It Is Not Clear Where The Weapons The Us Is Sending To Ukraine Are Going

Six months after Russia invaded on February 24, Ukraine wants more weapons. And the US plans to oblige. The latest $3 billion aid package is to include drones and other weapons. Since the start of this war, the US has sent more than $10 billion in military aid to Ukraine. Some critics of such aid point to its cost. Politicians like Thomas Massie come to mind when thinking of such critics. Others worry about the reduction in US arms stockpiles following these arms shipments. More weapons sent to Ukraine means fewer weapons for us to use. However, two questions still need answering: Where might these arms shipments end up? What are their long-term security implications? The answer to both: We’re not sure. This answer should make people more cautious with these massive arms shipments. Jordan Cohen of the Cato Institute cites this concern about arms shipments, saying it could pose a problem 10 years from now. Ukrainian troops load a truck with US-made Javelins anti-tank missiles at Kiev’s Boryspil airport on February 11, 2022. SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP via Getty Images NATO and EU members have been generous in sending arms to Ukraine. However, they are increasingly concerned about where these weapons might end up and want a tracking system to track the movement of these weapons. These are reasonable concerns. No one wants an opponent, or a potential one, to take up arms. To mitigate this problem, the US must avoid opening the floodgates to arms shipments. Being the “go-to nation” for arms shipments throws up historical instances when those shipments have come back to bite us. Take the Iraq War in 2003. The US supplied the Iraqi security forces and other armed groups with weapons such as M4s and Kalashnikov rifles. Many of these weapons ended up in the hands of the insurgents that US military units were fighting. In Syria, the US undertook an operation in 2013 known as Timber Sycamore, arming and training Syrian rebels in Jordan. However, many of the American weapons ended up on the black market and in the hands of Nusra Front fighters – a US-designated terrorist group. Finally, in the Yemeni civil war, American weapons found their way into the hands of Salafi – al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – and Iranian proxies. You don’t need to be an international security expert to know that this result is not good. Mi-17 helicopters on the flight line at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base for transport to Ukraine April 22, 2022. US Air Force/Staff Sgt. Christine Leggate This does not mean that the US should stop sending weapons to Ukraine. Instead, the US must avoid sending large quantities of small arms to Ukraine and elsewhere. As Rachel Stohl and EJ Hogendoorn demonstrate in their report on small arms, small arms are cheap and easy to use. According to the authors, these qualities make small arms the perfect choice of weapon for most international actors. The US should also be aware of the great strategic consequence of arms shipments. As John Mearsheimer states in his book, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” it is difficult to distinguish whether weapons are offensive or defensive. In fact, weapons are both offensive and defensive. Stephen Biddle makes this point, arguing that countries require defensive and offensive weapons for tactical operations in defense strategies. This means that Ukraine requires offensive and defensive weapons to defend against Russian invasion forces. The more weapons—defensive and offensive—the US sends to Ukraine, the more Russia will view those weapons as hostile offensive maneuvers against it. In short, defense is often mistaken for offense. U.S. Marine Corps M777 155mm howitzers at March Air Reserve Base, Calif., prior to delivery to Ukraine, April 22, 2022. U.S. Marine Corps/Cpl. Austin Fraley Between the unintended consequences of arms shipments and their effect in creating a security dilemma, arms shipments tend to make armed conflict more likely. US policymakers must avoid placing so much faith in weapons that serve as instruments for international goals. There is no doubt that guns and weapons are part of foreign policy. However, there are other tools, such as diplomatic negotiations, that can also serve US foreign policy goals. Ukraine and the US must use something other than weapons to end this war. A negotiated end to this war is better sooner rather than later. When will this war end? Tragically, not anytime soon. Both Russia and Ukraine seem intent on continuing this war. Both see a bumpy road to victory rather than a bloody and grimy path to misery. The US must do everything it can to encourage a peaceful end. This perception among US policymakers that guns and weapons are the dominant response in foreign affairs has not always been the case. As David Hendrickson makes clear, war and violence were seen as antithetical to democratic and liberal forms of government. Perhaps today’s US politicians will remember this noble idea. Benjamin Giltner is a Contributor to Defense Priorities.

title: “It Is Not Clear Where The Weapons The Us Is Sending To Ukraine Are Going Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-11” author: “Jack Schuch”

Six months after Russia invaded on February 24, Ukraine wants more weapons. And the US plans to oblige. The latest $3 billion aid package is to include drones and other weapons. Since the start of this war, the US has sent more than $10 billion in military aid to Ukraine. Some critics of such aid point to its cost. Politicians like Thomas Massie come to mind when thinking of such critics. Others worry about the reduction in US arms stockpiles following these arms shipments. More weapons sent to Ukraine means fewer weapons for us to use. However, two questions still need answering: Where might these arms shipments end up? What are their long-term security implications? The answer to both: We’re not sure. This answer should make people more cautious with these massive arms shipments. Jordan Cohen of the Cato Institute cites this concern about arms shipments, saying it could pose a problem 10 years from now. Ukrainian troops load a truck with US-made Javelins anti-tank missiles at Kiev’s Boryspil airport on February 11, 2022. SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP via Getty Images NATO and EU members have been generous in sending arms to Ukraine. However, they are increasingly concerned about where these weapons might end up and want a tracking system to track the movement of these weapons. These are reasonable concerns. No one wants an opponent, or a potential one, to take up arms. To mitigate this problem, the US must avoid opening the floodgates to arms shipments. Being the “go-to nation” for arms shipments throws up historical instances when those shipments have come back to bite us. Take the Iraq War in 2003. The US supplied the Iraqi security forces and other armed groups with weapons such as M4s and Kalashnikov rifles. Many of these weapons ended up in the hands of the insurgents that US military units were fighting. In Syria, the US undertook an operation in 2013 known as Timber Sycamore, arming and training Syrian rebels in Jordan. However, many of the American weapons ended up on the black market and in the hands of Nusra Front fighters – a US-designated terrorist group. Finally, in the Yemeni civil war, American weapons found their way into the hands of Salafi – al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – and Iranian proxies. You don’t need to be an international security expert to know that this result is not good. Mi-17 helicopters on the flight line at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base for transport to Ukraine April 22, 2022. US Air Force/Staff Sgt. Christine Leggate This does not mean that the US should stop sending weapons to Ukraine. Instead, the US must avoid sending large quantities of small arms to Ukraine and elsewhere. As Rachel Stohl and EJ Hogendoorn demonstrate in their report on small arms, small arms are cheap and easy to use. According to the authors, these qualities make small arms the perfect choice of weapon for most international actors. The US should also be aware of the great strategic consequence of arms shipments. As John Mearsheimer states in his book, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” it is difficult to distinguish whether weapons are offensive or defensive. In fact, weapons are both offensive and defensive. Stephen Biddle makes this point, arguing that countries require defensive and offensive weapons for tactical operations in defense strategies. This means that Ukraine requires offensive and defensive weapons to defend against Russian invasion forces. The more weapons—defensive and offensive—the US sends to Ukraine, the more Russia will view those weapons as hostile offensive maneuvers against it. In short, defense is often mistaken for offense. U.S. Marine Corps M777 155mm howitzers at March Air Reserve Base, Calif., prior to delivery to Ukraine, April 22, 2022. U.S. Marine Corps/Cpl. Austin Fraley Between the unintended consequences of arms shipments and their effect in creating a security dilemma, arms shipments tend to make armed conflict more likely. US policymakers must avoid placing so much faith in weapons that serve as instruments for international goals. There is no doubt that guns and weapons are part of foreign policy. However, there are other tools, such as diplomatic negotiations, that can also serve US foreign policy goals. Ukraine and the US must use something other than weapons to end this war. A negotiated end to this war is better sooner rather than later. When will this war end? Tragically, not anytime soon. Both Russia and Ukraine seem intent on continuing this war. Both see a bumpy road to victory rather than a bloody and grimy path to misery. The US must do everything it can to encourage a peaceful end. This perception among US policymakers that guns and weapons are the dominant response in foreign affairs has not always been the case. As David Hendrickson makes clear, war and violence were seen as antithetical to democratic and liberal forms of government. Perhaps today’s US politicians will remember this noble idea. Benjamin Giltner is a Contributor to Defense Priorities.

title: “It Is Not Clear Where The Weapons The Us Is Sending To Ukraine Are Going Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-04” author: “Raymond Joslyn”

Six months after Russia invaded on February 24, Ukraine wants more weapons. And the US plans to oblige. The latest $3 billion aid package is to include drones and other weapons. Since the start of this war, the US has sent more than $10 billion in military aid to Ukraine. Some critics of such aid point to its cost. Politicians like Thomas Massie come to mind when thinking of such critics. Others worry about the reduction in US arms stockpiles following these arms shipments. More weapons sent to Ukraine means fewer weapons for us to use. However, two questions still need answering: Where might these arms shipments end up? What are their long-term security implications? The answer to both: We’re not sure. This answer should make people more cautious with these massive arms shipments. Jordan Cohen of the Cato Institute cites this concern about arms shipments, saying it could pose a problem 10 years from now. Ukrainian troops load a truck with US-made Javelins anti-tank missiles at Kiev’s Boryspil airport on February 11, 2022. SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP via Getty Images NATO and EU members have been generous in sending arms to Ukraine. However, they are increasingly concerned about where these weapons might end up and want a tracking system to track the movement of these weapons. These are reasonable concerns. No one wants an opponent, or a potential one, to take up arms. To mitigate this problem, the US must avoid opening the floodgates to arms shipments. Being the “go-to nation” for arms shipments throws up historical instances when those shipments have come back to bite us. Take the Iraq War in 2003. The US supplied the Iraqi security forces and other armed groups with weapons such as M4s and Kalashnikov rifles. Many of these weapons ended up in the hands of the insurgents that US military units were fighting. In Syria, the US undertook an operation in 2013 known as Timber Sycamore, arming and training Syrian rebels in Jordan. However, many of the American weapons ended up on the black market and in the hands of Nusra Front fighters – a US-designated terrorist group. Finally, in the Yemeni civil war, American weapons found their way into the hands of Salafi – al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – and Iranian proxies. You don’t need to be an international security expert to know that this result is not good. Mi-17 helicopters on the flight line at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base for transport to Ukraine April 22, 2022. US Air Force/Staff Sgt. Christine Leggate This does not mean that the US should stop sending weapons to Ukraine. Instead, the US must avoid sending large quantities of small arms to Ukraine and elsewhere. As Rachel Stohl and EJ Hogendoorn demonstrate in their report on small arms, small arms are cheap and easy to use. According to the authors, these qualities make small arms the perfect choice of weapon for most international actors. The US should also be aware of the great strategic consequence of arms shipments. As John Mearsheimer states in his book, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” it is difficult to distinguish whether weapons are offensive or defensive. In fact, weapons are both offensive and defensive. Stephen Biddle makes this point, arguing that countries require defensive and offensive weapons for tactical operations in defense strategies. This means that Ukraine requires offensive and defensive weapons to defend against Russian invasion forces. The more weapons—defensive and offensive—the US sends to Ukraine, the more Russia will view those weapons as hostile offensive maneuvers against it. In short, defense is often mistaken for offense. U.S. Marine Corps M777 155mm howitzers at March Air Reserve Base, Calif., prior to delivery to Ukraine, April 22, 2022. U.S. Marine Corps/Cpl. Austin Fraley Between the unintended consequences of arms shipments and their effect in creating a security dilemma, arms shipments tend to make armed conflict more likely. US policymakers must avoid placing so much faith in weapons that serve as instruments for international goals. There is no doubt that guns and weapons are part of foreign policy. However, there are other tools, such as diplomatic negotiations, that can also serve US foreign policy goals. Ukraine and the US must use something other than weapons to end this war. A negotiated end to this war is better sooner rather than later. When will this war end? Tragically, not anytime soon. Both Russia and Ukraine seem intent on continuing this war. Both see a bumpy road to victory rather than a bloody and grimy path to misery. The US must do everything it can to encourage a peaceful end. This perception among US policymakers that guns and weapons are the dominant response in foreign affairs has not always been the case. As David Hendrickson makes clear, war and violence were seen as antithetical to democratic and liberal forms of government. Perhaps today’s US politicians will remember this noble idea. Benjamin Giltner is a Contributor to Defense Priorities.

title: “It Is Not Clear Where The Weapons The Us Is Sending To Ukraine Are Going Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-24” author: “Bernadine Pemberton”

Six months after Russia invaded on February 24, Ukraine wants more weapons. And the US plans to oblige. The latest $3 billion aid package is to include drones and other weapons. Since the start of this war, the US has sent more than $10 billion in military aid to Ukraine. Some critics of such aid point to its cost. Politicians like Thomas Massie come to mind when thinking of such critics. Others worry about the reduction in US arms stockpiles following these arms shipments. More weapons sent to Ukraine means fewer weapons for us to use. However, two questions still need answering: Where might these arms shipments end up? What are their long-term security implications? The answer to both: We’re not sure. This answer should make people more cautious with these massive arms shipments. Jordan Cohen of the Cato Institute cites this concern about arms shipments, saying it could pose a problem 10 years from now. Ukrainian troops load a truck with US-made Javelins anti-tank missiles at Kiev’s Boryspil airport on February 11, 2022. SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP via Getty Images NATO and EU members have been generous in sending arms to Ukraine. However, they are increasingly concerned about where these weapons might end up and want a tracking system to track the movement of these weapons. These are reasonable concerns. No one wants an opponent, or a potential one, to take up arms. To mitigate this problem, the US must avoid opening the floodgates to arms shipments. Being the “go-to nation” for arms shipments throws up historical instances when those shipments have come back to bite us. Take the Iraq War in 2003. The US supplied the Iraqi security forces and other armed groups with weapons such as M4s and Kalashnikov rifles. Many of these weapons ended up in the hands of the insurgents that US military units were fighting. In Syria, the US undertook an operation in 2013 known as Timber Sycamore, arming and training Syrian rebels in Jordan. However, many of the American weapons ended up on the black market and in the hands of Nusra Front fighters – a US-designated terrorist group. Finally, in the Yemeni civil war, American weapons found their way into the hands of Salafi – al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – and Iranian proxies. You don’t need to be an international security expert to know that this result is not good. Mi-17 helicopters on the flight line at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base for transport to Ukraine April 22, 2022. US Air Force/Staff Sgt. Christine Leggate This does not mean that the US should stop sending weapons to Ukraine. Instead, the US must avoid sending large quantities of small arms to Ukraine and elsewhere. As Rachel Stohl and EJ Hogendoorn demonstrate in their report on small arms, small arms are cheap and easy to use. According to the authors, these qualities make small arms the perfect choice of weapon for most international actors. The US should also be aware of the great strategic consequence of arms shipments. As John Mearsheimer states in his book, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” it is difficult to distinguish whether weapons are offensive or defensive. In fact, weapons are both offensive and defensive. Stephen Biddle makes this point, arguing that countries require defensive and offensive weapons for tactical operations in defense strategies. This means that Ukraine requires offensive and defensive weapons to defend against Russian invasion forces. The more weapons—defensive and offensive—the US sends to Ukraine, the more Russia will view those weapons as hostile offensive maneuvers against it. In short, defense is often mistaken for offense. U.S. Marine Corps M777 155mm howitzers at March Air Reserve Base, Calif., prior to delivery to Ukraine, April 22, 2022. U.S. Marine Corps/Cpl. Austin Fraley Between the unintended consequences of arms shipments and their effect in creating a security dilemma, arms shipments tend to make armed conflict more likely. US policymakers must avoid placing so much faith in weapons that serve as instruments for international goals. There is no doubt that guns and weapons are part of foreign policy. However, there are other tools, such as diplomatic negotiations, that can also serve US foreign policy goals. Ukraine and the US must use something other than weapons to end this war. A negotiated end to this war is better sooner rather than later. When will this war end? Tragically, not anytime soon. Both Russia and Ukraine seem intent on continuing this war. Both see a bumpy road to victory rather than a bloody and grimy path to misery. The US must do everything it can to encourage a peaceful end. This perception among US policymakers that guns and weapons are the dominant response in foreign affairs has not always been the case. As David Hendrickson makes clear, war and violence were seen as antithetical to democratic and liberal forms of government. Perhaps today’s US politicians will remember this noble idea. Benjamin Giltner is a Contributor to Defense Priorities.