The American president announced this Wednesday August 24 a new military aid of three billion dollars to Ukraine to mark the day of its independence. This new envelope should allow kyiv to acquire new weapons, finance training or operations. It is the most important since the beginning of the war, which today enters its seventh month.
Interview with Mark Cancianformer colonel of the Marines, now senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington (CSIS), at the microphone of our permanent special envoy in Washington.
Mark Cancian:
American aid went through three phases. The initial phase was to send in easy-to-use weapons, such as Stinger anti-aircraft missiles or Javelin anti-tank missiles. Weapons that did not require much training, but which the Ukrainians could use immediately because they were in a crisis situation. After that, the United States and NATO allies sent in Soviet-era equipment, which a lot of Eastern European allies still had from their Warsaw Pact days. It was easy to send to Ukraine because they already had this equipment. They could use and maintain it quite easily.
RFI: For example, what were these materials?
Some MI-17 helicopters, T-72 tanks, S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, and also other equipment. The Ukrainians had replacement equipment to compensate for their losses. Eastern Europeans were able to get rid of their Soviet-era equipment and replace it with NATO-standard equipment. As for the defense industry, it was able to sell more goods to everyone. Everyone was a winner. When that started to become scarce, American aid switched to NATO weapons. And there are several reasons for this. The first is that it is much easier to feed. For example, for artillery, the Ukrainians have guns from the Soviet era, 102 mm or even 152 mm. They are very good weapons. The problem is getting the ammunition. When you cannot supply yourself in Russia or China, the reserves are very limited. I believe that the United States literally bought the entire stockpile of Soviet-standard equipment and ammunition. But they needed to switch to NATO standards, with 105 mm and 155 mm. There are a dozen countries that manufacture this kind of ammunition, and of course, in the war of attrition that we are witnessing now, having plenty of artillery ammunition is very important. NATO allies sent different types of NATO equipment, and like new American equipment, Ukrainians had to be trained not only in their use, but in their maintenance.
For example, the 155 mm guns?
For example, that is correct. The French sent Caesar guns. The Germans sent Panzer 2000 guns, the United States sent M777s. They all use the same ammo, but they are all different. The Ukrainians did well, but training needs limited the amount that could be sent. But I think what you’re seeing with the last tranche of US aid is that because of the declining inventory, the US is starting to send different types of equipment.
Because the American reserves, the stocks, are not infinite. So this is starting to be a problem for US defense?
There is a limit to what the United States can send before it starts taking weapons away from its own forces. Many of these munitions are intended for American needs. It takes risks. This has been done for Stingers, Javelins and Artillery for example. But there is a limit and I think the army is starting to say: We cannot send much more of our current equipment. You have to think about other types of materials. Perhaps older things, very effective all the same, but which we can take from our surplus. »
Because we remember that Joe Biden went to Alabama, to the factory that manufactures the Javelins, to thank the staff, but also to tell them: “We must continue to produce “.
Exactly, and the Javelins are a good example, because it’s an ongoing production. The United States produces about 1,000 a year, but we donated 8,500 to Ukraine. We have increased the speed of production, but it will take many years to replace them. And actually, I was a bit surprised that the last installment of help included Javelins. Because I think we’re getting to the point where we won’t be able to send any more until we catch up on production.
Another problem is that the Ukrainians, from the beginning, ask for planes, ask for types of weapons that perhaps the United States cannot provide or do not provide because they do not want it?
Yes, there are two types of weapons that the United States does not send. First, there are things that are very complex. The Ukrainians, for example, asked for tanks and fighter planes. The problem is that it would take one or two years to set up the training program for the use, maintenance and logistics aspect for a new plane, an F-16 or an M1 tank, for example . In the long run it would be a good idea, but it’s not going to help the war in the next six months. There is also another type of equipment that the United States is reluctant to send because of the risk of escalation. The best known are long-range missiles, which can be fired from a HiMars system the Ukrainians have. But because they can go 300 kilometers, it can hit far into Russian territory. And the United States is worried that this will be taken as a provocation and that it will escalate the war. And the Ukrainians don’t really need it on the battlefield.
From now on, what are the possibilities for increasing military aid? If I hear you correctly, it’s not a financial problem; obviously the United States and the Maison Banche want to continue to help Ukraine, but they will come up against some sort of technical obstacle.
There are many people who say: Just send a lot of gear over there. But Ukrainians need time to learn how to use them and to have enough staff to use them. One of their problems is that if you want to train someone on an American HiMars or a French Caesar, you have to take that person out of the front line, send them to France, train them for three, four, even five weeks, or however long it takes and then send it back. It is very difficult to withdraw soldiers from the front when you are fighting every day and you need all your forces on the front. So that limits the formation you can set up, and therefore the amount of gear you can send. That being said, NATO countries have sent a lot of equipment and this will continue. It should also be noted that unnoticed things like artillery ammunition are hugely important. Because when armies are in contact, especially in a situation like we have today where the front lines are quite stable, it starts to look like World War I, with 21st century weapons. And that means there’s a lot of artillery fire. The French have learned from their own history, especially from the First World War, that a lot of artillery is needed and it still remains true today. It’s really important to maintain that flow on the pitch, even if it’s not visible or spectacular.