Good morning! Last night (and just a few days after the US House finally made its moves), the Senate passed the foreign aid package that includes money for Ukraine and other US allies. Senior correspondent Joshua Keating is here to dig into the stakes.
—Caroline Houck, senior editor of news |
|
|
Wolfgang Schwan/Anadolu via Getty Images |
Ukraine is finally getting more American aid |
Ukrainian forces are having their best week in months, and it's coming not on the muddy battlefields of the Donbas, but across the Atlantic. On Saturday, after months of delay, the US House of Representatives approved $61 billion in new funding for Ukraine, alongside aid packages for Israel and for US allies in the Pacific; last night, the Senate approved the package and sent it on to President Joe Biden. He said he'll sign it today. The new weapons can't come soon enough. During recent months, the tide has turned decisively against the Ukrainians on the battlefield as they have been forced to conserve artillery and air defense ammunition. Russia's military has been firing as much as five times as many artillery shells as the Ukrainians, and one US commander recently warned that the advantage could soon be as high as 10-1. Farther from the front lines, Ukraine's much-vaunted air defense systems —which once shot down around 90 percent of Russian missiles and drones — have become dramatically less effective, with disastrous consequences for Ukraine's cities and infrastructure. Kateryna Stepanenko, a Russia analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, told Vox that Ukraine has lost an estimated 583 square kilometers (225 square miles) of territory since last October, when the US began reducing the size of its aid packages. This is not a huge amount of territory within Europe's second-largest country, but more important than the actual ground covered was that the Russian advances forced the Ukrainians to "waste their precious resources on repelling Russian attacks rather than taking the initiative," Stepanenko said. "The delay in providing assistance to Ukraine cost us dearly," Yehor Cherniev, a member of the Ukrainian parliament and deputy chair of its defense committee, told Vox. "Due to a lack of ammunition, we lost [the city of] Avdiivka and a number of small settlements, and also suffered significant human losses … All this could have been avoided if help had been provided on time." Now that help has been provided, can it stanch the bleeding? |
Nina Liashonok / Ukrinform/Future Publishing via Getty Images |
Turning the tide, or buying time? |
The Pentagon, which has certainly had ample time to prepare, reportedly has an initial weapons package ready for approval and deployment as soon as the funding comes through. While the administration has not yet announced what specific weapons will be sent, Reuters reports that the initial tranche may be worth as much as $1 billion and include vehicles, artillery ammunition, and air defense ammunition. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) has also suggested it could include long-range ATACMS missiles, a capability Ukraine has been asking for since the early days of the war but which the White House has been reluctant to approve due to concerns they could be used to strike targets inside Russia. But more than two years into the war, will this aid really make a difference? "Yes, this is enough to stabilize the front lines," said Mark Cancian, a retired US Marine colonel and expert on defense logistics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "You'll see almost an immediate battlefield impact." That's no small thing considering the concerns expressed recently by observers in Ukraine that the country's defenses could collapse entirely. Franz-Stefan Gady, an analyst with the Center for a New American Security who recently returned from a study trip to the front lines in Ukraine, said the new aid package was likely to "restore a situation more akin to November 2023, when the Ukrainians didn't have to make as many trade-offs" about which sections of the front line and targets in the rear they were able to defend. The aid also comes in the nick of time, as Russia has been stepping up its strikes along the front line, likely ahead of new attempts to seize territory in the spring, when drier conditions will make it easier to maneuver military vehicles. However, Gady cautions, "the package doesn't address the most critical issue, which is manpower." (More on why that is here.) The optimistic view of the conflict for Ukraine is that new assistance will buy it much-needed time. It can hold the line this year and replenish units that were badly damaged in last year's disappointing counteroffensive, hopefully putting it in a better position to push back Russia's gains in 2025. By that time, Ukraine will have access to some new capabilities, such as F-16 fighter jets, and more importantly, the US and Europe will have ramped up their production of artillery ammunition, hopefully allowing the Ukrainians to narrow the Russians' ammo advantage. But there's a difference between avoiding losing the war and actually winning it. No one expects this new aid alone to accomplish the latter. "Okay, you've stabilized the front. Now what?" said Cancian. "The Ukrainians have to answer that question. What is their theory of victory?" |
Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images |
No one should expect a Russian collapse overnight. Even the most optimistic scenarios for Ukraine envision a long and costly war of attrition. Unfortunately, the lengthy and agonizingly difficult process of passing this aid bill suggests Washington may not be so patient. If the new aid allows Ukraine merely to preserve a new stalemate on the battlefield rather than make significant gains, international pressure on Kyiv to negotiate with Moscow may grow more prominent. Ukrainian leaders will counter that they have no reason to trust that Russia will honor such a settlement. As for Russia's own calculations, the passage of the aid bill was an important signal to President Vladimir Putin that there's still strong political support for Ukraine in the United States, even if it's not quite as robust as it was two years ago. Of course, that could all change next year if former President Donald Trump, who would likely pressure Ukraine to give up territory to end the war, returns to the White House. Ukraine and its allies have been reaching out to Trump and his allies in hopes of hedging their bets, and in a slightly positive sign for Kyiv, Trump ended up backing the new aid package after it was structured as a loan rather than a grant, an idea he had floated earlier. But it's safe to say that leaders in both Kyiv and Moscow will have to continue keeping one eye on America's political climate even as they plot their next moves on the battlefield. —Joshua Keating, senior correspondent |
|
|
| Florida man wants immunity |
You can beat the heat if you beat the charges too. We preview the Donald Trump immunity case going before the Supreme Court this week, and his role in a related case involving January 6 defendants. |
|
|
- Checking in on the Trump trial: The judge "appeared poised on Tuesday to sanction Donald Trump for violating the gag order in his criminal hush money case." [CNN]
|
- On parenthood: Why is Elon Musk "dragging his 3-year-old around the world?" [NYMag]
- And compassion: Americans' empathy plummeted for decades between the 1970s and 2010s. Now it's rebounding. [Vox]
|
- AI is coming for one of the last good parts of the internet: Do you use Reddit as a bastion for interacting with real people with real opinions? Companies are trying to change that, seeding fake comments to promote products. [404 Media]
|
|
|
How did Earth get its water? |
Life as we know it needs water, but scientists can't figure out where Earth's water came from. |
| |
|
Are you enjoying the Today, Explained newsletter? Forward it to a friend; they can sign up for it right here. And as always, we want to know what you think. We recently changed the format of this newsletter. Any questions, comments, or ideas? We're all ears. Specifically: If there is a topic you want us to explain or a story you're curious to learn more about, let us know by filling out this form or just replying to this email. A correction: Yesterday's edition misstated the name of Canada's public broadcaster. The correct name is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Today's edition was edited and produced by Caroline Houck. We'll see you tomorrow! |
|
|
This email was sent to comercialyventas.aliperiodicos@blogger.com. Manage your email preferences or unsubscribe. If you value Vox's unique explanatory journalism, support our work with a one-time or recurring contribution. View our Privacy Notice and our Terms of Service. Vox Media, 1701 Rhode Island Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. |
|
|
|
