantee that this will be the case. And even if the Russian government does not intentionally choose to escalate, it could still happen through negligence, confusion, or miscalculation. Focusing U.S. aid on defensive weapons and short-range munitions is likely to reduce this risk.
Insufficient responsibility for the delivery of weapons
Too often, the US government transfers weapons and ammunition without adequate systems in place to ensure accountability for their storage, deployment, and use. Without strong controls, these weapons could be stolen and sold to the highest bidder or transferred to other conflicts.
Russia’s seizure of U.S. weapons would pose a particular threat – Russia’s ability to reveal US technology through reverse engineering of US weapons systems.
The hasty nature of remittances to Ukraine further increases the likelihood of diversion. The continued expansion of the number and availability of U.S. weapons could also exacerbate these risks.
In addition, even if US military forces are not deployed in Ukraine, in the future they may still face US weapons being diverted to other conflicts.
The risk of diversion can be reduced by verifying that only authorized users receive U.S. firearms and ammunition, that they carefully monitor weapons deployment and use, and that weapons and their ammunition is securely stored when not deployed. In addition, diversion to other conflicts can be reduced by destroying the remaining weapons and ammunition when the conflict is over.
The US is even more dominant in supporting Ukraine than in global conventional arms transfers
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the United States continues to be the world’s largest supplier of conventional weapons, providing nearly 40% of the value of global arms transfers between 2017 and 2021. This figure is almost the same as the total value of arms transferred by the next four countries during the same period (Russia, France, China and Germany). The US dominance in aid to Ukraine is even more pronounced.
In conjunction with President Zelensky’s visit to Washington, the US Department of Defense announced the 28th reduction in US defense stockpiles to support Ukraine as of August 2021. The press release acknowledges the The latest commitment shows that the United States has provided more than $21 billion in security assistance since then. the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The aggregate spending bill that President Biden signed in late December 2022 includes $47 billion in additional military, economic, and humanitarian assistance.
In contrast, the UK Department of Defense (MOD) issued a press release on 30 December 2022 stating that the UK has provided £2.3 billion in military aid by 2022 and This number is second only to the United States. The MOD also indicated that it plans to provide a similar level of funding in 2023. This commitment is a small part of the US support.
As with other conventional US arms transfers, arms transfers to Ukraine run the risk of redirecting to other countries and other conflicts. The United States’ dominance in the supply of weapons means that it is also disproportionately responsible for the use and potential abuse of weapons.
The danger of using nuclear weapons
During the Cold War, one of the biggest concerns was that a conventional war could escalate to the nuclear level. Analysts and political leaders alike recognize that while this can happen by intentional action, it can also happen by chance or miscalculation.
This possibility of nuclear use persists to this day and is believed to be higher due to Russian President Putin’s threat to use all military means in the conflict in Ukraine.
If Russia loses a conventional war, it may decide to turn to nuclear weapons to try to change the outcome of the war. The U.S. supply of Ukraine with weapons designed primarily for offensive purposes could increase this risk.
The continued use of nuclear threats is another illustration of the dangers of nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, this danger continues. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons provides a route out of this existential threat.
The danger of ignoring long-term risks for potential short-term gains
Taken together, these risks highlight the danger of prioritizing potential short-term political and military interests over negative long-term consequences.
Subsequent arms transfers to Ukraine require rigorous analysis of the potential long-term consequences before the transfer takes place. Saying yes to Ukraine might be the easier response from a short-term perspective.
For example, saying yes has the potential to strengthen political ties between the United States and Ukraine, and military contractor profits from arms sales. However, that response could jeopardize US security interests in the long term.
Dr. Natalie GoldringVisiting Professor of Practice at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, also represents the Acronym Institute at the United Nations on nuclear and conventional disarmament issues.
IPS UN Office
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Follow IPS News UN Office on Instagram
© Inter Press Service (2023) — All rights reservedOrigin: Inter Press Service
