US Military Aid Offers Glimmer of Hope for Ukraine in Prolonged War
A substantial new package of US military aid, amounting to $61 billion, has been approved to support Ukraine in its ongoing conflict with Russia. This aid package is expected to bolster Ukraine’s defenses and enable it to resist Russian aggression for the foreseeable future.
The military aid comprises weapons and ammunition that will assist Ukraine in halting Russia’s relentless advances and shielding civilians from attacks. Furthermore, the aid will provide Ukraine with additional time to develop long-term strategies for reclaiming the territories currently under Russian control.
According to Michael Clarke, a visiting professor of war studies at King’s College London, the aid package enhances Ukraine’s chances of continuing the fight against Russia. He emphasizes that sometimes in warfare, staying in the conflict is crucial to avoid defeat.
The US House of Representatives authorized the aid package on Saturday, concluding months of delays primarily caused by Republican concerns about US engagement abroad. The Senate approved it on Tuesday, paving the way for President Joe Biden to sign it on Wednesday.
The impact of the aid could be felt swiftly on the front lines in eastern and southern Ukraine, where Russia’s numerically superior army has been gradually gaining ground against Ukrainian forces that are heavily outmatched in terms of firepower.
With the approval of the aid, Ukraine may now be able to replenish its dwindling artillery ammunition stocks, which have been carefully rationed. Additional equipment will be dispatched promptly from American stockpiles in Poland and Germany, with further supplies arriving from the US. The initial shipments are expected to reach Ukraine early next week, as stated by Davyd Arakhamia, a lawmaker affiliated with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party.
However, Vadym Ivchenko, an opposition lawmaker serving on the National Security, Defense, and Intelligence Committee of the Ukrainian parliament, has cautioned that logistical complexities and bureaucratic hurdles could delay the delivery of the supplies to Ukraine by two to three months, with an even longer delay before they reach the front lines.
Although the specifics of the shipments are classified, it is widely understood that Ukraine’s most pressing requirements are artillery shells to halt Russian advances and anti-aircraft missiles to protect its people and infrastructure from missiles, drones, and bombs. Arakhamia, the Ukrainian lawmaker, acknowledges that the initial shipments may not align perfectly with the most urgent needs of front-line commanders, as even a military behemoth like the US does not possess ample stockpiles of all necessary equipment.
He explains that the initial package was assembled based on the US identifying Ukraine’s top priorities and then providing what was available from its warehouses, which may not always align perfectly.
Despite the challenges, lawmakers recognize that Ukraine’s prospects for future breakthroughs hinge on the timely delivery of Western aid. Many experts believe that both Ukraine and Russia are weary after two years of conflict and will not be able to launch major offensives capable of achieving significant strategic gains until next year.
Nevertheless, Russia continues to press its advantage at multiple points along the extensive front line, employing tanks, waves of infantry troops, and satellite-guided gliding bombs to inflict heavy damage on Ukrainian forces. Russia has also targeted power plants and relentlessly shelled Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, which lies a mere 30 kilometers from the Russian border.
Ivchenko emphasizes that the current goal for Ukrainian forces is to maintain their positions until the bulk of the new supplies arrive by mid-summer. At that point, they can focus on reclaiming territory recently lost in the Donetsk region.
Some military analysts express skepticism about Ukraine’s ability to launch even minor offensives in the near term. Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, a think tank, suggests that the US funding can likely only help stabilize Ukraine’s position for the remainder of this year and initiate preparations for operations in 2025.
In the most optimistic scenario for Ukraine, the American aid will provide commanders with the breathing room to regroup and train their army, incorporating lessons learned from the unsuccessful offensive launched in the summer of 2023. It could also inspire Ukraine’s European allies to increase their own levels of support.
“This was not just about Ukraine and the United States; it genuinely affected our entire 51-country coalition,” remarked US Congressman Bill Keating, a Democrat who visited Kyiv on Monday as part of a four-member congressional delegation.
President Zelenskyy has repeatedly stated that Ukraine’s war objective is to regain all territories occupied by Russia, including Crimea, which was illegally annexed in 2014. Even if the war ultimately concludes through negotiations, as many experts anticipate, Ukraine is determined to do so from a position of strength.
Beyond the battlefield dynamics, Ukraine faces additional uncertainties. Former US President Donald Trump, who is seeking to reclaim the White House in the November 2024 election, has pledged to end the war within days of taking office. Additionally, the 27-nation European Union includes leaders like Hungarian President Viktor Orbán and Slovakian Prime Minister Eduard Heger, who have expressed opposition to arming Ukraine.
Ukraine’s allies have been hesitant to supply certain types of weaponry due to concerns about escalation or depletion of their own stockpiles. Ukraine has made it clear that securing victory in the war requires access to longer-range missiles, which could be used for potentially game-changing operations, such as isolating the occupied Crimean Peninsula, where Russia’s Black Sea fleet is stationed. Ukraine seeks Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMs) from the US and Taurus cruise missiles from Germany, but both governments have resisted these requests due to the missiles’ capability to strike targets deep within Russian territory.
The newly passed bill authorizes the President to dispatch ATACMs to Ukraine “as soon as practicable,” but the practical implications of this provision remain unclear. In the past, promised weapons have either arrived late or not at all. President Zelenskyy recently highlighted that Ukraine is still awaiting the F-16 fighter jets that were pledged over a year ago.
Meanwhile, Russia continues to leverage its superiority in troops and weaponry to push back Ukrainian forces, possibly aiming to maximize its gains before the arrival of Ukraine’s new supplies. For several weeks, Russian forces have relentlessly bombarded the small eastern city of Chasiv Yar, reportedly incurring casualties of 900 soldiers killed or wounded daily, according to the UK Ministry of Defense. Capturing this strategically vital hilltop town would pave the way for Russia to advance towards Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, key cities held by Ukraine in the eastern Donetsk region. Such a victory would be significant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, according to Western officials, is determined to overthrow Ukraine’s pro-Western government.
Clarke, the professor from King’s College London, believes that Russia’s offensive is intended not only to secure territory but also to undermine President Zelenskyy and bolster critics who argue that his war strategy is flawed. He credits US House Speaker Mike Johnson for pushing the aid package through Congress, as it reduces the likelihood of a political crisis in Ukraine.
“He held history in his hands,” Clarke remarked.
