Last week's decision by the Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby to halt some munitions transfers to Ukraine pending a review of depleted U.S. stockpiles reportedly came as a surprise to Kyiv. It was also roundly denounced by many commentators, with The Atlantic's Anne Applebaum citing the pause as evidence that the U.S. is shifting toward open realignment with the Russian aggressors.
It's understandable why Ukraine, more than three years into a grim and
unwanted war, would raise objections. But for the U.S., the decision is
more than defensible—and far from evidence of alignment with Moscow. On
the contrary, serious analyses indicate it's a step toward a needed
refocusing on more pressing security concerns for America.
The stockpile shortages are real
- "The U.S. is overstretched and has a bad tendency to do everything
everywhere, all of the time," wrote DEFP Fellow Daniel DePetris. "Yet
folks are shocked U.S. weapons stockpiles are low and the Trump
administration has to make decisions about where to send key defense
platforms—or even if it can afford to do so." [X / DePetris]
- "At current and projected levels of production, it will take years
for the defense industry to replace what has been sent to Ukraine," explained Dan Caldwell in a letter to The Wall Street Journal:
- Past transfers include "more than 3,000 Stinger missiles and
millions of artillery rounds. After shutting down production for 20
years, the U.S. makes up to 60 Stingers a month. At that rate, replacing
the equipment sent to Kyiv will take more than four years."
- "Difficult trade-offs also exist with Patriot missiles, which were
recently used to protect U.S. troops in Qatar during Iran's retaliatory
strikes," and given recent escalations in the Mideast, "it would be
foolish to give away any more of these essential weapons." [WSJ / Dan Caldwell]
The U.S. has more pressing priorities than Ukraine
- "I do think it's the right call" to withhold some weapons from Ukraine, DEFP Senior Fellow Jennifer Kavanagh argued on PBS Newshour,
"and it’s a necessary call. The number-one priority for the Pentagon
has to be making sure that U.S. military forces are ready to protect
themselves and to execute their top-priority missions abroad."
- "Right now, the Pentagon has made clear that those [missions] are 1) homeland defense, 2) Asia, and 3) the Middle East."
- "Ukraine is simply not an existential threat to the United States. It's the lowest priority."
- "The Pentagon has also made clear that this is a pause, not a
halt. They're reviewing arms deliveries, and they're continuing to
provide other types of weapons that are in greater supply. But U.S.
stockpiles are very low, even to the point of interfering with training,
so this is a necessary and—I believe—the right decision." [PBS / Kavanagh]
This pause won't decide Ukraine's fate
- There's no obvious, cheap path to peace to Ukraine, DePetris acknowledged:
- "Shoveling more arms to Ukraine might hold the line but is
unlikely to force Putin to reassess things. Negotiations don't seem to
be working—Putin isn't taking them seriously. Walking away and handing
the Ukraine file to Europe is an option but Europe would truly have to
step up."
- Realistically, DePetris concluded, "No option is easy or cost-free." Washington and Kyiv alike would be well-served by acknowledging this truth. [X / DePetris]
- Kavanagh also noted that "Ukraine's biggest problem right now is
not a shortage of weapons but a shortage of manpower," and the pause
isn't likely to be a determinant of strategy for Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
- "Ultimately, [peace in Ukraine] has to be a decision of the
combatants to be ready to stop fighting, and it's clear that we’re not
at that point yet."
- Maybe eventually "there could be an opening for more serious
diplomacy, but in the very near term the number-one thing the United
States needs to do is to protect its own interests and conserve those
munitions." [PBS / Kavanagh]
| | |