U.S. and allies negotiating security guarantees for Ukraine

The Biden administration is working with allies to provide Ukraine with security guarantees, a step that falls short of Kyiv’s desire for those assurances to come from NATO.

According to multiple American and European officials, the U.S., Britain, France and Germany — known as the “European Quad” — would in essence formalize their military and economic support for Ukraine, keeping it flowing even after the fighting with Russia ends. However, neither a bilateral deal or multilateral agreement would have the legal force of a treaty.

In effect, the four countries are offering more of the same for an indefinite period of time.

“The U.S. is in talks with Ukraine and our allies and partners on how we can reassure Ukraine about their long-term security to deter any future aggression for after this war ends,” a National Security Council spokesperson confirmed. The official was not authorized to use their name when providing this statement to the press.

Still, “these negotiations and discussions are ongoing but they haven't reached any particular fruition, as of yet, because there's no doubt that this is also a very, very complicated issue,” said a European official who wasn’t authorized to speak to media.

The Financial Times was first to report on the discussions, which even some allies are upset about.

“The real security guarantee is provided only by the alliance,” said the European official, “and any temporary arrangements cannot be sold as replacements for full membership, which provides a collective guarantee of countries to each other and which is, I would say, the strongest available guarantee in Europe.”

And some U.S. lawmakers also aren’t sure that focusing on providing security guarantees outside of the alliance right now is wise. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), co-chair of the NATO Observer Group, said he’d prefer NATO send a “strong message” to Russian President Vladimir Putin by having all allies meet their 2 percent defense-spending obligation. “Then we can have a discussion about security agreements, after the facts on the ground [in Ukraine] change."

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asked that a timetable for Ukraine’s NATO membership and alliance-provided security guarantees be extended at next month’s summit in Vilnius. But all signs point to him getting none of his wishes. “I think the allies now are in agreement that a proper invitation is unlikely while they’re engaged in a full-scale war,” Julianne Smith, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, told POLITICO last week.

In the meantime, lawmakers in the U.S. are offering some ideas on how to defend Ukraine for the long term. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggested elevating the NATO-Ukraine Commission to a “Council,” thereby giving Kyiv the authority to call for alliance meetings and allowing more for intelligence sharing.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a close confidante of President Joe Biden, noted certain security guarantees were already extended to Ukraine in the “Budapest Memorandum” after the country turned over nuclear weapons following the Soviet Union’s collapse. We’re “back to the future,” he said in an interview.

Outside of the complexities of any arrangement, what remains unclear is the appetite for each of the four countries to abide by their promises.

“Security guarantees for Ukraine, it seems to me, would never be credible, since we have refused to fight directly for Ukraine in its time of greatest peril,” said Ben Friedman, policy director at the restraint-oriented Defense Priorities think tank. “Why would that change later just because of a paper promise?”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/7Uf82DK
via IFTTT

Read More

House passes bill to block federal gas stove ban

After a weeklong blockade of floor action by conservatives, the House passed bipartisan legislation Tuesday to prevent the federal government from banning gas stoves — the latest Republican bid to stop what they say is the Biden administration's anti-fossil fuel agenda.

The bill and a related measure expected to pass this week on efficiency measures for the appliances are unlikely to get votes in the Democratic-controlled Senate. But Republicans have touted their legislation as pushback against overreach by the Biden administration, even though there are no federal proposals to outright prohibit the sale of gas stoves under consideration.

Lawmakers passed the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act, H.R. 1615 (118), which would bar the Consumer Product Safety Commission from banning gas stoves by a 248-180 vote. Twenty-nine Democrats ultimately voted alongside Republicans to support the measure.

"We know the motivation of the CPSC and throughout this entire administration is a green climate push," Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), the sponsor of the legislation, said. "The goal is to dictate how you live every aspect of your life — how you save and invest for the future by pushing ESG, how you drive by banning gas-powered cars, and now the goal is to control how you cook."

The votes came after House conservatives unexpectedly revolted last week and blocked a procedural measure setting up consideration of the legislation, a move aimed at showing their frustration over the deal Speaker Kevin McCarthy struck with the White House to raise the debt ceiling. McCarthy and the GOP hardliners eventually reached an agreement this week, teeing up advancement of the gas stove bill.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission legislation would block the commission from using federal funds to ban gas stoves or to enforce any consumer product safety standard on gas stoves that would result in a prohibition of the appliance or substantially increase its average price.

"Now they want to tell you what kind of stove you have to operate in your home and having to pick a less efficient and more costly option by banning gas stoves," said Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.). "We're pushing back against that."

Republicans say the action, alongside a separate proposed efficiency rulemaking at the Energy Department, is an example of federal overreach infringing on consumers' choices. It also comes as several Democratic-led cities and states seek to ban the appliances in new buildings.

"This week, we will hold the Biden administration accountable by standing up for the American people to stop the outrageous and really insane ban on gas stoves — a bad idea that started in New York that is now being embraced by every Democrat and the Biden administration," said Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) on Tuesday.

New York recently became the first state to ban gas stoves from most new buildings through legislative action. Other states have sought to do so through building codes.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission is not currently considering a ban and has made clear it has no plans to pursue a national ban on gas stoves after one of its members opened the door to the possibility earlier this year. Instead, the commission has opened an inquiry into the potential health hazards of gas stove emissions.

The Biden administration Monday urged a federal court to reverse its April decision that struck down a ban on gas hookups in Berkeley, Calif., as a violation of federal energy efficiency law.

House Democrats who opposed the bill called Republicans' arguments "misinformation" on Tuesday and said it was a distraction that will do nothing to address pressing issues such as tackling the impacts of climate change.

"I just don't quite understand the energy and hysteria almost in places about gas stoves," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. "No one is taking away your gas stove."

Democrats, including House Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), also say the legislation would stifle the safety commission's ability to investigate potentially hazardous products. The agency, for example, issued a recall last year on specific gas ranges due to serious risk of injury from carbon monoxide poisoning.

"What you're basically saying is that this agency that protects our safety and health is just basically going to be emasculated and can't do its job," Pallone said on the floor Tuesday. "What possible help is that?"

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), the chair of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on energy, climate and grid security, has previously pushed back that the bill wouldn't stop the commission from acting under its statute to address "true safety hazards" associated with "faulty" gas stoves.

The White House, for its part, said it "strongly" opposed the bill. But it did not go as far as saying President Joe Biden would veto the legislation should it reach his desk.

Lawmakers also backed an amendment to the bill from Colorado GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert on a 222-210 vote to expand the prohibition on federal funding to include regulations that would result in the unavailability in the U.S. of a type or class of product based on the type of fuel the product consumes.

The House is also expected to vote this week on the Save Our Gas Stoves Act, H.R. 1640 (118), which would prohibit the Energy Department from finalizing or enforcing its proposed efficiency standards for cooking tops and ovens.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/73BkHWo
via IFTTT

Read More

Biden orders DNC and reelect to remain silent about Trumps indictment

President Joe Biden and his top aides have taken a vow of silence on the federal indictment of his predecessor, Donald Trump — and have explicitly ordered the national Democratic Party and his reelection campaign to do the same.

That directive was issued in recent days after Trump was hit with federal charges for his handling of classified documents after he left the White House, according to three people familiar with the instructions. But that decision has some Democrats and allies worried that Biden could miss a chance to underscore the seriousness of the national moment as well as deliver a political blow to his top White House rival.

Biden declared at the start of his presidency that he would not discuss Department of Justice investigations, particularly those about the former president, and he remained tightlipped when Trump was arraigned Tuesday in a Florida courthouse.

Some in his inner circle hope the decision will be revisited if next year’s general election looks like it could be a rematch with Trump, even if the legal fight has not been resolved by then. As the president’s advisers chart a court for the campaign to come, they are aware that continued silence about the charges facing Trump would deprive Biden’s reelection effort of a potent political weapon.

The number of criminal cases Trump faces are growing and could soon include charges of election interference and inciting the Jan. 6 riot. Those acts make up much of Biden’s long standing case that Trump poses unique threats to American democracy, and there could eventually be a move to allow surrogates and leading Democrats, even if not the president himself, to squarely address the criminal charges.

But Biden to this point has been explicit: The entities that the White House controls, which includes the reelection campaign and the Democratic National Committee, are not to publicly discuss any of the criminal investigations into Trump. Those closest to the president are deeply wary of any perception that Biden is trying to influence the investigations.

“I have never once — not one single time — suggested to the Justice Department what they should do or not do, relative to bringing a charge or not bringing a charge,” Biden told reporters Thursday. “I’m honest.”

Some left-leaning groups outside Biden’s control have already commissioned ads about Trump’s legal woes, which Democratic officials believe helps do the dirty work for them. And first lady Jill Biden did venture a public comment, bemoaning the Republicans standing by Trump in the face of the indictment.

“My heart feels so broken by a lot of the headlines that we see on the news,” she told donors at a fundraiser Monday night in New York. “Like I just saw, when I was on my plane, it said 61 percent of Republicans are going to vote, they would vote for Trump.”

“They don’t care about the indictment. So that’s a little shocking, I think,” she added.

But those groups and the first lady have a more limited reach than the party’s political apparatuses and the president himself. Biden has privately told aides that he is disgusted by Trump’s behavior but is adhering to his promise that the Department of Justice would have independence from the White House. The DNC, meanwhile, has advised members of Congress seeking guidance on what to say that they should not comment on the Trump probes if they are speaking publicly in their role as Biden campaign surrogates.

While Biden has framed his stance as in line with longstanding tradition, it is not uncommon for presidents to occasionally weigh in on ongoing criminal investigations. Biden has at times done so himself — including weighing in before the verdict was announced in the 2021 trial of the white Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd.

Some people in Biden’s orbit believe that the moment calls for his imprimatur, outlining for the nation the gravity of a former president facing charges in a federal court. Others believe it would be political malpractice to not make Trump’s woes a campaign issue and privately said that they wish the president’s campaign would take on the issue directly.

They argue that the charges connected to Trump’s alleged reckless mishandling of some of the United States’ top secrets shows that he is unfit for the job. And they believe that both the ongoing January 6 and Georgia election interference probes illuminate their central campaign arguments.

“It’s a pretty easy argument to make,” said one senior Democrat not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations. “Vote for our guy, because the other guy is going to jail.”

There is a possibility that the decision could be revisited next year, multiple people close to the process said this week. One option being bandied about is that while Biden would maintain his silence on the Trump investigations, other top Democrats and surrogates would take up the argument. But even that — which aides warn may not ever happen — would likely not occur for months, perhaps after a possible conviction, or after Trump has clinched the GOP nomination. And advisors acknowledge that Biden himself may need to weigh in at a moment when it would be impossible not to comment, like a potential general election debate against Trump.

Some aides also think that if Trump were to be charged for his actions on Jan. 6, Biden would feel comfortable enough talking about the tragedy of that day without linking it to any crimes allegedly committed by his predecessor. Other Democrats believe the current silent treatment is the right approach — and don’t want to inadvertently get in the way of a bad Trump news cycle.

“The Justice Department needs to be able to make its prosecutorial decisions independent of influence from any administration,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said to Politico on Tuesday. “Donald Trump tried to use the Justice Department as a political tool. Joe Biden has said he absolutely will not do that, and I respect that.”

Those close to the president also acknowledge a particular sensitivity at the moment on matters related to the Department of Justice, which is believed to be nearing a charging decision in its investigation into Biden’s son. Hunter Biden is being probed for tax crimes and a potentially illegal purchase of a firearm. While the president has maintained his public silence on the case — other than to offer support for his son — he has privately expressed frustration at the length of the investigation and worries about the outcome of the probe, according to two people close to him.

While Biden has tried to maintain a distance from DOJ affairs, Republicans have been hammering home the talking point that he is using his Department of Justice to investigate his top political rival ahead of 2024.

"The Biden Administration continues to egregiously weaponize the federal government against Joe Biden’s top political opponent,” said Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), a member of the House GOP leadership, at a House Republicans news conference Tuesday. “The unequal application of justice by Joe Biden’s DOJ must be stopped. There cannot be one set of rules if your last name is Biden or Clinton and another set of rules for everyone else.”

Those supporting or working on Biden’s re-election ultimately believe they have other compelling arguments to make beyond pointing to Trump’s legal troubles. They believe the president’s week provides an advantageous split screen set nicely against the backdrop of chaos that has descended upon the Republican-controlled House after nearly a dozen far right members rebelled against Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

The president will hit a lot of key 2024 issues, including civil rights, environmental causes, the GOP tax plan and gun regulations, as well as appear with Vice President Kamala Harris at a rally with union workers Saturday in Philadelphia.

The White House, Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee all, fittingly, declined to comment.

Jennifer Haberkorn, Adam Cancryn and Holly Otterbein contributed to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/qB2laUE
via IFTTT

Read More

Haley inclined in favor of Trump pardon

After calling Donald Trump “reckless,” Nikki Haley on Tuesday said she would still be “inclined” to pardon him if he is convicted of federal charges.

Haley’s remarks on the conservative Clay Travis and Buck Sexton radio show came after the former U.N. ambassador and GOP presidential candidate on Monday said the allegations against Trump, if true, show that he put “all of our military men and women in danger.”

In Tuesday’s interview, Haley maintained that Trump was “incredibly reckless with our national security,” based on the indictment — but not reckless enough to deserve to carry out a sentence.

“When you look at a pardon, the issue is less about guilt and more about what’s good for the country,” Haley said. “And I think it would be terrible for the country to have a former president in prison for years because of a documents case.

“So I would be inclined in favor of a pardon.”

Haley added that it’s “really premature” to discuss a pardon if Trump hasn’t yet been convicted of any charges. The former president on Tuesday afternoon had a first appearance in court in Miami.

Haley’s evolving responses to Trump’s ongoing legal dilemma illustrate the difficulty his opponents are having in using the charges as a line of attack. On Friday, Haley’s initial reaction was to discredit the case against him, saying “this is not how justice should be pursued in our country.”

Even Trump’s top rival in the primary, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, has declined to go after him directly on the charges — instead saying that the case is politically motivated and that Democrats aren’t held to the same standard as Republicans.

Earlier Tuesday, fellow GOP primary candidate Vivek Ramaswamy spoke outside the Miami courthouse and called for each presidential candidate to commit to pardoning Trump.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/RTK5IkJ
via IFTTT

Read More

'Trying to figure it out': McCarthy's conservative rebels struggle with next steps

Conservative hardliners are already agitating for their next fight with Speaker Kevin McCarthy over hundreds of billions of dollars in spending cuts. Beyond that, though, they don’t know exactly what they want from him.

The murkiness emerged hours after they reached an agreement with GOP leaders to reopen the House floor that they'd had held hostage for days. A few blocks from the Capitol, most of the 11 Republicans behind the blockade huddled with their allies to haggle over a core question: What's next?

“We’re meeting, trying to figure it out,” Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), chair of the Trump-aligned House Freedom Caucus, said in a brief interview when asked that same question. He described this fall's government funding debate as "front and center" for conservatives, as it "should be."

But while the group clearly wants to drive down federal spending, it still hasn’t settled on a strategy to get there or what else to push for. That uncertainty lies at the heart of House Republicans’ often-chaotic state: McCarthy's biggest skeptics on the right are happy to use hardball tactics in their slim majority, even if it hurts the party’s priorities, yet their lack of clear demands make it nearly impossible for leadership to satisfy them — or for the resisters to wield their influence toward a clear endgame.

Overplaying their hand could also backfire on the hardliners, whose colleagues are starting to publicly fume that a handful of Republicans is torpedoing party unity. Some in the GOP rank and file fear that the right's demands won’t end with spending cuts, letting the same group of McCarthy critics who dragged out the January speaker’s race assert control over the rest of his time with the gavel.

“The Freedom Caucus is a diverse group, and we have diverse opinions about ways to implement a conservative agenda,” one of the members, Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.), said in a brief interview after Monday night’s meeting, adding that the next phase of action remains under discussion both within the group and with GOP leaders.

They’ll need to decide soon: McCarthy’s detractors have agreed to halt their blockade of the floor only for the next few pieces of legislation that come up, including Rep. Andrew Clyde's (R-Ga.) attempt to roll back a Biden regulation on guns equipped with pistol braces.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said unsticking Clyde’s measure was the rebel group’s first step, “and now we’re figuring out what’s next.” Notably, it's still far from clear that Clyde’s bill will have the votes to pass the House later Tuesday, according to a GOP lawmaker who is whipping the bill.

The biggest thing that the protesters clearly agree on is the need to drive down spending below what McCarthy and President Joe Biden agreed to. They’ve already convinced GOP leaders to essentially renege on last month’s bipartisan debt deal, instead pushing new funding levels that Democrats would never accept and forcing another standoff in the fall. Some, like Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), won’t rule out forcing a shutdown to get what they want.

“We’re looking at everything, that's not here yet,” Norman said when asked if he would be willing to hold up funding after the September deadline.

The group’s initial win was announced Monday night, when Appropriations Committee Chair Kay Granger (R-Texas) declared that Republicans would cut $130 billion from this year’s spending bills by drafting to pre-pandemic levels — well below the agreement McCarthy reached with the White House.

That was what Freedom Caucus members, including many of those who’ve been holding up the House floor, specifically demanded.

But some of those conservatives are gearing up to push their conference to go a step further, signaling they want spending bills below — not at — the fiscal 2022 year levels. And the hardliners have no interest in Congress' favorite accounting ploys, asserting they don't want to count clawing back old funds as spending cuts.

“One of the key structural things we’ve got to work through is whether you can achieve 2022 spending levels through recessions,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), referring to those clawbacks. “A lot of us who are concerned about spending worry that that is a budgetary gimmick.”

While some of his colleagues praised Granger’s move, Gaetz said he still had doubts: “I worry that [her] statement doesn’t clearly reflect compliance with the January agreement.”

As they demand more involvement in spending decisions, conservatives are in essence seeking a far larger concession from McCarthy — to revisit the deals cut when he became speaker with his detractors, many of whom are leading the latest protest.

The hardliner holdouts argue, for instance, that McCarthy failed to closely consult with them on the debt limit bill — and raised concerns about the other big pieces of legislation that the California Republican will have to negotiate with Democrats. That includes some of the year's biggest agenda items, including the 2023 farm bill, a mammoth defense policy package and an end-of-the-year surveillance program reauthorization.

While those issues do involve spending, they also encompass much thornier questions, such as work requirements, farm subsidies, Pentagon powers and the GOP’s increasingly toxic relationship with the FBI.

The talks between McCarthy and his right flank are being closely watched by the rest of the GOP conference. Already, intra-party tensions have spiked as many Republicans watch a fraction of their most conservative colleagues largely dictate the floor schedule — and seemingly increase their demands by the day.

There’s also consternation about the idea that Republicans reached a “power-sharing” agreement as part of the speaker's race. It's a term used by Gaetz and other conservatives that McCarthy himself has questioned.

“You have a conference of 222 people, and they would all be well advised to remember that they are one of [222]. … The majority was delivered by people in swing districts. People who represent areas Joe Biden won,” said Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), adding that conservatives “didn’t win the majority.”

And McCarthy allies warn that even if the group makes good on its threat of a repeat performance by sinking further bills amid causing headaches for leadership, conservatives are likely to confront even more intra-GOP frustration with their tactics.

“You can only pull the pin so many times,” said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.). “This isn’t just going to be leadership pushing back if this continues to go on … rank and file are going to go crazy.”

Olivia Beavers contributed to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/B1YLIlD
via IFTTT

Read More

In the Senate Bidens spy pitch falls on deaf ears

The Biden administration’s latest bid to convince lawmakers to renew a soon-to-expire foreign surveillance power without significant new privacy safeguards is off to a rough start.

The problem? The administration keeps trying to show lawmakers the value of the spy tool, while Congress is fixated on cleaning up the repeated abuses that have occurred under it.

“I will only support the reauthorization of Section 702 of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act if there are significant reforms,” Sen. Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday during a panel hearing on oversight of the program.

The law allows U.S. spy agencies to collect the text, email and other digital communications of foreigners located abroad. But a series of recently documented abuses involving Americans whose data has been swept up into the program has led both Republicans and Democrats to push for sweeping changes ahead of the statute’s year-end expiration date.

“I have raised significant concerns in hearing after hearing after hearing about FISA and its shocking disregard for Americans’ constitutional rights and civil liberties,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said at the hearing.

And year after year, Lee continued, he gets the same dismissive answer from the intelligence community: “These are not the droids you’re looking for.”

The hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee represents a key step in the administration’s effort to dissuade Congress from making major changes to the surveillance tool. The Committee shares jurisdiction over the law with the Senate Intelligence panel, meaning it is likely to play a strong role in any effort to reup it.

Witnesses representing the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, NSA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence dedicated much of their testimony Tuesday to arguing that the surveillance program is vital to U.S. national security.

“The information the CIA derives from FISA Section 702 collection is quite simply indispensable,” said David Cohen, deputy director of the CIA.

“Without it our ability to preserve the nation’s security will be significantly impaired,” added George Barnes, the deputy director of the NSA.

The officials also sought to buttress their case by declassifying new information about how the program has played a central role in thwarting drug trafficking and foreign cyberattacks.

But lawmakers on the panel were far more concerned about the privacy abuses that have occurred under the law — the vast majority of which concern the FBI’s ability to warrantlessly sift through data collected under the program for information on Americans.

“I’ve been a constant supporter of 702, and it’s very frustrating years into the process to have these errors,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

Many of the abuses discussed Tuesday occurred prior to the FBI’s implementing a series of new compliance fixes in 2021 — a point administration officials were quick to note.

The administration is prepared to codify those changes into law, said FBI deputy director Paul Abbate. The measures, which include basic steps like requiring FBI officials to opt-in to searches within the database, have led to steep decline in those controversial searches, according to intelligence community oversight reports declassified in April.

Abbate also revealed at the hearing that the FBI is instituting two further reforms: a three-strike policy to discourage officers from conducting needless searches in the database, and a framework for incorporating FISA oversight into senior officials’ performance reviews.

But most lawmakers on the panel expressed interest in more sweeping reforms, above all a warrant requirement to limit the FBI’s ability to search through the 702 database for information on Americans.

“We’ve got an opportunity this year to make reforms, and we must do it,” Lee, a supporter of the warrant requirement, said Tuesday. Durbin added: “I’ve got to see more” than internal FBI compliance fixes, and said his support for the program is contingent on the warrant.

The administration witnesses Tuesday tried — but evidently failed — to convince lawmakers that’d be an unwise change.

“Unduly limiting the FBI’s ability to access lawfully collected information … will set us back decades,” DOJ assistant attorney general Matt Olsen said. The warrant, he added, “would put the nation at grave risk.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/sk52exO
via IFTTT

Read More

Biden rushes replacement armored vehicles to Ukraine after battlefield losses

The Biden administration is rushing more armored vehicles to Ukraine as the country’s forces suffer some early losses in the early thrusts of its counteroffensive against Russia.

The $325 million drawdown of U.S. military stocks announced Tuesday will also pump artillery shells and air defense missiles into the fight, in addition to sending 15 Bradley fighting vehicles to Ukraine after a similar number was lost recently in heavy fighting.

The latest package — the 40th since the start of the war — also includes 10 Stryker infantry carriers to add to the 90 already sent. The Army has supplied over 100 Bradleys to Ukraine, and has trained Ukrainians to use both vehicles.

By attacking through minefields while under Russian artillery fire, the Ukrainian army has already lost at least 16 Bradleys and four Leopard tanks, open source intelligence project Oryx has reported. Kyiv does not provide official numbers for battlefield losses.

NATO countries have trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops over the past year, many of whom are now being thrown into the fight across a vast swath of territory across hundreds of miles of front lines. Some of those units are equipped with the U.S.-made Bradleys and Strykers, and other with German-made Leopard tanks.

The Pentagon has pledged 31 Abrams tanks, but the Ukrainians are still training on them in Poland, and they won’t appear on the battlefield for months.

Unlike the surprise lightning offensive that took back hundreds of miles of territory in the fall, Kyiv has downplayed some Western expectations for this latest thrust, with well-entrenched Russian forces awaiting them entrenched behind vast minefields.

“It’s going to be a slow roll,” Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) said. “I can tell you as a former armor officer, breaking those types of trenches and defensive lines is incredibly costly and difficult. If they do it correctly, they’ll save the Western-provided tanks for the breakthrough.”

The Ukrainians “are making progress,” NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said Tuesday during an Oval Office visit with President Joe Biden. “The more land the Ukrainians are able to liberate, the stronger hand they will have at the negotiating table,” he said.

More aid will soon be on the way, as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley are en route to Germany for the next Ukraine Defense Contact Group and NATO defense ministerial meetings this week.

High on the agenda will be sustainment for the tanks and heavy armor Western allies have sent Ukraine, as the war grinds on and as Kyiv’s forces will need help in repairing battle-damaged equipment this summer.

The Ukrainian government is eager to begin working with the U.S. and European defense industries to establish maintenance facilities either in Ukraine or in nearby Poland.

“Several of our European counterparts have pre-existing relationships with Ukrainian industry,” said one Defense Department official, who was granted anonymity to speak to internal discussions. “I’ve talked to several European companies and they’re leveraging that and making plans for going forward.”

Long-term sustainment is one of the working groups established under the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meetings and it is “the most active working group right now,” the official said.

Joe Gould contributed to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/G68mcno
via IFTTT

Read More