Your Questions Answered About U.S. Aid Shipments to Ukraine

A few great questions yesterday from the SITREP that deserve deep answers.

Has the United States shipped everything? What about undelivered aid?

Undelivered aid that has already been allocated will continue to be shipped, but ammunition is more immediate.

We have yet to verifiably see GLSDB in Ukraine, but we know, based on announcements from Boeing/Saab, that they are coming very soon. GLSDB are the 113 kg GBU-39 small-diameter bombs attached to an M26 rocket and launched from HIMARS systems (or the M270 GMLRS and its NATO counterparts). This is a great solution for the American taxpayer. Currently, Americans are paying for the storage of over 20,000 GBU-39s originally bought for Afghanistan that the Army, Navy, and Air Force really don't want, and a huge stack of outdated M26 rockets. So that is one example of things that go "boom" that Ukraine is still waiting for.

However, more critical ammunition, 155 mm artillery rounds, 120 mm mortars (which Ukraine is screaming is one of the most ideal field weapons), and rockets for HIMARS have already been committed, and the last small deliveries will arrive before the end of the year.

Can't the United States send more "expired" munitions since they're just sitting in storage?

The short answer is no.

A talking point that detractors of Ukrainian military aid toss around is that $110B has already been sent to Ukraine, and all they've achieved is parity. That's not true - well, the parity part is, but that requires a video. About $44B in Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) military aid has been allocated since February 24, 2022. PDA pulls from existing U.S. stocks.

Billions worth of committed PDA still hasn't arrived (don't me started on the M1117 APCs). So, while Ukraine has been "issued" $44B in PDA, they still haven't received all of it. But when it comes to ammunition, that well is about dry.

There is another issue. Existing law in the United States dictates that a minimum level of inventory be maintained and that if you take something using PDA, you have to replace it. For example, if President Biden authorizes sending an Excalibur 155 mm artillery shell to Ukraine, that's $78K spent using PDA. However, another $78K needs to be allocated to buy a replacement Excalibur shell for U.S. inventory - that's part of that $110B total aid to Ukraine. Still, that replacement shell isn't "for" Ukraine. We know there are inventory minimums, and those minimums are capable of supporting an additional war because. Despite claims that the U.S. had reached those minimums, in the hours after October 7, the United States didn't blink in sending $2B in military aid to Israel - including ammunition. 

The other $60B that is "aid" to Ukraine is mostly to restore U.S. stock and inventory with direct replacement (7.62 ammunition, for example) or more modern munitions or weapons. That money is completely exhausted, and because the U.S. can't "replace" anything else, even with PDA dollars left, the United States can't send more. Yes, even expired munitions because of "the rules." If you send an expired ATACMS missile to Ukraine, you need to buy a replacement (way oversimplifying and possibly not the best example). Expired or not, it's still in inventory as part of the United States, "break in case of emergency" stockpile.

Isn't the Russian expansion of its arms production a long-term threat?

Yes. This is by far the best and the right question. If there was a Christmas miracle on December 25, and Moscow declares, "We screwed up, we're returning to Russia, and we have sent our six-month withdrawal plan to Kyiv and a request for a total cease and fire and by golly, we are not lying this time," Russia has still expanded its military-industrial base, not to Cold War levels, but at levels far exceeding the output of NATO and aligned countries - combined. Moscow isn't going to shut all that down.

Ironically, we support Ukraine "as long as it takes" forced Russia to expand ammunition production. That's the reality. Despite sanctions, despite the dis-investment in industrial production Russia made after the Cold War, Russia is outproducing NATO and aligned nations combined. Yes, Russia is buying munitions from North Korea and Iran. Not because they lack product capability but due to their outdated military doctrine of 2,000 artillery rounds per day to target each square kilometer of battlefield territory.

Opinion: The West has to respond because Russia has a 250+ year history of imperialist expansion. That is not going to change. NATO and its allies have to accept the Cold War peace dividend is over and likely never existed. The broader threat to global security is no longer hot spots that require a rapid response against irregular troops and terrorists. That threat still exists, but we see in Israel that when the metaphorical rubber hits the road, the wealthy backers of Hamas, Hezbollah, PIJ, IRI, etc., are far more interested in staying wealthy than setting the world completely on fire.

Additionally, purely for self-centered economic reasons for access to natural resources, Russia has decided to fight Al Qaeda terrorists in Africa using...Russian PMC...terrorists. The African leaders they are backing are perfectly fine with repeating the mistakes of their forefathers because Russia has smiled and declared we have no imperialist intentions like Europe and North America - you can totally trust us. You just let us mine your gold, platinum, uranium, diamonds, and other natural resources, build military bases, station our troops here, and give us latitude when we accidentally kill your people. In exchange, we'll make sure you continue to stay in power and get a slice of that natural resource money.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. However, if Moscow wants to sign itself up for fighting Al Qaeda in Africa, let them.

Did you read the piece about how Osama bin Laden got radicalized? It's going to be fascinating in another five to ten years to potentially see Iranian-backed terrorists buying North Korean weapons and fighting Russian PMCs to support an awful African dictator that Moscow thought they could control. If Israel was sending ammunition and spare parts to Iran during the Iraq-Iran War, anything is possible. 

This doesn't start to address how woefully behind the rest of the world is compared to Russia, Ukraine, and, to a lesser extent, Iran in terms of drone and electronic warfare. Control stations that cost $53,000 and $6,000 Switchblade 300 kamikaze drones with a 21% failure rate are archaic. Ukraine and Russia are taking $59,000 and spending maybe $1000 on dual-use technology for controllers and producing 116 kamikaze drones with a 10% failure rate. And in the game of swords and shields, they are becoming increasingly hardened against electronic warfare. This is no longer a war of DJI Mavicas and Bayraktar TB-2s.

What about the Defense Production Act? Can't President Biden order companies to start producing additional stock?

No. The Defense Production Act of 1950 provides significant power to the President to order private companies to prioritize defense and national security production for the United States. In 2012, President Obama expanded the DPA to support 16 government agencies, and the Pentagon uses the DPA about 300,000 times a year to prioritize its orders with thousands of private companies. It was used during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic to produce COVID tests, masks, PPE for healthcare workers, ventilators, BIPAP and CPAP machines, etc.

While any President could, in theory, turn to General Motors (just an example) and declare, "Hey, remember when we bailed you out in 2009? You need to start producing 155 mm ammunition and Bradley Fighting Vehicles as fast as possible to support national security and go," the money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is Congress, which controls the checkbook.

No bucks.

No bullets.

So, while DPA could be used to compel faster production, it doesn't provide the dollars to make additional purchases.

What happened to Lend-Lease?

The Lend-Lease Act expired on September 30, 2023. President Joe Biden indicated that he didn't want to use Lend-Lease, beyond a solution of last resort because it would increase the amount of debt Ukraine would owe. Renewing Lend-Lease through September 30, 2024, was part of the budget package that the U.S. Congress failed to pass in September.

There are other problems with Lend-Lease. While President Roosevelt described Lend-Lease as letting your neighbor borrow a hose while their house is on fire, used war equipment has little value in peacetime. The other problem is repayment. Historically, the United States provided almost $50 billion (non-inflation adjustment) in Lend-Lease aid to 37 nations during World War II. Most never repaid their debt, and almost none of the "leased" equipment was returned.

Sidebar: The United States also received approximately $8 billion (non-inflation adjusted) Lend-Lease aid from its allies in World War II.

The United Kingdom was the largest benefactor, receiving $31.2 billion in material, including large shipments in transit, when World War II ended for everyone except the Soviet Union and Japan on September 2, 1945. The U.K. debt was fully paid off - in 2006. The Soviet Union received almost $11 billion in Lend-Lease aid, which the U.S. never expected to be fully repaid. The U.S. asked for about $2 billion, the Kremlin offered $170 million, and the dispute wasn't resolved until the mid-70s, with most of the money written off.

The execution of the Lend-Lease Act should be viewed as a situation that has fallen into complete crisis and a tool of last resort, and it doesn't increase ammunition production. The President can't Lend-Lease material that doesn't exist.

What can be done?

If you're an American, you can contact your Congressperson. Let them know that they need to pass continuing military support for Ukraine urgently. Don't threaten to take away your vote; they don't care. Don't mention you voted for their opponent; they don't care. Don't tell them you're going to "primary" them or vote for their opponent. Only a handful care. Two things they do care about - looking weak on the world stage and campaign money. Do tell them nicely; you won't monetarily support their campaign. Do tell them that America's enemies, you don't need to get specific on enemies, are watching us abandon an ally - again - which only encourages America's enemies. Those things they listen to, especially the contribution part. Be calm. Be respectful. Don't bring up partisan politics.

If you're in a state where there are large defense contractors, particularly for ammunition and munition production, do bring up good-paying, stable jobs for Americans that have already been created thanks to Ukrainian aid. Politicians love being told they can support good-paying blue and gray-collar jobs while investing in long-term security for all. America!

Sidebar: If you're Congressperson is George Santos, first, I'm very sorry. Second, don't waste your breath or keystrokes because there is a very real possibility he will be ejected from Congress next month.

If you're a European, I don't know enough about each country's system to give you a link and advice on what to say. Strictly my opinion, if you feel your country isn't doing enough (because some European countries have been amazing while others are phoning it in), the Cold War is back, we over-relied on the peace dividend, Ukraine is defending all of Europe, we're not supporting a war of survival. The outcome will directly impact our national future, potentially for generations, including my children. We can do this in Kyiv today or [insert national capital] in 5 to 10 years, and no, having the United States on speed dial is not national security.

Regardless of your nation, do let your politicians know this, "as long as it takes" is not a plan. It is meaningless. What is needed is honestly at this point. If Ukraine's allies are not invested in creating the fastest possible path to achieve Ukraine's ten-point peace plan, then tell Ukraine and the world. Then, spell out what "win" looks like and develop the support plan to achieve that as fast as possible. Not as long as it takes. As fast as possible.