US support to Kyiv has so far been limited to financial and material aid. There are several reasons for this, from the fact that the US public is unlikely to support another costly military intervention on another continent, to Washington’s apparent desire to avoid a world war confrontation with Russia.
While the Joe Bidens are trying to keep a step away from the conflict raging in Hungary’s neighborhood, obvious problems are beginning to arise in relation to an important part of the American role.
It just so happened that the US military withdrew its entire military background personnel (such as trainers and engineers) from Ukraine even before the Russian invasion in 2022, thereby setting the stage for a series of later logistical problems.
The current system is inefficient
Since then, Joe Biden and his government have been firmly opposed to American troops on Ukrainian territory – even in the form of military technology experts – helping the Ukrainian Armed Forces fight against Russia. However, the Ukrainians need such personnel to operate, repair, and maintain American military technology. The White House is now planning to solve this problem (as well as to avoid drifting into the conflict) by sending instructors, experts and trainers to Ukraine, not the army, but private military companies under contract with the Ministry of Defense.
What military companies?
American military corporations, also known as defense corporations or military industrial corporations, are companies that develop, manufacture, and maintain military technologies, weapons, and other military equipment. These companies work closely with the US government and its various defense organizations, such as the Pentagon. An example is Boeing. You can read more about the history of American defense companies in this article.
These companies specifically engaged in equipment production and maintenance are not to be confused with entities also called private military companies (PMCs in English), which are private companies that employ contract soldiers. Such was the case, for example, with the Wagner Group in Russia.
One of the most important ailments of the current cautious Ukraine policy is that American military equipment that has been severely damaged in the fighting cannot be repaired in Ukraine. In the Eastern European country, there is neither adequate expertise nor adequate infrastructure for repairing an M1 Abrams tank, for example. Therefore, military equipment from America must be exported to Poland, Romania or other NATO countries for repair, which takes a long time and costs much more money than if the manufacturing companies were to relocate to Ukraine and solve the problems with their “products” at the local level.
It could happen this year, the question is what the Russians will do
However, there is a danger that by settling the companies, the United States would cross a red line in the eyes of President Vladimir Putin. Moscow can consider the specialists of military companies financed by the Pentagon – i.e. the US Department of Defense – as part of the Ukrainian military infrastructure, as a target. Moreover, in the worst case scenario, the deployment of background personnel may be evaluated by the Kremlin as an American intervention, and thus the chances of a world war escalation may increase dramatically. In the past, the State Department in Washington even called on the American civilian population not to travel to Ukraine if they could, in order to avoid suspicions on the part of Russia that Americans are participating in the war.
Despite all these previous precautions, internal government sources now claim that the plan for military companies to settle in Ukraine may be accepted this year.
CNN reached one of the highest-ranking US government officials on the matter, who confirmed that allowing military companies into Ukraine is on the agenda. However, he stated that the debate has not yet been decided, as well as re-emphasizing the position of the Biden administration on the issue of the deployment of American combat troops:
We have not yet made any decision on the entry of military companies into Ukraine, and any talk about this is premature. […] However, the president is absolutely adamant that he will not send US troops to Ukraine
an anonymous government official told CNN.
The knowledge monopoly of American defense companies
The Pentagon outsources the lion’s share of military technology development and production to private companies. It follows that the engineers of these companies know the military equipment they design and manufacture much more intimately than anyone else. For example, one of the largest such companies is Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of F-16 fighter jets. The company has access to roughly $60 billion in taxpayer money in 2022 alone thanks to government orders. However, similar, astronomical sums could be pocketed by the other major American arms manufacturers, namely Boeing, RTX, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics.
The listed companies are the most important players in the world’s private military industry. Many other countries besides the United States buy tanks, planes, air defense equipment and other equipment from them. Even among those weapons, there are a large number of pieces manufactured by American companies, which were actually sent to Ukraine not by the United States, but by a third country.
By the way, tech-savvy companies (and the US military) are currently assisting the Ukrainians with routine maintenance and logistics, but only remotely, via video chat or phone.
This is an agreement that, of course, comes with limitations, as US troops cannot personally participate in operations related to military assets. Congress also promised Ukraine F-16 fighter jets in the new aid package, and the maintenance of delicate planes requires extraordinary expertise, which can only be learned personally. Apart from the US military, however, only private military companies have such knowledge. Therefore, the many problems related to the operation of new fighter jets probably contribute to the potential lifting of the ban on the activities of military companies in Ukraine.
Supporters say there is nothing to fear
Current and former U.S. officials familiar with the discussions about deploying military companies to Ukraine have stressed that the operation will not result in the same level of U.S. presence as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, it is likely that a few dozen or a few hundred company employees will be working in Ukraine at the same time.
This would be a much more targeted and thoughtful effort to support Ukraine
said Alex Vindman, a retired military officer who served as head of European affairs for former President Donald Trump’s National Security Council. Vindman has been urging the administration to lift the restrictions for nearly two years, and said the administration has been working on the plan since the beginning of the year.
According to government officials who spoke to the American newspaper, decision-makers began to seriously consider lifting restrictions in recent months for two reasons: one, that Russia has become significantly stronger on the front line, and the other, that US funding to Ukraine has stalled in Congress.
However, the sources emphasized that the companies applying for the contracts would have to develop serious risk reduction plans to mitigate the threats to their employees, thereby reducing the risk of friction between Moscow and the United States. However, this will also be a tricky question.
(Cover photo: An airport vehicle pulls part of a U.S. military weapons shipment containing military equipment at Boryspil Airport near Kiev on January 25, 2022 in Boryspil, Ukraine. Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
#Index #turning #point #coming #American #military #companies #settle #Ukraine
2024-06-29 06:18:35