All Things Russia & Ukraine

[a fan]

Hey we can both agree that a government official that honeymooned in the USSR, has decades long Marxist buddies and doesn’t mind being called a communist needs to denounce communism publicly as the sick minded evil that it is or be kicked out of congress.

Now I understand why you like Fascist Commie Putin so much.

....see, how it works here in America, is that you're free to do and think what you want. You can (gasp) visit the beautiful country of Russia, without agreeing how that country is run.

And also in America, you can have all sorts of friends, who think all sorts of different things. You know: that whole "freedom" thing that we're always bragging about here.

So no, I don't agree with anyone who thinks that only one way of thinking is allowed in the United States.

What you are championing here is fascism: the literal OPPOSITE of what America is all about.

But by all means, go right ahead and tell us how awesome fascism is, and keep telling us how much you like Putin....

[old salt]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-allies ... 1646933998

U.S, Allies Look at Sending Soviet-Designed Air-Defense Systems to Ukraine

With Polish jets off the table, Western countries consider other options to help Kyiv fight off Russian invasion

WASHINGTON—The Pentagon is exploring ways to shore up Ukraine’s air defenses by facilitating the transfer of Soviet-designed antiaircraft equipment, according to U.S. and European officials.

The U.S. is trying to determine which type of air-defense systems would work best, with Soviet-designed systems—ideally mobile ones—being the best option because they would require less training for the Ukrainians, a Pentagon official said.

Russia has escalated its attacks on Ukrainian cities, and the government in Kyiv has pressed the West to provide more military assistance, including combat planes. The Pentagon on Wednesday closed the door on the transfer of Polish MiG-29s to Ukraine, but said it wants to bolster the country’s defenses, without specifying how.

The U.S. is looking at transferring air-defense systems from former Eastern Bloc countries that are North Atlantic Treaty Organization members, the Pentagon official said, and could be more useful than new planes in the effort to prevent Russian warplanes from flying over Ukraine.

The surface-to-air systems under consideration are more sophisticated than the shoulder-launched, heat-seeking missiles NATO members and others have already provided Ukraine. They include what NATO refers to as the SA-8 and SA-10, which can target planes at much higher altitudes, as well as what Russia calls the S-300, which was a state-of-the-art system until a few years ago.

The S-300 is an air-defense system, first produced by the Soviet Union and later Russia, that is capable of shooting down aircraft and cruise missiles. The S-300 was designed to be highly mobile, allowing air-defense forces to fire their weapons and quickly relocate to avoid being hit in a retaliatory strike.

Ukraine has some S-300s in its inventory, which have been used during the war against Russian warplanes and inbound missiles.

Western officials haven’t said where they would acquire the S-300s for Ukraine, but three NATO countries—Bulgaria, Greece and Slovakia—have the systems in their inventories.

The Bulgarian, Greek and Slovak embassies in Washington didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

A European diplomat said that Soviet-made systems like the S-300 would be easiest for the Ukrainians to integrate into their arsenal and employ quickly and effectively. The European diplomat suggested that the countries closest to Ukraine geographically that possess such systems could provide theirs to Kyiv on the understanding that other allies would replenish the countries’ stores with comparable systems.

The U.S. and other NATO members have been rushing Stinger missiles and other portable air-defense systems to Ukraine. The U.K. this week announced it is planning to send Starstreak high-velocity, portable antiair missiles to Ukraine to help Kyiv combat Russia’s airstrikes.

“The Russians are changing their tactics, so the Ukrainians need to, too,” British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told the House of Commons on Wednesday, calling Moscow’s airstrikes “indiscriminate and murderous.”

These shoulder-fired weapons, which are effective against helicopters and low-flying aircraft, are far less capable than the S-300.

The U.S. and other NATO members have struggled with ways to assist the Ukrainian military, while avoiding measures, like a no-fly zone, that they argue would risk direct confrontation with Russia. Traveling in Europe last week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken again rejected calls for a no-fly zone over Ukraine, but said discussions were under way with allies about sending more advanced air-defense capabilities to Ukraine.

The Pentagon has repeatedly said that Russia has yet to achieve air superiority during its invasion of Ukraine because of Ukraine’s remaining air defenses and that some of Ukraine’s air force remains intact.

“The airspace is contested,” Mr. Kirby said.

The head of U.S. forces in Europe, Air Force Gen. Tod Wolters, on Thursday said providing Ukraine with air defense and other systems made more sense than jet fighters.

“The Ukrainians are making excellent use of these weapons now,” he said in a statement. “Although Russian air capabilities are significant, their effectiveness remains limited due to Ukrainian strategic, operational, and tactical ground-based air defense systems.”

The Pentagon has so far declined to discuss specific types of air-defense systems it may provide. “I’d rather stay away from the systems themselves,” Mr. Kirby said Wednesday, when asked about the S-300s.

Way too much public info. Let's see if Putin threatens escalation or tries to block this with missile strikes on border entry points.
This & the transfer flight of the Migs should have all been done on the QT. Multi-national deals, involving multi-NATO allies are unwieldy & hard to keep the politicians quiet.

[Essexfenwick]

Hey we can both agree that a government official that honeymooned in the USSR, has decades long Marxist buddies and doesn’t mind being called a communist needs to denounce communism publicly as the sick minded evil that it is or be kicked out of congress.

Now I understand why you like Fascist Commie Putin so much.

....see, how it works here in America, is that you're free to do and think what you want. You can (gasp) visit the beautiful country of Russia, without agreeing how that country is run.

And also in America, you can have all sorts of friends, who think all sorts of different things. You know: that whole "freedom" thing that we're always bragging about here.

So no, I don't agree with anyone who thinks that only one way of thinking is allowed in the United States.

What you are championing here is fascism: the literal OPPOSITE of what America is all about.

But by all means, go right ahead and tell us how awesome fascism is, and keep telling us how much you like Putin....

Nah. People like Bernie Sanders and David Duke are horrible and need to be called out. Especially during wartime

[jhu72]

Somalia.

[old salt]

Interesting proposal by a great diplomat
(& gracious host, I drank his booze at our embassy in Tunis in '82)

He made it work in Syria. If not able to get a UN resolution, maybe OSCE could call upon NATO to do it.
It would offer Putin a face saving way to back down & find an exit ramp.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2022/0 ... ne/362978/

Put US Boots in Ukraine to Defend a UN-Approved Security Zone

It worked in Syria.
by James Jeffrey

President Biden’s State of the Union address, which called for the rest of the world to emerge stronger than Russia out of the Ukraine crisis, captures well an actual American strategy. The outcome of the crisis remains unknown, but the rules-based international collective security order, under American leadership, has done tolerably well in response so far. Still, the extraordinary economic and diplomatic isolation of Moscow, and beefing up of NATO’s eastern defenses, cannot guarantee that Russia will not eventually overrun Ukraine and create, with millions of Ukrainian refugees, an enormous financial crisis for the U.S. and European states. Ukrainians almost certainly will mount an insurgency, but while that will drive Moscow’s costs up, it is unlikely to force Russia to withdraw anytime soon.

Thus even a Russia weakened by international action and insurgency could still be the victor, if the international order emerges from this crisis even weaker geographically, economically, and psychologically. Job one for that international order thus is to ensure this does not happen, and that will require more action with greater risks and costs. One such action that has been raised, including by President Zelenskyy, is a no-fly zone over Ukrainian territory. This was quickly shot down for many good reasons. But the germ of the idea has merit, if it is approached differently. Here the conflict in Syria can be instructive, specifically, the efficacy of security zones, to deescalate conflict, enable humanitarian assistance, and eventually produce ceasefires.

A humanitarian safe zone

The Ukrainian government should be encouraged to appeal to the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution under Chapter VI, establishing a Humanitarian Safe Zone with a ceasefire regime in Ukrainian territories abutting its Western neighbors. (A resolution under Chapter VII, which would allow legal enforcement with troops under U.N. control, would be better but undoubtedly impossible.) A model of this kind of peacekeeper border deployment is Resolution 1701, which ended the Israeli incursion into Lebanon in 2006.

Russia can be expected to veto such a resolution in the UN Security Council, upon which the administration and allies should attempt its passage in the General Assembly, as seen with the Uniting for Peace Resolution, which authorized the 1950 intervention in Korea. Last week, a similar General Assembly Resolution condemning Russia in Ukraine won an overwhelming majority.

Such a Zone would allow Ukrainian government and non-governmental organizations, partnered with the international community, to establish camps for internally displaced persons fleeing the fighting without leaving Ukraine, dramatically reducing costs of sustaining and resettling refugees in third countries. The location and depth of the Zone would depend on the location of Russian forces at the time it was instituted, as well as various economic, ethnic, transportation and geographic factors, and the position of countries neighboring the Zone. But it should include at least the strategic city of Lviv.

The Ukrainian government would have to renounce military operations launched from the zone, but otherwise Ukrainian sovereignty and normal government operations would continue in the Zone. A Zone would allow the Ukrainian government in extremis to relocate westward on its own territory rather than flee abroad. That is vital to any sort of compromise “win” for Ukraine as it would avoid, if in exile, competing with a Moscow puppet regime with an in-country presence. And to be clear, the end goal is not a rump Ukraine but the return of legitimate Ukrainian government control over all of the country.

A U.S. military role

What countries will answer the UN General Assembly’s call to send troops to monitor the Zone’s borders and defend it if attacked? (Given Russian fears, NATO as an institution must stay out of this.) Our experience with past conflicts indicates that governments will deploy forces only if the Security Council itself has passed a resolution (again, unlikely because of Russia’s veto), or if the United States sends its own troops. For this idea to succeed, then, the President would have to reverse, to a limited degree, his “no U.S. boots-in-Ukraine” position, but for good reasons.

The commitment would be limited, and would not directly challenge Russian forces. To reassure the Russians of no offensive intent, American and other outside forces would be limited in number and weapons. The U.S. could provide “over the horizon” air monitoring and ground reinforcements to deter or respond to attacks on these forces. No conflict would start except by a Russian decision to attack forces invited into Ukraine by its legal government and with a UN General Assembly mandate and humanitarian mission.

The Syrian experience

In Syria, Russia has not acted against security zones in the north or southeast containing Turkish or U.S. troops, even if few in number—with one exception, against Turkish forces in 2020. The Russians often threatened retaliation against U.S. and Turkish troops and their Syrian partners (and occasionally Israeli air strikes) but with that one exception took no lethal action.

One reason the security zone has worked in Syria was that each side knew the others’ red lines and did not have any compelling need to cross them. Russia had won a messy limited victory in Syria by propping up a friendly government and preserving its military bases. Pushing out for good the Americans, Turks, and Israelis, there for their own pressing security and humanitarian reasons, would have been welcome but would not generate enough additional benefit to balance the significant risks. Assuming the Ukraine security zone is relatively small, a similar dynamic could apply. No military offensive could or would be launched from it, thus it creates no compelling reason for Russia to risk initiating a conflict with the United States.

To be sure, a security zone will not end the war with a victory. Rather, it should be seen as one of a series of moves to deny Russia success, along with sanctions and economic decoupling and sending arms to Ukraine. It opens the door to a diplomatic compromise. The Biden administration signaled its openness to such an outcome in its January letter to Russia, and should follow up even while fighting continues.

Obviously, the security zone approach carries risks, both to the troops involved and to Russia-American escalation, particularly as the Ukraine conflict is existential to Russia in a way Syria was not. But the world, and the United States, is already in a very risky situation. Moreover, American success in creating a global coalition rests on the assumption that everyone will share in the sacrifice and risks. That includes not just those states pressed to sell more oil at less profit, or accept waves of refugees, or in Germany’s case, forgo Nordstream 2, but also the United States, which has so far been little exposed to costs and risks. At bottom, the Ukraine struggle is not about strength and resources, for the coalition that the U.S. has put together is massively stronger and richer than Russia. Rather, it is all about political courage and will.

James Jeffrey is chair of the Middle East program at the Wilson Center; a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Iraq, and Albania; and former Special Envoy to the Global Coalition To Defeat ISIS, and Syria chief of mission.

[Essexfenwick]

Hillary needs to vow that she will stop importing Dossiers from Russia.

[Kismet]

Nice idea but don't see Vlad going for it just yet OS.

Maybe he should watch the video of Ukrainians ambushing and destroying Rooskie tank column in a residential area outside Kyiv using Javelins and rocket-propelled grenades killing the division commander. How the hell you put a column of armor on a road in an area with buildings and cover adjacent to the highway without infantry support is mind-boggling.

Proverbially, like shooting fish in a barrel.

[runrussellrun]

Hey we can both agree that a government official that honeymooned in the USSR, has decades long Marxist buddies and doesn’t mind being called a communist needs to denounce communism publicly as the sick minded evil that it is or be kicked out of congress.

Now I understand why you like Fascist Commie Putin so much.

....see, how it works here in America, is that you're free to do and think what you want. You can (gasp) visit the beautiful country of Russia, without agreeing how that country is run.

And also in America, you can have all sorts of friends, who think all sorts of different things. You know: that whole "freedom" thing that we're always bragging about here.

So no, I don't agree with anyone who thinks that only one way of thinking is allowed in the United States.

What you are championing here is fascism: the literal OPPOSITE of what America is all about.

But by all means, go right ahead and tell us how awesome fascism is, and keep telling us how much you like Putin....

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2016/n ... ry-800.jpg

Nah. People like Bernie Sanders and David Duke are horrible and need to be called out. Especially during wartime

[a fan]

Nice idea but don't see Vlad going for it just yet OS.

Maybe he should watch the video of Ukrainians ambushing and destroying Rooskie tank column in a residential area outside Kyiv using Javelins and rocket-propelled grenades killing the division commander. How the hell you put a column of armor on a road in an area with buildings and cover adjacent to the highway without infantry support is mind-boggling.

How many years did I spend on Laxpower mocking the myth of Putin's supposed brilliance? And how many years were we told how he was so amazing, and anyone with a D by their name couldn't match his genius?

He's an idiot.

Russian GDP has been flat since he took power....20 years. And this year, of course, he'll be lucky if the economy doesn't collapse.

Moron. Sadly, his stupidity and failures likely make him MORE dangerous, not less.....

We need to give him a way out. Or more specifically, Zelensky does......

Edit to add......Diageo and Brown Forman of my industry just stopped all biz in Russia. So much private sector damage has been done to Putin that government sanctions are almost not needed. This is why you don't invade nations in 2022, folks. And don't think China hasn't noticed this reaction.

[old salt]

Snapshot of US reinforcement of NATO, to date.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... aine-nato/

...U.S. troops across Europe, whose numbers have jumped since the Ukraine threat surfaced in October from a normal 65,000 to about 100,000.

Though it’s largely invisible to the public, the United States has moved an astonishing military presence forward in Europe, from a mere 200 in Hungary and 350 in Bulgaria to 2,500 in the Baltic states, 10,000 in Poland and 38,500 in Germany — forces in 17 countries, bolstered by 11,000 in ships at sea. It’s a forbidding display of force.

At one stop near the Ukrainian border, we watched one of the 14 widebody cargo planes that arrive at the local airfield each day with Western weapons; near the runway stood a rack of Javelin antitank missiles, awaiting shipment into Ukraine. If you want to see where they end up, just watch the videos on social media of Russian tanks and trucks exploding into fire.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Nice idea but don't see Vlad going for it just yet OS.

Maybe he should watch the video of Ukrainians ambushing and destroying Rooskie tank column in a residential area outside Kyiv using Javelins and rocket-propelled grenades killing the division commander. How the hell you put a column of armor on a road in an area with buildings and cover adjacent to the highway without infantry support is mind-boggling.

How many years did I spend on Laxpower mocking the myth of Putin's supposed brilliance? And how many years were we told how he was so amazing, and anyone with a D by their name couldn't match his genius?

He's an idiot.

Russian GDP has been flat since he took power....20 years. And this year, of course, he'll be lucky if the economy doesn't collapse.

Moron. Sadly, his stupidity and failures likely make him MORE dangerous, not less.....

We need to give him a way out. Or more specifically, Zelensky does......

Edit to add......Diageo and Brown Forman of my industry just stopped all biz in Russia. So much private sector damage has been done to Putin that government sanctions are almost not needed. This is why you don't invade nations in 2022, folks. And don't think China hasn't noticed this reaction.

That's what happens when you surround yourself with Yes Men in the government and military. A major loss of institutional knowledge and money flooding (not trickling) upward and outward to the oligarchs.

Even with all our problems domestically, a healthy internal debate makes us stronger. Unfortunately we haven't had a very healthy internal debate since Trump won the primary back in 2016.

[old salt]

Nice idea but don't see Vlad going for it just yet OS.

Maybe he should watch the video of Ukrainians ambushing and destroying Rooskie tank column in a residential area outside Kyiv using Javelins and rocket-propelled grenades killing the division commander. How the hell you put a column of armor on a road in an area with buildings and cover adjacent to the highway without infantry support is mind-boggling.

How many years did I spend on Laxpower mocking the myth of Putin's supposed brilliance? And how many years were we told how he was so amazing, and anyone with a D by their name couldn't match his genius?

He's an idiot.

Russian GDP has been flat since he took power....20 years. And this year, of course, he'll be lucky if the economy doesn't collapse.

Moron. Sadly, his stupidity and failures likely make him MORE dangerous, not less.....

We need to give him a way out. Or more specifically, Zelensky does......

Edit to add......Diageo and Brown Forman of my industry just stopped all biz in Russia. So much private sector damage has been done to Putin that government sanctions are almost not needed. This is why you don't invade nations in 2022, folks. And don't think China hasn't noticed this reaction.

He was shrewd enough that no one was able to deter him before he plunged Europe back into a war to restore Russia's historic borders.
He exploited European (& Wall St) naivete & greed to the point that he still holds an energy gun to the EU's head.
Don't celebrate his demise too soon. This is far from over & could get (much) worse before (& if) it gets better.

[MDlaxfan76]

Nice idea but don't see Vlad going for it just yet OS.

Maybe he should watch the video of Ukrainians ambushing and destroying Rooskie tank column in a residential area outside Kyiv using Javelins and rocket-propelled grenades killing the division commander. How the hell you put a column of armor on a road in an area with buildings and cover adjacent to the highway without infantry support is mind-boggling.

How many years did I spend on Laxpower mocking the myth of Putin's supposed brilliance? And how many years were we told how he was so amazing, and anyone with a D by their name couldn't match his genius?

He's an idiot.

Russian GDP has been flat since he took power....20 years. And this year, of course, he'll be lucky if the economy doesn't collapse.

Moron. Sadly, his stupidity and failures likely make him MORE dangerous, not less.....

We need to give him a way out. Or more specifically, Zelensky does......

Edit to add......Diageo and Brown Forman of my industry just stopped all biz in Russia. So much private sector damage has been done to Putin that government sanctions are almost not needed. This is why you don't invade nations in 2022, folks. And don't think China hasn't noticed this reaction.

He was shrewd enough that no one was able to deter him before he plunged Europe back into a war to restore Russia's historic borders.
He exploited European (& Wall St) naivete & greed to the point that he still holds an energy gun to the EU's head.
Don't celebrate his demise too soon. This is far from over & could get (much) worse before (& if) it gets better.

I think we can agree with the bolded in red, and sure hope that the bolded in blue is true.

If there's any 'good news' on that latter, Xi is far more interested in the Chinese people's prosperity than is Putin, who is solely a kleptocrat who seems to have gone over the edge with power. So, Xi may be more influenced by seeing the repercussions economically than Putin, who already has such massive wealth it doesn't matter (other than personally surviving).

Xi may also be more patient. Maybe. But "unification" of China and the Chinese people is a preeminent ideology that animates everything in China. On the other hand, Taiwan itself was never part of China, just the people who fled there...so, maybe Xi plays a long game of 'unification' slowly absorbing through economic ties versus a military assault. Maybe.

[MDlaxfan76]

Snapshot of US reinforcement of NATO, to date.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... aine-nato/

...U.S. troops across Europe, whose numbers have jumped since the Ukraine threat surfaced in October from a normal 65,000 to about 100,000.

Though it’s largely invisible to the public, the United States has moved an astonishing military presence forward in Europe, from a mere 200 in Hungary and 350 in Bulgaria to 2,500 in the Baltic states, 10,000 in Poland and 38,500 in Germany — forces in 17 countries, bolstered by 11,000 in ships at sea. It’s a forbidding display of force.

At one stop near the Ukrainian border, we watched one of the 14 widebody cargo planes that arrive at the local airfield each day with Western weapons; near the runway stood a rack of Javelin antitank missiles, awaiting shipment into Ukraine. If you want to see where they end up, just watch the videos on social media of Russian tanks and trucks exploding into fire.

Sounds like this has been more quiet, but quite important.

[a fan]

He was shrewd enough that no one was able to deter him before he plunged Europe back into a war to restore Russia's historic borders.

That's not shrewdness. That's because he has nukes, OS.

Again----we can invade Mexico any time we wish. In what world would that be viewed as shrewd? There's nothing shrewd about it.

He exploited European (& Wall St) naivete & greed to the point that he still holds an energy gun to the EU's head.

And vice versa. How many times did I tell you that there are two ends to the Nord Pipeline? You didn't want to hear it. Now Putin has an even larger gun to his head. He's F'ed.

Don't celebrate his demise too soon. This is far from over & could get (much) worse before (& if) it gets better.

Never said a word about his demise. He could maintain power for another two decades, for all I know.

And I never said this was over. What I said was: Putin lost. That's 1000% true. What that loss looks like in the end....no one knows.

He could kill tens of thousands of people before he's done. Or he could sign a treaty next week. WHo the F knows?

[old salt]

He was shrewd enough that no one was able to deter him before he plunged Europe back into a war to restore Russia's historic borders.

That's not shrewdness. That's because he has nukes, OS.

It's because the EU can't survive, at this point, without Russian gas & oil.
We saw this coming. We warned them. Now we have to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.

[Essexfenwick]

He was shrewd enough that no one was able to deter him before he plunged Europe back into a war to restore Russia's historic borders.

That's not shrewdness. That's because he has nukes, OS.

It's because the EU can't survive, at this point, without Russian gas & oil.
We saw this coming. We warned them. Now we have to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.

We didn’t warn them

TRUMP warned them

[a fan]

He was shrewd enough that no one was able to deter him before he plunged Europe back into a war to restore Russia's historic borders.

That's not shrewdness. That's because he has nukes, OS.

It's because the EU can't survive, at this point, without Russian gas & oil.
We saw this coming. We warned them. Now we have to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.

And Russia can't survive without that money. You need trading partners, OS. I don't know how many more ways I can say it: trade ALWAYS has two sides.

[Carroll81]

Snapshot of US reinforcement of NATO, to date.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... aine-nato/

...U.S. troops across Europe, whose numbers have jumped since the Ukraine threat surfaced in October from a normal 65,000 to about 100,000.

Though it’s largely invisible to the public, the United States has moved an astonishing military presence forward in Europe, from a mere 200 in Hungary and 350 in Bulgaria to 2,500 in the Baltic states, 10,000 in Poland and 38,500 in Germany — forces in 17 countries, bolstered by 11,000 in ships at sea. It’s a forbidding display of force.

At one stop near the Ukrainian border, we watched one of the 14 widebody cargo planes that arrive at the local airfield each day with Western weapons; near the runway stood a rack of Javelin antitank missiles, awaiting shipment into Ukraine. If you want to see where they end up, just watch the videos on social media of Russian tanks and trucks exploding into fire.

OS, who pays for this? Is it part of the increase to 2% that the NATO allies have added? Does it go into the "Training" column of the US Defense budget? Does it just disappear in the US budget, never to be spoken of?

[old salt]

Snapshot of US reinforcement of NATO, to date.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... aine-nato/

...U.S. troops across Europe, whose numbers have jumped since the Ukraine threat surfaced in October from a normal 65,000 to about 100,000.

Though it’s largely invisible to the public, the United States has moved an astonishing military presence forward in Europe, from a mere 200 in Hungary and 350 in Bulgaria to 2,500 in the Baltic states, 10,000 in Poland and 38,500 in Germany — forces in 17 countries, bolstered by 11,000 in ships at sea. It’s a forbidding display of force.

At one stop near the Ukrainian border, we watched one of the 14 widebody cargo planes that arrive at the local airfield each day with Western weapons; near the runway stood a rack of Javelin antitank missiles, awaiting shipment into Ukraine. If you want to see where they end up, just watch the videos on social media of Russian tanks and trucks exploding into fire.

OS, who pays for this? Is it part of the increase to 2% that the NATO allies have added? Does it go into the "Training" column of the US Defense budget? Does it just disappear in the US budget, never to be spoken of?

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pent ... raine-aid/

Budget deal would fully fund Defense Department, add $13.6 billion in Ukraine aid
By Leo Shane III and Joe Gould
Mar 9, 09:34 AM

Congressional leaders on Wednesday unveiled a compromise budget bill which includes Defense Department funding for the rest of fiscal 2022 and $13.6 billion extra in emergency assistance for Ukraine and NATO allies.
Now they have to pass it.
House and Senate appropriators worked late into the night on the $1.5 trillion measure, which includes $728.5 billion in military spending for the year. That’s a 5.6 percent boost over fiscal 2021 funding levels, and above what President Joe Biden had requested in his federal spending plan.

In recent months, Defense Department leaders have been forced to move money between various accounts to offset funding shortfalls caused by short-term budget extensions passed by Congress. The current fiscal year began on Oct. 1, meaning federal agencies have been operating without a permanent budget deal for nearly six months.

The latest budget breakthrough will require lawmakers to pass one more short-term budget extension — through March 15 — to give lawmakers time to finalize the larger, year-long deal. Chamber leaders said they’ll work on that over the next few days.

Ukraine aid
In addition to the base budget, lawmakers added $13.6 billion to the budget package to provide additional aid and assistance to Ukraine and NATO countries alarmed by Russia’s aggression in eastern Europe over the last few weeks.

Ukrainian leaders have pressed for additional military and humanitarian aid to combat the full-scale Russian invasion of their country which began on Feb. 24. Since then, thousands of Russian troops, Ukrainian military members and Ukrainian civilians have been killed in the fighting.

Congress plans to divide the emergency funding among several agencies. About $6.5 billion will go to the Department of Defense, with more than half of that total set aside to restore military stocks of equipment already transferred to Ukraine.

About $3.1 billion will cover “deployment, operational, and intelligence costs” for U.S. forces deployed to Europe in response to the Russian actions. Nearly 15,000 American service members have been deployed to the region in support of NATO allies in recent weeks, but none have been sent into Ukraine itself.

The bill also funds the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative — used to help train and equip the Ukrainian military — at $300 million.

The State Department will receive about $4 billion for “the rapidly expanding humanitarian crisis in Ukraine.” Officials say more than 12 million people in the region are in need of food, shelter, and other basic necessities because of shortages caused by the fighting.

Another $650 million would be provided for military support and “an expansion of existing authorities to bolster the defense capabilities of the Ukrainian military and regional allies.”

Other money would be set aside to enforce sanctions against Russia for the military assault and for economic assistance for Ukraine and other European allies.

Defense funding
The military spending totals in the budget compromise bill include funding for the 2.7 percent military pay raise that went into effect on January 1 and enough personnel support for an end strength of 1.34 million troops, slightly below the fiscal 2021 total.

Lawmakers also included $278 million in housing assistance for military families facing rental cost increases and other housing issues caused by ongoing coronavirus pandemic, and $686 million to deal with the continuing water contamination issue linked to the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility in Hawaii.

About $1.4 billion would be set aside for “Countering China and investing in the Indo-Pacific,” to include new missile tracking efforts in the region and establishing new defense monitoring stations in Hawaii and Guam.

For the Navy, lawmakers agreed to $26.7 billion for 13 Naval vessels, including two VIrginia-Class submarines, two DDG- 51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers, one Constellation-Class frigate, one expeditionary sea base, two fast transports (including one medical variant), two oilers, two tugs, and one surveillance ship.

Navy and Marine aircraft procurement accounts rose more than $1 billon above Biden’s request, for 12 more F/A-18E/F Hornets, two more CH-53K King Stallions, four added MV-22 Ospreys and two more MQ-4 Tritons.

The Navy’s Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan won more than $500 million above Biden’s request, largely split between industrial equipment and facility renovations.

For the Air Force, appropriators highlighted $1.8 billion to buy 16 C-130J aircraft to modernize two Air National Guard operational wings. They added eight UH-1N replacement aircraft and four MQ-9s among other moves.

For the Army, appropriators added about $500 million for Army aircraft, chiefly to add more UH-60 Blackhawks, CH-47 Chinooks and Grey Eagle drones. They also added more than $300 million for Stryker and Abrams upgrades.

The bill’s security assistance funding included a sought-after $1 billion for Israel to replenish the Iron Dome missile defense system, used earlier this year to counter rockets fired at the Jewish State from Gaza.

In addition to the Ukraine aid, the new defense budget plan also contains more money for other security cooperation programs, including $165 million for coordination with African nations, $500 million to support Iraqi security forces, and $300 million for work with Eastern European partners “facing Russian aggression.”

Veterans Affairs funding
Under the compromise budget, the Department of Veterans Affairs would see nearly $270 billion in available spending this fiscal year, the largest budget in agency history.

In fiscal 2001, the VA budget totaled about $45 billion. By fiscal 2011, it was about $125 billion, almost triple that total. Ten years later, in 2021, the department’s budget was nearly double that again, at $245 billion.

The new funding plan would invest more money in mental health care initiatives ($13.2 billion, up 28 percent from fiscal 2021), efforts to prevent veterans homelessness ($2.2 billion, up 12 percent) and women’s health care programs ($840 million, up 14 percent).

The plan also calls for $1.4 billion in spending for VA’s caregiver support programs, up about 14 percent from last year. The program is scheduled to undergo a major expansion this fall, potentially adding tens of thousands more veterans.

Lawmakers also allotted more money for major and minor construction projects (up 23 percent and 40 percent, respectively), but the roughly $2.1 billion in total spending for those accounts still falls short of what advocates say is needed to update the department’s aging infrastructure.