Archive for the ‘Ukraine’ Category
Bloodied and exhausted: Ukraine’s effort to mobilize more troops hits trouble – POLITICO Europe
KYIV Ukraine's parliament on Thursday withdrew a mobilization bill that would supply more troops to the front, but which has come under ferocious attack for flaws in how it was drafted.
"Nothing will happen under the law on mobilization. Neither today nor tomorrow. Nor in the near future," Ukrainian lawmaker Yaroslav Zhelezniak of the pro-European opposition Voice party said on Telegram.
Defense Minister Rustem Umerovsaid the bill will be revamped and submitted for government approval in the near future.
"This law is necessary for the defense of our state and every soldier who is currently at the front. It needs to be approved as soon as possible," he said in a Facebook post.
The bill presented to parliament over Christmas generated enormous controversy with its aims of cutting the draft age from 27 to 25, of limiting deferrals for men with slight disabilities, and of increasing penalties for draft-dodgers. But some parliamentarians claimed it wasn't clearly formulated and included human rights violations.
The purpose of the bill is to send more soldiers to battle; the military has said it needs an additional half-million men this year. The extra troops would allow exhausted frontline soldiers who have been fighting for almost two years to rotate home, while also holding the line against the 617,000 Russians fighting in Ukraine. The latter figure was given by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is increasing the ranks of the Russian military by nearly 170,000 to a whopping 1.3 million.
Ukraine's army now has some 850,000 troops, according to the country's State Military Media Center and the Global Firepower Index.
The mobilization plan, however, is politically toxic.
In the early weeks of the war in February 2022, Ukrainians lined up at draft centers to join the army, while across Europe Ukrainian truck drivers, builders and waiters left their jobs to return home and fight.
But after months of bloody stalemate that continued to cost thousands of lives, that early enthusiasm has evaporated. Meanwhile, military corruption scandals and a sense of exhaustion both at home and among Ukraine's allies have made joining up far less appealing.
The mobilization bill has been sent back to be reworked, with Human Rights Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets saying some provisions could violate the constitution, and Anastasia Radina, head of the parliamentary anti-corruption committee, predicting it could increase the risk of corruption.
We can already say that there will be changes to the bill. There will be no mobilization of disabled people, no possibility for local authorities discretion on mobilization issues, and also no significant limitations of human rights, Fedir Venislavsky, an MP and member of the parliament's defense committee, told POLITICO.
The enormous strain the war has placed on Ukraine has been reflected in the conflict over the mobilization bill.
Over a fifth of Ukraine's GDP or about $46 billion out of an economy of $214 billion is going toward the war effort, with about half used to pay troops and a quarter feeding the military industrial complex. Simply put, Ukraine's entire government budget is being spent on the war, with billions in aid from the EU and the U.S. helping fund the rest of the economy.
But that aid is increasingly in question stuck in Washington thanks to resistance from the Republican Party, and blocked in Brussels by Hungary. That has forced Kyiv to balance between finding enough new soldiers to continue to prosecute the war while also ensuring enough taxpayers and workers remain to keep the economy and war industries afloat.
The mobilization of an additional 450,000 to 500,000 people will cost Ukraine 500 billion hryvnia (12 billion) and I would like to know where the money will come from, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in December. Considering that it takes six Ukrainian working civilians paying taxes to pay the salary of one soldier, I would need to get 3 million more working people somewhere to be able to pay for the additional troops."
Speaking in Estonia on Thursday, Zelenskyy said: "If you are in Ukraine and you are not at the front, but you work and pay taxes, you also defend the state. And this is very necessary." He added that Ukrainians who have fled the country and are neither fighting nor paying taxes face an ethical dilemma.
"If we want to save Ukraine, if we want to save Europe, then all of us must understand: Either we help Ukraine or we don't. Either we are citizens who are at the front, or we are citizens who work and pay taxes," he said.
Pavlo Kazarin, a Ukrainian journalist and soldier, broke the calculation down in a Facebook post.
In order to wage war, a country needs money it is what keeps the economy afloat. It needs weapons without weapons it is impossible to talk about resistance. Also, we need soldiers. And if the first two resources can be provided to us by our allies, people capable of defending the country live in Ukraine, he said.
Ukrainian political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko said the mobilization bill is very unpopular, so politicians are afraid to take ownership; even Zelenskyy prefers the legislation be proposed by the government rather than championing it himself. At the same time, it is broadly recognized that the mobilization process must improve and that the military's needs must be met.
"The draft law on mobilization needs significant refinement and the search for an optimal balance of interests between the provision of military needs and the financial and economic capabilities and needs of the state; between the front and the rear; between the needs of the military and public sentiment," Fesenko posted on Facebook.
A key concern is that pulling men from offices and factories and putting them in uniform will tank the economy, but that may be overblown, said Kazarin, the Ukrainian soldier.
"They forget only that in case of successful mobilization, all those hands that have been holding weapons for the past few years will be released from duty in a year, he said. "Many of those who serve in the army today were quite successful businessmen, specialists, and IT professionals before the war. They held the front for two years, leaving the rear to you. And now it's your turn.
Read more:
Bloodied and exhausted: Ukraine's effort to mobilize more troops hits trouble - POLITICO Europe
Tags:
Podcast: Taiwan Soldier Joined Russian War on Ukraine to Prepare for China Fight – Bloomberg
Podcast: Taiwan Soldier Joined Russian War on Ukraine to Prepare for China Fight Bloomberg
Go here to see the original:
Podcast: Taiwan Soldier Joined Russian War on Ukraine to Prepare for China Fight - Bloomberg
Tags:
The Biden Administration’s Slow Yes Has Doomed Ukraine – TIME
Its often been said that the second-best answer to yes is a fast no, and that the worst answer of all is a slow no. As the war in Ukraine closes out its second year, and as victory on the battlefield or a negotiated settlement appear as elusive as ever, were seeing that when it has come to Ukraines requests for international supportparticularly military aidtheres an answer that has proven worse than a slow no: the slow yes.
As President Zelensky petitions the U.S. and NATO for continued support, with high-profile visits to several capitals in December, and as Congress fights over another aid package to Ukraine, the U.S. and NATO are now shipping to Kyiv many of the sensitive weapon systems that Ukrainian officials have been requesting since 2022. Despite shortfalls in Western production capacity, this includes first-generation main battle tanks like the M1A1 Abrams, long range precision artillery like HIMARS, and fighter jets like the F-16. As these weapons systems arrived on the battlefield in the last few months, albeit in smaller numbers than the Ukrainians would like, its to an environment thats changed radically since they were first requested. Large swaths of territory havent exchanged hands between Russia and Ukraine in more than a year. Putins forces are no longer stunned by Ukrainian overperformance, but dug in with extensive fortifications and trenches. The war of movement is over. Opportunity is dwindling.
In the first six months of the war, when Ukraine seized the initiative on the battlefield, it was easy to imagine that if the U.S. and NATO had then aggressively fulfilled Ukraines requests for weapons and the training of their crews, which also takes time, that this couldve had a decisive impact. In the lead up to war and the early days of the invasion, the argument against sending military aid to Ukraine was that their understrength military didnt stand a chance against the Russians. However, as Ukraine mounted a successful resistance, the argument against providing NATO weapons systems to Ukraine changed. NATO and the U.S. refused to provide Ukraine with many of the weapons its providing now out of fear that this could lead to an escalation of the war, in which Russia might attack a NATO member nation or turn the war nuclear.
Read More: Zelensky's Struggle to Keep Ukraine in the Fight
Putin adeptly stoked fear of escalation among Ukraines allies even though many analysts believed those fears were overblown. In those critical early months, when the Russian military was off balance, the Biden Administration claimed to be concerned that if Putin saw the wrong type of tank, missile, or jet in Ukraine, he might respond with a nuclear weapon. These fears caused the Biden Administration and European allies to squander precious time, and that time allowed Russia to regroup.
Mine roller on a U.S. Army M1A1 Abrams tank as supplied to Ukraine. In Grafenwoehr, the US Army trains members of the Ukrainian armed forces for use on the American M1A1 Abrams tank.
Matthias Merz/dpa-Getty Images
In October 2022, after Ukraine had launched its successful Kharkiv counteroffensive that reclaimed 12,000 square kilometers of territory, President Biden didnt tout this success; instead, he warned Americans of a potential nuclear Armageddon after Putin insinuated that his lost territory could lead to grave consequences for Ukraine and the West. When it comes to military aid, Putin has used his nuclear deterrence to regulate the flow of conventional arms to Ukraine. And that has given him a key advantage to set the pace for parts of the war. He chose when to ratchet up or down his threats and the U.S. responded by ratcheting up or down supplies. This has led to a kind of phony war, in which the U.S. and NATO cheer Ukraines victories and gradually provide Ukraine with high-end weapons, but dole them out slowly and in numbers small enough to allow Ukraine to fight but not to win.
This is America and NATOs slow yes strategy.
In war every country pursues its national interests. Although the interest of the U.S. and Ukraine overlap, theyre not one in the same. Ukraine is fighting a war of national survival, an existential war. When it comes to Russia, throughout its history failed wars have preceded the collapse of the regime. Whether its the First World War and the collapse of the Tzarist Regime, or the War in Afghanistan and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russias autocracies seldom survive a lost war. And so, like Ukraine, Putin is also fighting an existential war.
This has led to a paradox in U.S. policy. We believe that the survival of Ukraine is key to the stability of Europe. But we also recognize that if Putin believes he is going to lose, hell become volatile. We fear what this means for the stability of Europe and even the world. When it comes to U.S. national interests, having either side win the war outright is too dangerous. So instead, weve crafted a policy that seems to allow neither side to lose. Our slow yes is bleeding Ukraine and Russia dry.
As Russia continues to reinforce its frontline positions, and as Ukraine finally receives higher-end weapons systems from NATO and pursues EU membership, it would appear as though the war is entering its frozen stagea stage which neither side can win. Such an outcome wouldnt preclude ceasefire negotiations akin to those that occurred in the Korean War, a conflict that, technically, is still ongoing. However, this outcome precludes the victory Ukrainians have spoken of since Putins invasion, in which the territories Russia seized in 2022 and even, perhaps, in 2014 would be returned to Ukraine.
Had the Biden administration and its NATO allies decisively armed and supported Ukraine in the early days of the war, its possible the Russian invasion couldve failed. But such decisive support was probably never going to arrive. Our national interests didnt align closely enough with Ukraines. A strategy as simple and clear as President Reagans famous Cold War imperative We win, they lose isnt practicable in todays multipolar world. The U.S. has long been operating as though it needs a stable Russia as much as it needs a free Ukraine.
In the New Year the war will continue. The new weapons will arrive, and progress will continue to be measured in small increments. Ukraines allies will continue to offer a slow yes in response to requests they send us in blood.
More Must-Reads From TIME
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Read this article:
The Biden Administration's Slow Yes Has Doomed Ukraine - TIME
Tags:
How Russia’s invasion is helping to strengthen Ukraine’s culture – NBC News
How Russia's invasion is helping to strengthen Ukraine's culture NBC News
Read the original:
How Russia's invasion is helping to strengthen Ukraine's culture - NBC News
Tags: