Tag: Ukraine

Ukraine army discipline crackdown sparks fear and fury on the front

[ad_1]
KYIV — President Volodymyr Zelenskyy refused to veto a new law that strengthens punishment for wayward military personnel on Thursday, rejecting a petition signed by over 25,000 Ukrainians who argue it’s too harsh.
“The key to the combat capability of military units and ultimately of Ukraine’s victory, is compliance with military discipline,” Zelenskyy said in his written response to the petition.
Ukrainian soldiers have stunned the world with their resilience and battlefield successes, withstanding a year-long onslaught from Russian troops. But among Kyiv’s forces, made up largely of fresh recruits lacking previous military experience or training, some are struggling to cope. There are those who have rebelled against commanders’ orders, gotten drunk or misbehaved; others, running low on ammunition and morale, have fled for their lives, abandoning their positions.
Seeking to bring his forces into line, Zelenskyy in January signed into force a punitive law that introduces harsher punishment for deserters and wayward soldiers, and strips them of their right to appeal.
The law aims to standardize and toughen the repercussions for rule-breaking, improving discipline and the combat readiness of military units. Disobedience will be punishable by five to eight years in prison, rather than the previous two to seven; desertion or failure to appear for duty without a valid reason by up to 10 years. Threatening commanders, consuming alcohol, questioning orders and many other violations will also be dealt with more harshly, potentially with prison time; those who broke these rules in the past may have gotten away with a probation period or the docking of their combat pay.
Those who lobbied in favor of the new law, such as the Ukrainian Army General Staff, argue it will make discipline fairer: Previously, because courts adjudicated infractions on a case-by-case basis, some perpetrators were able to escape punishment for serious rule-breaking entirely, while others received harsher sentences for less significant violations, according to an explanatory note that accompanied the new law.
But soldiers, lawyers and human rights watchdogs have slammed the measures as an inappropriate and blunt instrument that won’t deal with the root causes of military indiscipline — and over 25,000 Ukrainians called on the president to veto the law altogether in a petition submitted to the president late last year.
The new punitive rules remove discretion and turn courts into a “calculator” for doling out punishment to soldiers, regardless of the reasons for their offenses, lawyer Anton Didenko argued in a column on Ukraine’s Interfax news agency.

“This law will have negative consequences for the protection of the rights of military personnel who are accused of committing a crime and will reduce the level of motivation during service,” an NGO, called the Reanimation Package of Reforms Coalition, said in a statement. “This can carry risks both for the protection of human rights and for the defense capability of the state.”
Zelenskyy’s military commanders disagree, arguing the measures are necessary to hold firm in the face of Russia’s assault.
Ukraine’s armed forces have swelled to over a million soldiers in the past year | Sameer Al-Doumy/AFP via Getty Images
“The army is based on discipline. And if the gaps in the legislation do not ensure compliance, and refuseniks can pay a fine of up to 10 percent of combat pay or receive a punishment with probation, this is unfair,” argued the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valerii Zaluzhnyi in a video in favor of the new rules.
Zelenskyy, in his response to the popular petition asking him to scrap the changes, agreed that disciplinary action against military personnel should take into account their individual circumstances, and promised that the cabinet of ministers would further consider how to improve the disciplinary mechanism — though he did not specify when this work might be done; nor suspend the law in the meantime.
Army of civilians
Ukraine’s armed forces have swelled rapidly to over a million soldiers in the year since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022 — up from 250,000 personnel.
The influx of hundreds of thousands of new recruits, whom Ukraine has had to equip and train while withstanding the barrage from Russia, has compromised the usual vetting process and meant some unsuitable soldiers have ended up in combat, Valerii Markus, the chief master sergeant of the 47th Separate Assault Brigade, told subordinates in a lecture about “desertion at the front,” posted to his YouTube channel in January.
“We were trying to vet the candidates as well as we could in those circumstances,” Markus said. “However, many people in our own brigade don’t want to be there.” He said some of those who had joined up for the wrong motivations, such as for a pay check, subsequently “break down under pressure and want to flee; start to revolt.”
Markus said commanders frequently didn’t understand the problems and shortages faced by their troops on the ground due to local sergeants failing to communicate with them. He played videos of soldiers complaining about a lack of weapons or inappropriate or illegal orders from their commanders, before telling those in the audience that most problems could be resolved internally through the proper channels, while publicly airing complaints discredited Ukraine’s army and undermined attempts to help troops.
“Do I recognize the existence of problems that lead to the arbitrary abandonment of positions? Yes,” Zaluzhnyi said in his video supporting the reforms. “Am I working on their elimination? Successful operations to liberate the territories of our state are a confirmation of that.”
But members of Ukraine’s armed forces, many of whom have expressed respect for Zaluzhnyi, were deeply disappointed by his support of the new law.
“It is very demotivating. This is such a striking contrast with Zaluzhnyi’s human- and leader-oriented ‘religion,’” said Eugenia Zakrevska, a human rights lawyer who enlisted in the war effort and is now a member of the 92nd Ivan Sirko Separate Mechanized Brigade. This was a pointed reference to an interview the commander-in-chief gave to the Economist in December, in which he said that unlike the Kremlin, the “religion” he and Ukraine practised was “to remain human in any situation.”
Treating the symptoms, not the disease
Those who oppose the new law argue that Ukraine needs to deal with the underlying causes of desertion and misbehavior, rather than punishing soldiers who break the rules more harshly.
A Ukrainian army officer who recently left the frontline city of Bakhmut (and requested anonymity as officers are not authorized to speak to the press) told POLITICO: “Sometimes abandonment of positions becomes the only way to save personnel from senseless death. If they cannot deliver ammunition or [relieve troops], when you sit in the trenches for several days without sleep or rest, your combat value goes to zero.”
In responding to the petition asking him to reconsider, President Zelenskyy agreed that disciplinary action should take into account the individual circumstances of military personnel | Yuriy Dyachyshyn/ AFP via Getty Images
The officer added that many discipline problems are rooted in ineffective or careless command, as well as the strain placed on Kyiv’s forces battling a far larger army of invaders, meaning they are not rotated as often as they ought to be.
“Fatigue and trauma lead to mental disorders, and bring chaos, negligence and even depravity into a soldier’s life. This strongly affects fighting qualities and obedience,” the officer said.
Zakrevska, from the Ivan Sirko brigade, said Ukrainian soldiers rarely abandon their positions — continuing to fight even when outnumbered and carrying significant casualties.
“Once, I had to call the command and ask for our sergeant to be ordered to go to the hospital — because he refused evacuation even though he was badly wounded,” Zakrevska said. “He stayed with us, although he could not get proper medical help as our doctor was also injured.”
It is only out of sheer desperation that soldiers leave their posts, Zakrevska argued, adding that to prevent desertion, commanders should rotate fighters more frequently. But she acknowledged that in many places, R&R for the troops is impossible due to a shortage of combat-capable fighters.
Most brigades are full, Zakrevska said — but some of those in them aren’t fit to fight, and “it is impossible to fire them. Because no one can be fired from the army at all. Only after a verdict in a criminal case. Such a system also greatly undermines morale. Because it turns service in the army from an honorable duty into a punishment.”
“In the situations of despair and complete exhaustion, fear of criminal liability does not work,” Zakrevska argued.

[ad_2]
#Ukraine #army #discipline #crackdown #sparks #fear #fury #front
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )

January 31, 2023
Putin is not mad, just ‘radically rational,’ says former French president

[ad_1]
Press play to listen to this article
Voiced by artificial intelligence.
PARIS — Vladimir Putin is a “radically rational” leader who is betting that Western countries will grow tired of backing Ukraine and agree a negotiated end to the conflict that will be favorable to Russia, former French President François Hollande told POLITICO.
Hollande, who served from 2012 to 2017, has plenty of first-hand experience with Putin. He led negotiations with the Russian leader, along with former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, under the so-called Normandy format in 2014 after Moscow annexed Crimea from Ukraine and supported pro-Russian separatists in the Donbass region.
But those efforts at dialogue proved fruitless, exposing Putin as a leader who only understands strength and casting doubt on all later attempts at talks — including a controversial solo effort led by current French President Emmanuel Macron, Hollande said in an interview at his Paris office.

“He [Putin] is a radically rational person, or a rationally radical person, as you like,” said the former French leader, when asked if Putin could seek to widen the conflict beyond Ukraine. “He’s got his own reasoning and within that framework, he’s ready to use force. He’s only able to understand the [power] dynamic that we’re able to set up against him.”
Ahead of the one-year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, Hollande added that Putin would seek to “consolidate his gains to stabilize the conflict, hoping that public opinion will get tired and that Europeans will fear escalation in order to bring up at that stage the prospect of a negotiation.”
But unlike when he was in power and Paris and Berlin led talks with Putin, this time the job of mediating is likely to fall to Turkey or China — “which won’t be reassuring for anyone,” Hollande said.
Macron, who served as Hollande’s economy minister before leaving his government and going on to win the presidency in 2017, has tried his own hand at diplomacy with Russia, holding numerous one-on-one calls with Putin both before and after his invasion of Ukraine.
But the outreach didn’t yield any clear results, prompting criticism from Ukraine and Eastern Europeans who also objected to Macron saying that Russia would require “security guarantees” after the war is over.
Hollande stopped short of criticizing his successor over the Putin outreach. It made sense to speak with Putin before the invasion to “deprive him of any arguments or pretexts,” he said. But after a “brief period of uncertainty” following the invasion, “the question [about the utility of dialogue] was unfortunately settled.”
Frustration with France and Germany’s leadership, or lack thereof, during the Ukraine war has bolstered arguments that power in Europe is moving eastward into the hands of countries like Poland, which have been most forthright in supporting Ukraine.
But Hollande wasn’t convinced, arguing that northern and eastern countries are casting in their lot with the United States at their own risk. “These countries, essentially the Baltics, the Scandinavians, are essentially tied to the United States. They see American protection as a shield.”
Former French President François Hollande | Antonio Cotrim/EFE via EPA
“Until today,” he continued, U.S. President Joe Biden has shown “exemplary solidarity and lived up to his role in the transatlantic alliance perfectly. But tomorrow, with a different American president and a more isolationist Congress, or at least less keen on spending, will the United States have the same attitude?”
“We must convince our partners that the European Union is about principles and political values. We should not deviate from them, but the partnership can also offer precious, and solid, security guarantees,” Hollande added.
Throwing shade
Hollande was one of France’s most unpopular presidents while in office, with approval ratings in the low single digits. But he has enjoyed something of a revival since leaving the Elysée and is now the country’s second-most popular politician behind former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, five spots ahead of Macron — in keeping with the adage that the French prefer their leaders when they are safely out of office.
His time in office was racked with crises. In addition to failed diplomacy over Ukraine, Hollande led France’s response to a series of terrorist attacks, presided over Europe’s sovereign debt crisis with Merkel, and faced massive street protests against labor reforms.
On that last point, Macron is now feeling some of the heat that Hollande felt during the last months of his presidency. More than a million French citizens have joined marches against a planned pension system reform, and further strikes are planned. Hollande criticized the reform plans, which would raise the age of retirement to 64, as poorly planned.
“Did the president choose the right time? Given the succession of crises and with elevated inflation, the French want to be reassured. Did the government propose the right reform? I don’t think so either — it’s seen as unfair and brutal,” said Hollande. “But now that a parliamentary process has been set into motion, the executive will have to strike a compromise or take the risk of going all the way and raising the level of anger.”
A notable difference between him and Macron is the quality of the Franco-German relationship. While Hollande and Merkel took pains to showcase a form of political friendship, the two sides have been plainly at odds under Macron — prompting a carefully-worded warning from the former commander-in-chief.
Former French President Francois Hollande with former German Chancellor Angela Merkel | Thierry Chesnot/Getty images
“In these moments when everything is being redefined, the Franco-German couple is the indispensable core that ensures the EU’s cohesion. But it needs to redefine the contributions of both parties and set new goals — including European defense,” said Hollande.
“It’s not about seeing one another more frequently, or speaking more plainly, but taking the new situation into account because if that work isn’t done, and if that political foundation isn’t secure, and if misunderstandings persist, it’s not just a bilateral disagreement between France and Germany that we’ll have, but a stalled European Union,” he said, adding that he “hoped” a recent Franco-German summit had “cleared up misunderstandings.”
The socialist leader also had some choice words for Macron over the way he’s trying to rally Europeans around a robust response to Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which offers major subsidies to American green industry. Several EU countries have come out against plans, touted by Paris, to create a “Buy European Act” and raise new money to support EU industries.
During a joint press conference on Monday, Macron and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte agreed to disagree on the EU’s response.
“On the IRA, France is discovering that its partners are, for the most part, liberal governments. When you tell the Dutch or the Scandinavians hear about direct aid [for companies], they hear something that goes against not just the spirit, but also the letter of the treaties,” Hollande said.
Another issue rattling European politics lately is the Qatargate corruption scandal, in which current and former MEPs as well as lobbyists are accused of taking cash in exchange for influencing the European Parliament’s work in favor of Qatar and Morocco.
Hollande recalled that his own administration had been hit by a scandal when his budget minister was found to be lying about Swiss bank accounts he’d failed to disclose from tax authorities. The scandal led to Hollande establishing the Haute autorité pour la transparence de la vie publique — an independent authority that audits public officials and has the power to refer any misdeeds to a prosecutor.
Now would be a good time for the EU to follow that example and establish an independent ethics body of its own, Hollande said.
“I think it’s a good institution that would have a role to play in Brussels,” he said. “Some countries will be totally in favor because integrity and transparency are part of their basic values. Others, like Poland and Hungary, will see a challenge to their sovereignty.”

[ad_2]
#Putin #mad #radically #rational #French #president
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )

January 31, 2023
Britain’s semiconductor plan goes AWOL as US and EU splash billions

[ad_1]
Press play to listen to this article
Voiced by artificial intelligence.
LONDON — As nations around the world scramble to secure crucial semiconductor supply chains over fears about relations with China, the U.K. is falling behind.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the world’s heavy reliance on Taiwan and China for the most advanced chips, which power everything from iPhones to advanced weapons. For the past two years, and amid mounting fears China could kick off a new global security crisis by invading Taiwan, Britain’s government has been readying a plan to diversify supply chains for key components and boost domestic production.
Yet according to people close to the strategy, the U.K.’s still-unseen plan — which missed its publication deadline last fall — has suffered from internal disconnect and government disarray, setting the country behind its global allies in a crucial race to become more self-reliant.

A lack of experience and joined-up policy-making in Whitehall, a period of intense political upheaval in Downing Street, and new U.S. controls on the export of advanced chips to China, have collectively stymied the U.K.’s efforts to develop its own coherent plan.
The way the strategy has been developed so far “is a mistake,” said a former senior Downing Street official.
Falling behind
During the pandemic, demand for semiconductors outstripped supply as consumers flocked to sort their home working setups. That led to major chip shortages — soon compounded by China’s tough “zero-COVID” policy.
Since a semiconductor fabrication plant is so technologically complex — a single laser in a chip lithography system of German firm Trumpf has 457,000 component parts — concentrating manufacturing in a few companies helped the industry innovate in the past.
But everything changed when COVID-19 struck.
“Governments suddenly woke up to the fact that — ‘hang on a second, these semiconductor things are quite important, and they all seem to be concentrated in a small number of places,’” said a senior British semiconductor industry executive.
Beijing’s launch of a hypersonic missile in 2021 also sent shivers through the Pentagon over China’s increasing ability to develop advanced AI-powered weapons. And Russia’s invasion of Ukraine added to geopolitical uncertainty, upping the pressure on governments to onshore manufacturers and reduce reliance on potential conflict hotspots like Taiwan.
Against this backdrop, many of the U.K.’s allies are investing billions in domestic manufacturing.
The Biden administration’s CHIPS Act, passed last summer, offers $52 billion in subsidies for semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S. The EU has its own €43 billion plan to subsidize production — although its own stance is not without critics. Emerging producers like India, Vietnam, Singapore and Japan are also making headway in their own multi-billion-dollar efforts to foster domestic manufacturing.
US President Joe Biden | Samuel Corum/Getty Images
Now the U.K. government is under mounting pressure to show its own hand. In a letter to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak first reported by the Times and also obtained by POLITICO, Britain’s semiconductor sector said its “confidence in the government’s ability to address the vital importance of the industry is steadily declining with each month of inaction.”
That followed the leak of an early copy of the U.K.’s semiconductor strategy, reported on by Bloomberg, warning that Britain’s over-dependence on Taiwan for its semiconductor foundries makes it vulnerable to any invasion of the island nation by China.
Taiwan, which Beijing considers part of its territory, makes more than 90 percent of the world’s advanced chips, with its Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) vital to the manufacture of British-designed semiconductors.
U.S. and EU action has already tempted TSMC to begin building new plants and foundries in Arizona and Germany.
“We critically depend on companies like TSMC,” said the industry executive quoted above. “It would be catastrophic for Western economies if they couldn’t get access to the leading-edge semiconductors any more.”
Whitehall at war
Yet there are concerns both inside and outside the British government that key Whitehall departments whose input on the strategy could be crucial are being left out in the cold.
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is preparing the U.K.’s plan and, according to observers, has fiercely maintained ownership of the project. DCMS is one of the smallest departments in Whitehall, and is nicknamed the ‘Ministry of Fun’ due to its oversight of sports and leisure, as well as issues related to tech.
“In other countries, semiconductor policies are the product of multiple players,” said Paul Triolo, a senior vice president at U.S.-based strategy firm ASG. This includes “legislative support for funding major subsidies packages, commercial and trade departments, R&D agencies, and high-level strategic policy bodies tasked with things like improving supply chain resilience,” he said.
“You need all elements of the U.K.’s capabilities. You need the diplomatic services, the security services. You need everyone working together on this,” said the former Downing Street official quoted above. “There are huge national security aspects to this.”
Referring to lower-level civil servants, the same person said that relying on “a few ‘Grade 6’ officials in DCMS — officials that don’t see the wider picture, or who don’t have either capability or knowledge,” is a mistake.
For its part, DCMS rejected the suggestion it is too closely guarding the plan, with a spokesperson saying the ministry is “working closely with industry experts and other government departments … so we can protect and grow our domestic sector and ensure greater supply chain resilience.”
The spokesperson said the strategy “will be published as soon as possible.”
But businesses keen for sight of the plan remain unconvinced the U.K. has the right team in place for the job.
Key Whitehall personnel who had been involved in project have now changed, the executive cited earlier said, and few of those writing the strategy “have much of a background in the industry, or much first-hand experience.”
Progress was also sidetracked last year by lengthy deliberations over whether the U.K. should block the sale of Newport Wafer Fab, Britain’s biggest semiconductor plant, to Chinese-owned Nexperia on national security grounds, according to two people directly involved in the strategy. The government eventually announced it would block the sale in November.
And while a draft of the plan existed last year, it never progressed to the all-important ministerial “write-around” process — which gives departments across Whitehall the chance to scrutinize and comment upon proposals.
Waiting for budget day
Two people familiar with current discussions about the strategy said ministers are now aiming to make their plan public in the run-up to, or around, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s March 15 budget statement, although they stressed that timing could still change.
Leaked details of the strategy indicate the government will set aside £1 billion to support chip makers. Further leaks indicate this will be used as seed money for startups, and for boosting existing firms and delivering new incentives for investors.
U.K. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt | Leon Neal/Getty Images
There is wrangling with the Treasury and other departments over the size of these subsidies. Experts also say it is unlikely to be ‘new’ money but diverted from other departments’ budgets.
“We’ll just have to wait for something more substantial,” said a spokesperson from one semiconductor firm commenting on the pre-strategy leaks.
But as the U.K. procrastinates, key British-linked firms are already being hit by the United States’ own fast-evolving semiconductor strategy. U.S. rules brought in last October — and beefed up in recent days by an agreement with the Netherlands — are preventing some firms from selling the most advanced chip designs and manufacturing equipment to China.
British-headquartered, Japanese-owned firm ARM — the crown jewel of Britain’s semiconductor industry, which sells some designs to smartphone manufacturers in China — is already seeing limits on what it can export. Other British firms like Graphcore, which develops chips for AI and machine learning, are feeling the pinch too.
“The U.K. needs to — at pace — understand what it wants its role to be in the industries that will define the future economy,” said Andy Burwell, director for international trade at business lobbying group the CBI.
Where do we go from here?
There are serious doubts both inside and outside government about whether Britain’s long-awaited plan can really get to the heart of what is a complex global challenge — and opinion is divided on whether aping the U.S. and EU’s subsidy packages is either possible or even desirable for the U.K.
A former senior government figure who worked on semiconductor policy said that while the U.K. definitely needs a “more coherent worked-out plan,” publishing a formal strategy may actually just reveal how “complicated, messy and beyond our control” the issue really is.
“It’s not that it is problematic that we don’t have a strategy,” they said. “It’s problematic that whatever strategy we have is not going to be revolutionary.” They described the idea of a “boosterish” multi-billion-pound investment in Britain’s own fabricator industry as “pie in the sky.”
The former Downing Street official said Britain should instead be seeking to work “in collaboration” with EU and U.S. partners, and must be “careful to avoid” a subsidy war with allies.
The opposition Labour Party, hot favorites to form the next government after an expected 2024 election, takes a similar view. “It’s not the case that the U.K. can do this on its own,” Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy said recently, urging ministers to team up with the EU to secure its supply of semiconductors.
One area where some experts believe the U.K. may be able to carve out a competitive advantage, however, is in the design of advanced semiconductors.
“The U.K. would probably be best placed to pursue support for start-up semiconductor design firms such as Graphcore,” said ASG’s Triolo, “and provide support for expansion of capacity at the existing small number of companies manufacturing at more mature nodes” such as Nexperia’s Newport Wafer Fab.
Ministers launched a research project in December aimed at tapping into the U.K. semiconductor sector’s existing strength in design. The government has so far poured £800 million into compound semiconductor research through universities, according to a recent report by the House of Commons business committee.
But the same group of MPs wants more action to support advanced chip design. Burwell at the CBI business group said the U.K. government must start “working alongside industry, rather than the government basically developing a strategy and then coming to industry afterwards.”
Right now the government is “out there a bit struggling to see what levers they have to pull,” said the senior semiconductor executive quoted earlier.
Under World Trade Organization rules, governments are allowed to subsidize their semiconductor manufacturing capabilities, the executive pointed out. “The U.S. is doing it. Europe’s doing it. Taiwan does it. We should do it too.”
Cristina Gallardo contributed reporting.

[ad_2]
#Britains #semiconductor #plan #AWOL #splash #billions
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )

January 31, 2023
Ukraine to get cold shoulder on rapid EU entry

[ad_1]
Press play to listen to this article
Voiced by artificial intelligence.
Top EU leaders are traveling to Ukraine this week, but they won’t be bringing promises that the war-torn country can join the bloc anytime soon.
Brussels is expected to pour cold water on Ukraine’s hopes that it could swiftly join the EU during a two-day summit in Kyiv, according to a draft statement set to be issued at the event and seen by POLITICO.
The statement makes no specific mention of the ambitious timeline Ukraine has set out, with the country’s prime minister, Denys Shmyhal, even telling POLITICO this week that he hopes to join within two years. Instead, the document offers only vague assurances about moving the process forward once all EU-mandated milestones are met.

“The EU will decide on further steps once all conditions specified in the Commission’s opinion are fully met,” the draft states. “Ukraine underlined its determination to meet the necessary requirements in order to start accession negotiations as soon as possible.”
The wording follows significant pushback from some EU countries about over-promising Ukraine on its EU membership prospects, a subject Kyiv asked to address at the summit, according to several EU diplomats and officials. Though EU national leaders will not be in attendance at Friday’s summit, officials at the European Council — which includes all 27 EU leaders — have been liaising with EU countries about the final communiqué.
EU leaders last June granted Ukraine formal candidate status in record time, but that move was much easier than rapidly moving Ukraine through the grueling negotiations required to align a candidate country with the EU’s byzantine systems, rules and regulations. That process typically takes years and years, and often stalls for long periods of time.
Still, EU countries have split over how quickly the bloc should try to move Ukraine through that accession process.
“There were clear tensions between Poland and the Baltic states on one hand and other EU countries on the language to EU accession,” said one EU official.
The official added that tensions between European Council President Charles Michel and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen are playing into the debate as well.
“They are in a race of outbidding each other toward the Ukrainians,” the official said.
Still, while no breakthroughs are expected in EU accession talks, there is a strong will in Brussels to show solidarity with Ukraine on other issues.
“The mere fact that we’re holding a summit in a country at war” is itself significant, said a senior EU official ahead of the meeting.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen | Sergei Supinsky/AFP via Getty Images
Indeed, a large gathering of senior EU leaders and commissioners are expected to make the trek to Kyiv this week for meetings with EU officials.
Progress is expected in certain areas — for example, an agreement on a visa-free regime for industrial goods; the suspension of customs duties on Ukrainian exports for another year; movement on Ukraine joining an EU payment scheme easing bank transfers in euros; and integrating Ukraine into the EU’s free mobile roaming area.
Also on the summit’s agenda will be Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s 10-point peace plan, the reconstruction challenge facing Ukraine, and food security issues, with the EU set to announce a new €‎25 million humanitarian aid package to address Russian mining in the country.
Another EU official said that the summit sends “a strong signal that we support a country that is a victim of aggression and we underline the right of Ukraine to have a just peace at the end of this war. Ukraine has been attacked, Ukraine has a right to self-defense which they’re exercising … and only this can be a basis for a just peace.”
Reform path
The document also stresses the need for “comprehensive and consistent implementation of judicial reforms” in line with the Venice Commission’s advice, citing, in particular, the need to reform Ukraine’s Constitutional Court.
Though Ukraine recently announced changes to the court, particularly on how judges are appointed, the Venice Commission — a prominent advisory body featuring constitutional law specialists — still has concerns about the powers and composition of the body that selects the court’s candidates.
Shmyhal told POLITICO this week that Ukraine will address these questions. Kyiv has been keen to signal it is clamping down on corruption amid concerns in Washington and Brussels.
“We are holding consultations with the European Commission to see that all issued conclusions may be incorporated into the text,” he said.

[ad_2]
#Ukraine #cold #shoulder #rapid #entry
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )

January 31, 2023
NATO’s new secretary-general, same as the old one?

[ad_1]
Press play to listen to this article
Voiced by artificial intelligence.
With war raging in Europe, the race to find NATO’s next chief is on.
Jens Stoltenberg was a steady hand as Western capitals rushed to help Ukraine push back invading Russian troops. But as his term expires in September, speculation is growing over who might succeed him.
Could it be a woman? Someone from Eastern Europe?

Moscow’s war greatly complicates the decision, which requires consensus among the leaders of NATO’s 30 member countries.
The next secretary-general must play a tough balancing act in encouraging capitals to continue supplying weapons to Ukraine and building up NATO’s own defenses — all while formally staying out of the conflict. Few pass muster for this highly sensitive role.
The “overall feeling,” said one senior NATO diplomat, is that it is “time for fresh air.”
But the allies may end up playing it safe after all, and sticking with Stoltenberg.
The Stoltenberg card
A senior European diplomat summed up the buzz around names in three tiers, ranked by intensity of chatter.
An extension of Stoltenberg’s term is the most-mentioned option.
A second tier includes Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas and British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace.
A third group of less frequently mentioned names, the diplomat said, consists of Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė, Slovakia’s President Zuzana Čaputová and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen of Germany.
Jens Stoltenberg was a steady hand as Western capitals rushed to help Ukraine push back invading Russian troops. But as his term expires in September, speculation is growing over who might succeed him | Valeria Mongell/AFP via Getty Images
Since all of NATO’s secretaries-general have thus far been male, there is pressure within the ranks to appoint a woman.
“Time for a female Sec Gen,” said the senior NATO diplomat. “If men try to hold their positions forever, fair representation of women will never have a chance.”
And some allies have pushed for more regional diversity. Stoltenberg, who has held the job since 2014, is a former Norwegian prime minister. His most recent predecessors were Danish, Dutch and British.
The current secretary-general’s term was quickly extended last March after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Many officials now believe that another extension for Stoltenberg, even if short, is a serious possibility.
The longtime leader is seen as a safe pair of hands. Despite some delegations preferring to see a fresh face soon, Stoltenberg is still perceived as a rare senior official who can keep his cool — and stick to the script — in even the gravest of crises.
“Stoltenberg wants to stay,” said the senior NATO diplomat.
But giving Stoltenberg a short extension could make a future replacement decision collide with the EU’s own top jobs competition in 2024, not to mention the upcoming U.S. presidential election — an outcome some allies would prefer to avoid.
A NATO spokesperson declined to elaborate on Stoltenberg’s future aspirations. Asked in December about the issue, the current secretary-general told the BBC: “My focus now is on my responsibilities.”
“I don’t speculate,” he added, “about what will happen after my tenure.”
The eastern front
Some see candidates from Eastern Europe as particularly suitable.
Already before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there was momentum for the alliance to select a secretary-general from the east. Some officials in the region argue that the war has since strengthened the case for someone from a country like Estonia or Lithuania.
Slovakia’s Zuzana Čaputová ticks both boxes as a female eastern candidate, though her name is mentioned less often in alliance circles | Pool photo by Adrian Dennis/Getty Images
“For years, the countries of the eastern flank have been warning about Russia’s threat,” said an official from the Baltics.
The region’s countries, the Baltic official said, were front-runners in boosting military spending and pushing the alliance to improve its defenses.
“It would be very logical and sobering,” the official continued, “to have someone who is experienced in dealing with Russia and who understands Russia’s logic and mentality, to lead the North Atlantic Alliance.”
Slovakia’s Čaputová ticks both boxes as a female eastern candidate, though her name is mentioned less often in alliance circles.
A spokesperson for Čaputová said she was focused on her current job, but said the possibility of a Slovak being floated for the NATO post was “a strong reflection of our foreign and security decisions.”
Another figure possibly in the running is Klaus Iohannis, Romania’s president. But he could face obstacles from neighboring Hungary, and opposition from those who would prefer a female candidate.
Some western capitals, however, would not support such candidates at the moment, seeing the alliance’s east — and the Baltic states in particular — as too hawkish when war is raging next door.
Estonia’s Kallas herself has played down expectations, telling local media in November that “the likelihood of an offer like this being made” is “extremely low.”
The Western option
Western NATO countries are for some allies a reliable fallback source for possible leadership.
Wallace, Britain’s defense secretary, is well respected and has previously said that NATO would be a “nice job.” However, numerous European capitals — in particular Paris — are expected to object to a London name and insist on an EU candidate.
One possible compromise being floated in Brussels is yet another secretary-general from the Netherlands. Dutch politicians have traditionally been a popular choice for the role, previously holding the post for three terms covering 21 years in the past six decades.
The Dutch are seen as serious on defense but not as hawkish as the Baltics — and the names of current Prime Minister Rutte, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Sigrid Kaag and Defense Minister Kajsa Ollongren are all circulating as possible candidates.
Asked about the speculation, Rutte said he wanted to “leave politics altogether and do something completely different.” The two Dutch ministers did not express interest in the job.
Commission President von der Leyen, a former German defense minister, is a female candidate who could gain support from western capitals nervous about the prospect of a leader from the eastern flank, but it’s unclear whether she is interested in the role. “We never comment on such speculations,” said a Commission spokesperson.
Although her reputation in security circles is mixed, von der Leyen is seen as a strong possible candidate regardless — if the timing aligns and she does not get a second term as European Commission president.
Other female politicians floated include Canada’s widely respected Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly. Nevertheless, officials say, as the alliance focuses on boosting its defenses, Ottawa’s low defense spending and non-European status mean that a Canadian is unlikely to get the job.
Amid all the speculation, some within the alliance dismiss the breathless names game.
“This is more a basket of names that came to anybody’s mind,” said a second senior European diplomat, adding: “My guess: Stoltenberg.”
Jacopo Barigazzi and Cristina Gallardo contributed reporting.

[ad_2]
#NATOs #newsecretarygeneral
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )

January 31, 2023
Biden seemingly rejects request to send U.S. F-16s to Ukraine

[ad_1]

But a U.S. official, when asked about Biden’s remark, said “there has been no serious, high-level discussion about F-16s.” In other words, it doesn’t appear that Biden’s pronouncement is the result of an internal policy review and instead is the current stance of the ultimate decision maker. That official spoke on condition of anonymity to reveal internal matters.
It’s also unclear from the video of the short exchange if the president’s “no” meant “never” or “not now.” The administration has said repeatedly that decisions about security assistance depend on battlefield realities in Ukraine. In a Thursday interview with MSNBC, deputy national security adviser Jon Finer said the U.S. would be discussing fighter jets “very carefully” with Kyiv and its allies.
“We have not ruled in or out any specific systems,” he added.
Another possibility is that the U.S. could approve the re-export of F-16s from third-party countries that operate them, a requirement for the transfer of the American-made warplanes.
Discussions about sending F-16s to Ukraine are gaining steam at the Pentagon, with one U.S. Defense Department official telling POLITICO last week: “I don’t think we are opposed.”
Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskyy, said Monday that Poland would be willing to provide its F-16s to Ukraine in coordination with NATO. Yet German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has repeatedly rejected any F-16-related requests emanating from Kyiv.
“The question of combat aircraft does not arise at all,” Scholz said in an interview with Tagesspiegel published on Sunday. “I can only advise against entering into a constant competition to outbid each other when it comes to weapons systems.”

[ad_2]
#Biden #seemingly #rejects #request #send #U.S #F16s #Ukraine
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

January 31, 2023
Lack of ability to tackle Ukraine war reflects UNSC’s ‘dysfunctional’ system: UNGA prez

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The “dysfunctional” system of the UN Security Council has been reflected in the “absurd” situation arising out of one of its permanent members attacking Ukraine and the global body’s failure to address it, UN General Assembly President Csaba Korosi said on Monday.
In an address at a think-tank, Korosi called for urgent reform of the UNSC to reflect the changing balance of global power and economic heft of various countries and criticized the slow process that was started around 17 years back to bring the changes.
India has been strongly demanding permanent membership in the UNSC considering the size of its population and role in international affairs. The current permanent members of the UNSC are China, France, Russia, the UK and the US.
Addressing a group of diplomats, strategic affairs experts, and academicians at the Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA), the UNGA president also wondered why there is still no agreement on a text to take forward the reform process.
“Does it have a time frame? No, I think it does not. Does it have a negotiated text, no it does not…Have you ever seen a negotiated process that has no text to negotiate? Have you ever seen a negotiating process that has no clear-cut timeframe for when to deliver,” he asked.
“Why the member states cannot do it? Because the interests are very much divided, and for some, it is more preferable to see the current dysfunctional stage than to embark on a reform,” he said.
The Hungarian diplomat, who is currently serving as the President of the 77th United Nations General Assembly, commended India’s call during its recent membership of the UN Security Council, for peace in Ukraine and its humanitarian aid for people hit by the conflict.
Korosi said the war in Ukraine has caused untold suffering and displacements and “unleashed” an energy and food crisis across the globe.

The president of the UN General Assembly, on a three-day visit to India also lauded New Delhi for sending medical aid and Covid-19 vaccines to a large number of countries to help them deal with the pandemic.
Korosi also complimented India for the safe evacuation of its citizens from Ukraine after Russia started its invasion of that country in February last year.
On the reform of the UN Security Council, the UNGA President urged the member states to make compromises and consider even making partial agreements under a step-by-step approach to reform of the UNSC. “Otherwise it will be very very difficult.”
Korosi identified the Ukraine war and lack of agreement on a text for taking forward the reform process.
“There are two major problems that we are facing. One was brought up by the war in Ukraine. The Security Council was created in 1945 to be the prime responsible organ for catering to international peace and security, to make sure that there would be no more wars,” he said.
The aim of the UNSC was to avert war and large-scale destruction, and, therefore, extraordinary powers have been placed into the hands of the Council, he said.
“What if the Security Council members, one of them, a permanent member that has those extraordinary powers including the Veto power, is the one attacking its neighbor? It created a situation where the Security Council is incapable of addressing this issue,” Korosi said.
“Since the very beginning of the war in Ukraine, the Security Council has not been able to take any decision on the war on Ukraine. So it is an absurd situation which is describing the dysfunction of the Council,” he said.
The UNGA president millions of people who were expecting the UN to deliver were frustrated by the UNSC’s approach towards the Ukraine crisis.
“If millions of people were expecting the Security Council to make sure that wars would not be repeated, they would be frustrated. I can understand that,” he said.
Korosi said the composition and the working method of the UNSC were based on the situation in 1945-46 following the Second World War.
“Since then, much has changed. The world economy has changed, the balance of power in the world has changed.. so it is absolutely understandable that the countries and the leaders of the world are more and more impatiently demanding that the Security Council should be reformed,” he said.
The UNGA president said the reform process can be taken forward if the member states want.
“It is up to the member states to come up with some kind of shared understanding. Some kind of compromise. I very strongly asked the member states to think very hard. Do you want to spend another 17 years on a process or do you want to see results as soon as possible.” he said.
“If they like to go for the second (option), they will have to make compromises, they will have to make agreements. Maybe partial agreements. Maybe a step-by-step approach. Otherwise, it will be very very difficult,” she said.
[ad_2]
#Lack #ability #tackle #Ukraine #war #reflects #UNSCs #dysfunctional #system #UNGA #prez
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 30, 2023
At the Pentagon, push to send F-16s to Ukraine picks up steam

[ad_1]

A contingent of military officials is quietly pushing the Pentagon to approve sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine to help the country defend itself from Russian missile and drone attacks, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.
Ukraine has kept American-made F-16s on its weapons wish list since the Russian invasion last year. But Washington and Kyiv have viewed artillery, armor and ground-based air defense systems as more urgent needs as Ukraine seeks to protect civilian infrastructure and claw back ground occupied by Russian forces.
As Ukraine prepares to launch a new offensive to retake territory in the spring, the campaign inside the Defense Department for fighter jets is gaining momentum, according to a DoD official and two other people involved in the discussions. Those people, along with others interviewed for this story, asked not to be named in order to discuss internal matters.
Spurred in part by the rapid approval of tanks and Patriot air defense systems — which not long ago were off-limits for export to Ukraine — there is renewed optimism in Kyiv that U.S. jets could be next up.
“I don’t think we are opposed,” said a senior DoD official about the F-16s, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive debate. The person stressed that there has been no final decision.
However, Ukraine has yet to declare that fighter jets are its top priority, the official stressed, noting that the Pentagon is focused on sending Kyiv the capabilities it needs for the immediate fight.
But fighter jets may be moving to the top spot soon. Kyiv has renewed its request for modern fighters in recent days, with a top adviser to the country’s defense minister telling media outlets that officials will push for jets from the U.S. and European countries.
A top Ukrainian official said Saturday that Ukraine and its Western allies are engaged in “fast-track” talks on possibly sending both long-range missiles and military aircraft.

One adviser to the Ukrainian government said the subject has been raised with Washington, but there has been “nothing too serious” on the table yet. Another person familiar with the conversations between Washington and Kyiv said it could take “weeks” for the U.S. to make a decision on shipments of its own jets and approve the re-export of the F-16s from other countries.
“If we get them, the advantages on the battlefield will be just immense. … It’s not just F-16s: fourth generation aircraft, this is what we want,” Yuriy Sak, who advises Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov, told Reuters.
A White House spokesperson declined to comment for this story, but pointed to remarks by deputy national security adviser Jon Finer. He said the U.S. would be discussing fighter jets “very carefully” with Kyiv and its allies.
“We have not ruled in or out any specific systems,” Finer said on MSNBC Thursday.
Ukraine wants modern fighters — U.S. Air Force F-16s or F-15s, or their European equivalents the German Tornado or Swedish Gripen — to replace its fleet of Soviet-era jets. Dozens of the more modern planes will become available over the next year as countries such as Finland, Germany and the Netherlands upgrade to U.S. F-35 fighters.
Despite the age of Ukraine’s jets, Kyiv’s integrated air defenses have kept Russia from dominating its skies since the Feb. 24 invasion.
But now, officials are concerned that Ukraine is running out of missiles to protect its skies. Once its arsenal is depleted, Russia’s advanced fighter jets will be able to move in and Kyiv “will not be able to compete,” said the DoD official involved in the discussions.
Modern fighter jets could be one solution to this problem, argues a group of military officials in the Pentagon and elsewhere. F-16s carry air-to-air missiles that can shoot down incoming missiles and drones. And unlike the Patriots and National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems the West is currently sending, fighter jets can move around an area quickly to protect different targets.
“If they get [F-16] Vipers and they have an active air-to-air missile with the radar the F-16 currently has with some electronic protection, now it’s an even game,” the DoD official said.
Even if the U.S. decided not to send the Air Force’s F-16s, other Western nations have American-made fighters they could supply. For example, Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Wopke Hoekstra told the Dutch parliament last week that his Cabinet would look at supplying F-16s, if Kyiv requests them. But the U.S. must approve the transfer.
Senior Pentagon officials acknowledge that Ukraine needs new aircraft for the long term. But for now, some argue that Ukraine has a greater need for more traditional air defenses, such as the Patriots and NASAMs that the U.S. and other countries are supplying, because jets may take months to arrive.
Sending Ukraine F-16s “does not solve the cruise missile or drone problem right now,” the senior DoD official said.
Big push for training
Others say the need for fighter jets is more urgent. Ukraine has identified a list of up to 50 pilots who are ready now to start training on the F-16, according to a DoD official and a Ukrainian official, as well as three other people familiar with the discussions. These seasoned pilots speak English and have thousands of combat missions under their belts, and could be trained in as little as three months, the people said.
Many of them have already trained with the U.S. military in major exercises before the invasion. In 2011 and 2018, Americans and Ukrainians participated in military drills in the skies over Ukraine. In 2011, the Americans brought over their F-16s and taught the Ukrainian pilots, in their MiG-29s and Su-27s, how to protect a stadium in preparation for the 2012 Euro Cup.
After Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, the U.S. and Ukraine held a second joint 2018 exercise aimed at teaching Ukrainian pilots homeland defense tactics and controlling the skies. The American pilots used their F-15s to replicate Russian fighter tactics.
Ukraine is pushing the U.S. to start training its fighter pilots on the F-16s now, before President Joe Biden approves supplying the jets, according to the Ukrainian official and one of the people familiar. But there is no appetite in the Pentagon for this proposal, U.S. officials said. One alternative under discussion at lower levels is to start training Ukrainian pilots on introductory fighter tactics in trainer jets.
Ukraine has also considered contracting with private companies in the U.S. to begin training pilots, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.
It’s likely U.S. military training would not start without a presidential decision to supply American fighters. One concern for the Biden administration all along is that sending advanced weapons could be seen by Russia as an escalation, prompting Vladimir Putin to use nuclear weapons.
But officials point out that the F-16 was first built in the 1980s, and the Air Force is already retiring parts of the fleet. While sending Ukraine the stealthy American F-22s or F-35s would be considered escalatory, sending F-16s would not, they said.
“Let’s face it, a nuclear war isn’t going to happen over F-16s,” the DoD official said.
One European official agreed, saying F-16s “cannot be considered escalatory.”
“It’s simply part of the toolkit of having conventional weapons,” the person said.
Yet F-16s are complex systems that also require massive infrastructure and highly skilled technicians to operate and maintain. Training Ukrainian maintainers would likely take longer than training the pilots, and the U.S. may need to bring in contractors to do some of that instruction.
Lawmaker support
Providing F-16s is likely to win some support on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans alike have chided the administration for not moving quickly enough or for withholding certain capabilities, such as longer-range artillery. Sending Russian-made MiG fighters to Ukraine, via Eastern European countries that still fly them, won bipartisan support, though a weapons swap ultimately never came to fruition.
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who co-chairs the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, said he’s “not against” providing F-16s to Kyiv, but broadly favors providing Ukraine with “whatever works.”
“You can’t half-ass a war. Putin’s not. You’ve got to meet Putin armor for armor, weapon for weapon, because there’s already an extraordinary disadvantage in number of troops,” Quigley said. “Whatever works, whatever they need, send to them.
“My message when I first started talking about this is what were once vices are now habits,” he said. “Everything we ever proposed was seen as escalatory.”
But the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), cast doubt on the need to send F-16s into the conflict, where fighters haven’t proved pivotal.
“I’m not opposed to it,” Smith said. “It’s just not at the top of the list of anybody’s priorities who’s focused on what [weapons] the fight really needs right now.”
He noted that F-16s, much like older MiG jets debated last year, would be vulnerable to Russian air defenses and fifth-generation fighters. Instead, Smith underscored the need to supply ammunition for air defense batteries, longer-range missiles, tanks and armored vehicles.
“What we really need to be focused on is air defense, number one,” he said. “And number two, artillery.”
[ad_2]
#Pentagon #push #send #F16s #Ukraine #picks #steam
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

January 29, 2023
At the Pentagon, push to send F-16s to Ukraine picks up steam

[ad_1]

Spurred in part by the rapid approval of tanks and Patriot air defense systems — which not long ago were off-limits for export to Ukraine — there is renewed optimism in Kyiv that U.S. jets could be next up.
“I don’t think we are opposed,” said a senior DoD official about the F-16s, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive debate. The person stressed that there has been no final decision.
However, Ukraine has yet to declare that fighter jets are its top priority, the official stressed, noting that the Pentagon is focused on sending Kyiv the capabilities it needs for the immediate fight.
But fighter jets may be moving to the top spot soon. Kyiv has renewed its request for modern fighters in recent days, with a top adviser to the country’s defense minister telling media outlets that officials will push for jets from the U.S. and European countries.
A top Ukrainian official said Saturday that Ukraine and its Western allies are engaged in “fast-track” talks on possibly sending both long-range missiles and military aircraft.
One adviser to the Ukrainian government said the subject has been raised with Washington, but there has been “nothing too serious” on the table yet. Another person familiar with the conversations between Washington and Kyiv said it could take “weeks” for the U.S. to make a decision on shipments of its own jets and approve the re-export of the F-16s from other countries.
“If we get them, the advantages on the battlefield will be just immense. … It’s not just F-16s: fourth generation aircraft, this is what we want,” Yuriy Sak, who advises Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov, told Reuters.
A White House spokesperson declined to comment for this story, but pointed to remarks by deputy national security adviser Jon Finer. He said the U.S. would be discussing fighter jets “very carefully” with Kyiv and its allies.

“We have not ruled in or out any specific systems,” Finer said on MSNBC Thursday.
Ukraine wants modern fighters — U.S. Air Force F-16s or F-15s, or their European equivalents the German Tornado or Swedish Gripen — to replace its fleet of Soviet-era jets. Dozens of the more modern planes will become available over the next year as countries such as Finland, Germany and the Netherlands upgrade to U.S. F-35 fighters.
Despite the age of Ukraine’s jets, Kyiv’s integrated air defenses have kept Russia from dominating its skies since the Feb. 24 invasion.
But now, officials are concerned that Ukraine is running out of missiles to protect its skies. Once its arsenal is depleted, Russia’s advanced fighter jets will be able to move in and Kyiv “will not be able to compete,” said the DoD official involved in the discussions.
Modern fighter jets could be one solution to this problem, argues a group of military officials in the Pentagon and elsewhere. F-16s carry air-to-air missiles that can shoot down incoming missiles and drones. And unlike the Patriots and National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems the West is currently sending, fighter jets can move around an area quickly to protect different targets.
“If they get [F-16] Vipers and they have an active air-to-air missile with the radar the F-16 currently has with some electronic protection, now it’s an even game,” the DoD official said.
Even if the U.S. decided not to send the Air Force’s F-16s, other Western nations have American-made fighters they could supply. For example, Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Wopke Hoekstra told the Dutch parliament last week that his Cabinet would look at supplying F-16s, if Kyiv requests them. But the U.S. must approve the transfer.
Senior Pentagon officials acknowledge that Ukraine needs new aircraft for the long term. But for now, some argue that Ukraine has a greater need for more traditional air defenses, such as the Patriots and NASAMs that the U.S. and other countries are supplying, because jets may take months to arrive.
Sending Ukraine F-16s “does not solve the cruise missile or drone problem right now,” the senior DoD official said.
Big push for training
Others say the need for fighter jets is more urgent. Ukraine has identified a list of up to 50 pilots who are ready now to start training on the F-16, according to a DoD official and a Ukrainian official, as well as three other people familiar with the discussions. These seasoned pilots speak English and have thousands of combat missions under their belts, and could be trained in as little as three months, the people said.
Many of them have already trained with the U.S. military in major exercises before the invasion. In 2011 and 2018, Americans and Ukrainians participated in military drills in the skies over Ukraine. In 2011, the Americans brought over their F-16s and taught the Ukrainian pilots, in their MiG-29s and Su-27s, how to protect a stadium in preparation for the 2012 Euro Cup.
After Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, the U.S. and Ukraine held a second joint 2018 exercise aimed at teaching Ukrainian pilots homeland defense tactics and controlling the skies. The American pilots used their F-15s to replicate Russian fighter tactics.
Ukraine is pushing the U.S. to start training its fighter pilots on the F-16s now, before President Joe Biden approves supplying the jets, according to the Ukrainian official and one of the people familiar. But there is no appetite in the Pentagon for this proposal, U.S. officials said. One alternative under discussion at lower levels is to start training Ukrainian pilots on introductory fighter tactics in trainer jets.
Ukraine has also considered contracting with private companies in the U.S. to begin training pilots, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.
It’s likely U.S. military training would not start without a presidential decision to supply American fighters. One concern for the Biden administration all along is that sending advanced weapons could be seen by Russia as an escalation, prompting Vladimir Putin to use nuclear weapons.
But officials point out that the F-16 was first built in the 1980s, and the Air Force is already retiring parts of the fleet. While sending Ukraine the stealthy American F-22s or F-35s would be considered escalatory, sending F-16s would not, they said.
“Let’s face it, a nuclear war isn’t going to happen over F-16s,” the DoD official said.
One European official agreed, saying F-16s “cannot be considered escalatory.”
“It’s simply part of the toolkit of having conventional weapons,” the person said.
Yet F-16s are complex systems that also require massive infrastructure and highly skilled technicians to operate and maintain. Training Ukrainian maintainers would likely take longer than training the pilots, and the U.S. may need to bring in contractors to do some of that instruction.
Lawmaker support
Providing F-16s is likely to win some support on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans alike have chided the administration for not moving quickly enough or for withholding certain capabilities, such as longer-range artillery. Sending Russian-made MiG fighters to Ukraine, via Eastern European countries that still fly them, won bipartisan support, though a weapons swap ultimately never came to fruition.
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who co-chairs the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, said he’s “not against” providing F-16s to Kyiv, but broadly favors providing Ukraine with “whatever works.”
“You can’t half-ass a war. Putin’s not. You’ve got to meet Putin armor for armor, weapon for weapon, because there’s already an extraordinary disadvantage in number of troops,” Quigley said. “Whatever works, whatever they need, send to them.
“My message when I first started talking about this is what were once vices are now habits,” he said. “Everything we ever proposed was seen as escalatory.”
But the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), cast doubt on the need to send F-16s into the conflict, where fighters haven’t proved pivotal.
“I’m not opposed to it,” Smith said. “It’s just not at the top of the list of anybody’s priorities who’s focused on what [weapons] the fight really needs right now.”
He noted that F-16s, much like older MiG jets debated last year, would be vulnerable to Russian air defenses and fifth-generation fighters. Instead, Smith underscored the need to supply ammunition for air defense batteries, longer-range missiles, tanks and armored vehicles.
“What we really need to be focused on is air defense, number one,” he said. “And number two, artillery.”
[ad_2]
#Pentagon #push #send #F16s #Ukraine #picks #steam
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

January 29, 2023
Harris headed to Munich conference before Ukraine war’s 1-year mark

[ad_1]
It’ll be Harris’ second go in front of the conference, taking place Feb. 17-19.
Just ahead of the one-year anniversary of the invasion, Harris will get a chance to update transatlantic-minded officials and experts on the progress the U.S.-led Western resistance has made and potentially preview further steps. Ukraine, for instance, has made no secret about its desire to field fighter jets, including F-16s, from the United States.
Last year, the vice president gave a well-received speech just five days before Vladimir Putin sent his forces across the border into Ukraine. Harris, echoing her boss’ sentiments, vowed that the United States would stand up for Kyiv and the broader transatlantic alliance under such dire circumstances.
“If Russia further invades Ukraine, the United States, together with our Allies and partners, will impose significant and unprecedented economic costs,” she said.
A White House official said there’s no travel to announce for the vice president.
The news of Harris’ involvement in the event comes as rumors grow that Biden might make a visit to Europe in commemoration of the one-year mark of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The White House has yet to confirm any discussions of such a trip, let alone say that a flight over the Atlantic is officially on the schedule.
[ad_2]
#Harris #headed #Munich #conference #Ukraine #wars #1year #mark
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

January 28, 2023