MQ-9 Reapers Offered To Ukraine For $1, But Relevancy Questions Remain
The sale price is very attractive, but what the drones could bring to the fight remains dubious and there will be millions in other costs.
General Atomics has offered to sell the Ukrainian government two of its flagship
MQ-9 Reaper drones. While the idea of also sending the company’s
MQ-1C Gray Eagle to Ukraine has been floated a number of times since Russia’s all-out invasion began, it remains unclear exactly how valuable either type’s contributions could be considering their vulnerability when operating in contested airspace.
In a report published by
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), which is
worth its own read, the outlet revealed that it had obtained information about the General Atomics offering by reviewing “a letter.” The overall proposal, which was made by General Atomics Chief Executive Officer Linden Blue, would sell Kyiv two company-owned
MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) and a ground control station to operate them from a disparate location for just $1. However, if accepted, WSJ said Kyiv would still have to pay about $10 million in preparation and shipping costs to get the Reapers to Ukraine, and around an additional $8 million each following year to maintain and sustain the drones.
Because the U.S. government would have to
approve the sale of two Reapers to Kyiv should it take General Atomics up on its offer, WSJ said it reached out to both The White House and the Ukrainian government for more information, but both declined to comment. WSJ was in touch with General Atomics, too, but since starting this article, the company has released
a full statement written by Blue explaining the company’s reasoning behind the offer.
“The world has reacted in almost unanimous support for the Ukrainian cause, but those efforts have overlooked one of the most obvious and force-multiplying technologies of modern warfare: Long-range and enduring, stand-off sensing, unmanned aircraft systems,” wrote Blue.
“We have delivered more than 1,000 aircraft over 30 years and flown nearly eight million flight hours, most of them in hostile areas around the world. This is all we do. We know that introducing these systems to the battlefield will provide an immediate impact,” Blue continued. “We have offered to train Ukrainian operators on these systems at no cost to U.S. taxpayers or the Ukrainian government. We have offered flexible options and recommendations for delivery. We have discussed the situation endlessly at every level of the U.S. federal government, and with many international partners.”
Blue also explains, in reference to the $1 price tag on the potential exchange, that the preparation and shipping costs as well as those associated with “setting up operations in [Ukraine], obtaining satellite bandwidth, and providing additional supporting labor” are out of General Atomics’ control. He added that the estimates published by WSJ do not include “a penny of profit” to the company.
General Atomics’ MQ-9 Reaper is a multi-mission, turboprop-powered
attack and
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) drone that first took to the skies over two decades ago. It has an endurance of between 27 hours and roughly 40 hours, depending on the configuration. It can travel at speeds of 240 knots, can operate up to 50,000 feet, and has a 3,850-pound payload capacity that includes 3,000 pounds of external stores.
These can include weapons like the AGM-114 Hellfire, GBU-12 Paveway laser-guided bombs,
Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), and more, as well as a huge
range of podded systems. These pods can
support enhanced surveillance, electronic warfare, and survivability upgrades, as well as
expanded magazine depth and even
battle management and communications tasks.
Reaper is larger than its cousin, the U.S. Army's
MQ-1C Gray Eagle, and can carry a heavier payload. Both Reapers and Gray Eagles are designed to allow their operators to monitor and target enemies while providing data back to their corresponding ground control stations, which can be located beyond line-of-sight literally halfway around the world. They can also be operated using within line-of-sight datalinks and communications architectures.
Because of the systems’ combat versatility and proven experience in
theaters like Afghanistan,
Syria, and Iraq, the idea of sending Reaper or Gray Eagle to Ukraine has been
a hot topic of discussion since the latest stage of the conflict erupted last February. Ukraine has made notable use of
Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones, for example, leading some to believe that Reapers and Gray Eagles would be the logical next step. But others, including Ukraine’s own combat pilots, aren’t so sure this would be practical, and for good reason.
While variants of the Reaper have provided both the
U.S. Marine Corps and
Air Force — as well as international customers like the UK, Italy, France, Spain, and the Netherlands — with a reliable and persistent ISR and strike capability for years, the
drone’s vulnerabilities have
nonetheless been highlighted in recent years. This is due to various reasons, the most prominent of which is that slower, easily detectable drones operating at medium and higher altitudes are at significant risk of being detected by
robust enemy air defense systems. The Reaper and Gray Eagle were really designed to operate in lower-risk, relatively permissible combat environments. The battlefield in Ukraine is neither of those things.
Russia has employed a dense multi-layer air defense umbrella that reaches relatively deep into airspace over territory that Ukraine controls. Aircraft operating at altitudes — especially slow and unmaneuverable ones — within this threat envelope are at risk of being engaged in some capacity. This would make it challenging for Reaper and Gray Eagle to safely get to the target areas necessary to leverage their ISR and strike capabilities, which would render the systems somewhat irrelevant, at least in regards to being able to perform their core mission sets.
A Ukrainian combat pilot whose callsign is ‘Juice’ spoke to how this reality would affect Gray Eagle specifically in
this past War Zone feature, saying the drone can only really be used “for reconnaissance” and “at large distances" and “not for attack missions because for attack missions you need to be closer [to the enemy].” He added, “It’s a very capable platform…but as for me it’s very dangerous to use it just on the front line. It’s not Afghanistan here.” With that, it isn’t difficult to see how the same could apply to Reaper even outside of an attack scenario.
Another Ukrainian aviator going by his callsign ‘Moonfish’ noted how, despite their initial success with Bayraktar TB2 drones, Ukrainian forces ultimately decided to scale back operations with the aircraft as Russia’s air defenses grew, which doesn’t bode well for Reapers or Gray Eagles. “[Bayraktar TB2 drones] were very useful and important in the very first days,” Moonfish said, referencing how the drones were helpful in stopping
columns of Russian armored vehicles and troops heading toward Kyiv. Still, once Russia built up more sophisticated air defenses, he said TB2s became “almost useless."
Both Reaper and Gray Eagle are also worth millions of dollars and are equipped with some sensitive electronics that could be at risk for exploitation if shot down and captured by Russian forces. Still, these aircraft have been lost before and parts have fallen into the hands of enemy actors, so the technological risk is unlikely to be seen as extreme, but may still be a consideration.
As noted earlier, there have been some strides made in making the Reapers and Gray Eagles more survivable by bolting on pods that can help protect them from enemy actions. This includes electronic warfare types and especially a dedicated self-protection pod. But considering how dense and far-reaching Russia’s counter-air umbrella is along the front lines, it's questionable if these systems would be able to ‘buy back’ enough proximity to relevant mission areas to make the drones highly useful. And, of course, there would still be a risk, regardless.
This is not to say that Reapers and Gray Eagles would be totally useless, though. They could potentially provide some other benefits, such as standoff electronic warfare support and intelligence gathering in less contested areas under certain circumstances. They could also act as a communications node. Their ability to deploy western standoff guided weapons, like Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) could also be useful, but even if launched from high altitude, a Reaper would have to be a few dozen miles from its target to execute an SDB strike.
This may be possible without extreme risk using coordinated tactics in certain areas,
including suppression of enemy air defenses and electronic warfare, during a strike operation, but similar effects could be had using guided artillery without all the risk and complexity. And, as noted earlier, these aircraft would still be expensive assets to maintain. With just two in inventory, it’s questionable if acquiring the pair would be a good use of Ukraine’s precious resources.
Regardless, General Atomics seems staunch in its offer to send two Reapers to Ukraine if the U.S. government approves the sale, and their offer appears to be generous.
“Our goal is now, and has always been, to help the Ukrainian armed forces defend and protect their homes and families, and help bring a rapid closure to this conflict before more lives are lost,” Blue concluded in his statement. “There are limits to what an American defense company can do to support a situation such as this. From our perspective, it is long past time to enable Ukrainian forces with the information dominance required to win this war.”
It will certainly be interesting to see how this sale pans out if Ukraine is to accept.
Contact the author: Emma@thewarzone.com
Two Norwegian volunteers injured in Bakhmut shelling
Sander Sørsveen Trelvik and Simon Johnsen, two Norwegian medics volunteering in Ukraine, were injured during shelling in the city of Bakhmut in Donetsk Oblast.
Source: Simon Johnsen and the medics’ relatives in a comment for
VG, a Norwegian online newspaper
Details: Johnsen said that on the morning of Thursday, 2 February, he and Trelvik were asked to evacuate several people who sustained injuries during shelling. When the two of them arrived at the designated location, Russian forces opened fire on them.
"They bombed the same place twice. Then they started [firing] on the area when they saw that we were still alive," Johnsen said, adding that several people that accompanied him and Trelvik were killed.
Trelvik's mother said that her son suffered burns to 30-40% of his body and had numerous shrapnel wounds; his internal organs were not affected. Both he and Johnsen have been hospitalised in Dnipro where they will receive further treatment.
Trelvik's mother added that the Norwegian government was preparing to evacuate both volunteers to Norway via Poland.
Representatives of Norway's Foreign Ministry told VG that they were aware of the incident but refused to offer further details.
Bakhmut is under constant attack by Wagner Group mercenaries and has been one of the hottest spots on the frontline for the past several months. Russia claims to have encircled the town, which the Ukrainian side denies.
Journalists fight on their own frontline. Support Ukrainska Pravda or become our patron!
As Ukraine’s economy reels, Ukrainians find ways to soldier on
Last January, Oleksandr Kachanovskyy and his family put all their savings into two big purchases: a new car and new furniture for their home in Mariupol.
A month later, Russia’s invasion destroyed that second purchase. Shelling and street fighting leveled the city over a three-month siege. “There was no place to live,” says Mr. Kachanovskyy. “The conditions were unbearable.”
So in late March, Mr. Kachanovskyy and his family packed into their new Volkswagen and drove to Lviv, where his father had once lived. They spent two weeks with family and then found free housing in a dormitory for students at the local hospitality college, on the outskirts of the city, surviving on his salary alone.
He, like millions of other Ukrainians, is caught in an economic tug of war. Ukraine’s economy is currently suspended between two competing forces. On one end, the Russian invasion has pulled it consistently toward decline: a
25% and accelerating poverty rate, a
35% contraction of gross domestic product, an
inflation rate rising above 26%. On the other end are
billions of dollars in military and humanitarian aid to the country, which experts say keep the economy stable.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said Ukraine needs around $5 billion a month and
$55 billion next year to cover the deficit and begin rebuilding. At least for the time being, Ukraine seems to be getting by on less, says Rajan Menon, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. But the longer the war goes on, the more expensive it gets, no matter how many weapons flow into the country. Ukraine has no shortage of willpower to fight, but how long can the country afford it?
“As long as Western aid continues to flow in ... they can survive,” says Professor Menon. But without the support, “it will be an economy that is subject to enormous strain, and people will find basic life, basic things that we take for granted, much more difficult to come by.”
For now, Mr. Kachanovskyy feels fortunate to have a home and some income, starting as the dormitory’s nighttime security guard last fall. With subsidized housing, his family can survive on the small salary. “Of course, our income is not that big,” he says, “but it’s enough and could be much worse.”
Diminishing employment, rising costs
Lviv is a portrait of the country’s fragile, and often contradictory, economy. Its western location has made it a sanctuary for citizens fleeing the war. Some 400,000 displaced people stayed in Lviv at some point last year, though only 200,000 remain, says Andriy Moskalenko, the city’s deputy mayor for economic development.
These displaced people need housing and income. While the city has been able to provide temporary shelter through renovated dormitories, like the one Mr. Kachanovskyy lives in, jobs have proved more difficult.
On the official regional job center registry, there are only 10,000 available positions, says Orest Hryniv, deputy head of the Lviv region’s department of economic policy. More can be found on online platforms, he says, but there is still a large gap between job needs and job openings. Even those who do get work may find themselves making wages that are unsustainably low. About 41% of the jobs on the official registry are in the service economy.
“The salaries that people receive in these jobs are not [high enough to] help people to afford the renting and also to take care of their families,” says Mr. Hryniv.
Meanwhile, the streets of Lviv are busy and businesses are open – though they’re often powered by generators humming outside. Souvenir shops sell patriotic tchotchkes, from mugs adorned with Molotov cocktails (“Smoothie, Ukrainian Style,” they read) to traditional Ukrainian garb. Street markets for groceries and other goods are still active. Operating shops suggest consumer demand, and disposable income.
Regardless, that income has lost much of its value in a year of rapid inflation. Mr. Kachanovskyy, speaking on the ground floor of the dormitory as students pass in and out, says much of his family’s monthly budget is spent on food and fuel, both of which have become more expensive.
“I don’t know when this will be over,” he says, “and the prices will be rising for sure again.”
Nationwide, the war has forced the Ukrainian government to budget tightly. Mr. Moskalenko says the military, critical infrastructure, and hospitals occupy almost all of Lviv’s spending, just as they do nationally. Inflation has made those budget decisions more difficult. Already, he says, there have been government layoffs.
“We can survive”
Just blocks away from the college dormitory is the Lviv employment center, housed in a large administrative building. In the atrium is a series of standing bulletin boards, advertising openings and training opportunities – many that the region will subsidize – across different industries. Aside from employees, the building is almost empty.
On the second floor, Oleh Risny, head of the employment center, sits at a large desk next to a conference table and Ukrainian flag. Since the start of the war, he says, government unemployment benefits have fallen in amount and length – from nine to now three months. That’s meant fewer people visiting centers like his, atop of other factors such as men fearing conscription if they register as unemployed. The lack of visitors is “not about a good economic situation,” he says. “It’s about changing legislation.”
Ukraine already had problems in taxing its unofficial economy, he says, which makes up a large share of employment around the country. Those have grown more acute during the war, when tax revenues are scarcer. Other offices like his have lost 30% to 40% of their staff in short spans. They’re bracing for something similar, says Mr. Risny.
“But we understand why it is,” he says. “We can survive.”
So can Mr. Kachanovskyy. “We are very glad for these conditions,” he says. He, his wife, his son, his daughter-in-law, and his two grandchildren split two rooms upstairs – though his daughter-in-law just left to work abroad and his son, who registered as unemployed months ago, hasn’t been able to find a job.
He, like many other Ukrainians, lived through the 1990s, when a toddling independent government mismanaged the economy into crisis. Industrial production and GDP losses were higher than America’s during the Great Depression. In 1994 alone, GDP fell by 23%.
“I am sure that the ’90s were worse than this,” says Mr. Kachanovskyy, who worked multiple jobs and sold personal possessions just to get through. Now he has his family with him, he has his needs met, and he has a job that keeps him from going crazy, he says.
“We have nothing to complain about. Of course, it was much better before the 24th of February. Now we have what we have.”
Oleksandr Naselenko supported the reporting of this article.
Russia Deploys Combat Robots to Fight Tanks in Ukraine
Russia is reportedly deploying combat robots in an effort to fight the array of tanks that Ukraine has at their disposal.
In a Telegram
post on Thursday, Dmitry Rogozin, former head of Russian space industry and current leader of the military advisory group, "Tsar Wolves," shared a video of a combat robot being transported off of a truck.
"The first four 'Marker' robots arrived in the region on schedule. We are starting to upload target images, work out combat algorithms as part of a group of combat robots, and install powerful anti-tank weapons," Rogozin wrote in the translated Telegram post.
The post from Rogozin comes as Ukraine has recently
received several types of tanks from the U.S., Germany and other
NATO nations amid Ukraine's war with Russia. In February 2022, Russian President
Vladimir Putin announced the "special military operation" in Ukraine and intense fighting between the two nations has nearly reached the one-year mark, which is February 24.
Last month, U.S. President
Joe Biden announced a plan to send 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine.
"They need to be able to counter Russia's evolving tactics and strategy on the battlefield in the very near term. They need to improve their ability to maneuver in open terrain. And, they need an enduring capability to deter and defend against Russian aggression over the long term," Biden said in a statement following the announcement.
Biden added that the M1 Abrams tanks are the "most capable tanks in the world."
In addition to the U.S., Germany also recently announced that it was sending Leopard 2 Tanks to Ukraine last month.
"Germany will provide Ukraine with Leopard 2 combat tanks—as so far in close consultation with our international allies. Chancellor [Olaf] Scholz declared this in the Bundestag today. He also explicitly addressed those citizens who are worried about this decision," the
German government said.
However, Anatoly Antonov, Russian ambassador to the U.S.,
recently told Newsweek that "American tanks without any doubt will be destroyed as all other samples of NATO military equipment."
During an interview with Russian news agency RIA Novosti last month, Rogozin discussed the use of the Marker combat robots, saying they would be able to detect M1 Abrams tanks or the German-made Leopard 2 tanks in battle.
"Everyone agrees that our strike Marker should be prepared for their destruction along with the crews in the remaining time before the arrival of the Abrams and Leopards in Ukraine," Rogozin said, according to RIA Novosti.
Newsweek has reached out to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry for comment.
EU allocates EUR 500 billion in assistance to Ukraine
The EU has allocated its seventh package of assistance for Ukraine worth EUR 500 million ($546 million), and additional military support in the amount of EUR 45 million ($49 million), Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said in a Twitter post on Feb. 2, expressing his gratitude.
“I am thankful for EU’s vital security assistance which brings us closer to defeating the Russian aggressor,” said Kuleba.
No further details were provided.
Ukrainian PM Denys Shmyhal, stated that the first ever intergovernmental consultations between Ukraine and the EU would take place on Feb. 2.
Losing Crimea Would Escalate Russian-Ukraine Conflict, Former Defense Secretary Says
Losing Crimea, which holds an important naval base in Sevastopol, to Ukraine would cross a “real red line” for Russia and likely risk an escalation of the ongoing war, a former U.S. defense secretary said Wednesday.
Reclaiming Crimea would be “an exceptionally difficult fight” because Russian President Vladimir Putin attaches so much importance to it, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said during an
online forum hosted by The Washington Post. Moscow annexed Crimea in 2014, saying it was protecting the base and defending its citizens living there.
Gates said he believes Ukraine could take back control of the Donbas region. It has seen more than eight years of fighting after the Kremlin openly backed separatists there with men, equipment and financial support as it was illegally annexing Crimea.
The critical issue for Ukraine is how quickly the United States and NATO allies can get equipment like tanks and other armored vehicles into the country, Gates said.
“We ought to be airlifting some of that equipment to Poland now,” he said.
This includes the American Abrams M-1A1 tanks and German Leopard tanks, armored personnel carriers and Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected [MRAP] vehicles, Gates said.
Russia is gauging the speed at which it can draft an additional 120,000 men, which would bring the number of new troops that need training and equipment to bolster defenses and launch a counteroffensive to 500,000. He said a new Russian push could begin as early as the anniversary of the invasion, Feb. 24.
Gates questioned whether Ukraine needs F-16 fighters since the Russians have not been able to gain air superiority even in areas they control in the eastern part of the country. Ukrainian “air defenses may make the need for F-16s moot,” he said.
He added that allies will likely keep pushing the Biden administration to give them the go-ahead to ship their American-built F-16s and begin training pilots and maintenance crews on operations.
The waves of drone and missile strikes on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure have not broken the Ukrainians’ will to continue to fight, despite attacks that aim to terrorize civilians, Gates said.
“The most important thing to get to them now is armor and getting it there quickly,” he said.
Gates was wary about providing Ukrainian armed forces with longer range weapons that could strike targets across the Russian border. He stressed the need for an agreement between Kyiv and Washington on targets, such as logistical depots and rail hubs, and locations. It’s an option “worth considering but with very real limits imposed” before receiving approval, he said.
Gates, a former CIA analyst, said he believes Putin is “a rational decision-maker” who was ill-informed and isolated at the start of the war due to COVID-19 restrictions. He dismissed the idea that replacing Putin would bring an end to the war more quickly by pointing out “the advisers to him are more hawkish than he is.” He mentioned Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner Group of mercenaries, as one of those closest to Putin, but also a critic of how Russia is fighting the war.
The latest Russian commander in Ukraine, Valery Gerasimov, faces an uphill struggle, Gates said. He noted the Russian Army’s “lack of battle experience” that it still relies on a Soviet model of slow decision-making that’s further handicapped by a top-heavy leadership.
The army still fights with “total disregard [for] the number of casualties you take” to overcome an enemy by mass. The tactic worked in World War II, but its viability against a Ukrainian army that has had eight years of NATO and American training on building leadership into lower ranks and flexibility in combat is questionable, Gates said. .
The war has left Russia “significantly weakened for a long time,” he said. Gates cited the departure of hundreds of thousands of Russian men, many with technology skills, when Russia announced the first draft in the summer. At the same time as sanctions took effect, “there was the withdrawal of Western companies [who are] not coming back anytime soon,” affecting Russians’ standards of living and expectations, he said.
Gates expects it will take a generation for Russia to regain that technological and economic position.
But “the last thing we need is Russia fragmenting” into a collapse similar to the Soviet Union’s in the early 1990s and losing control of its nuclear weapons, he said.
US says F-16 deal contingent on Turkey’s support for NATO Expansion
The US Congress cannot support the $20 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Turkey until Ankara ratifies the NATO memberships of Sweden and Finland, a bipartisan group of senators said on Thursday.
Sweden and Finland applied last year to join the trans-Atlantic defense pact after Russia invaded Ukraine, but faced unexpected objections from Turkey and have since sought to win its support.
Ankara wants Helsinki and Stockholm in particular to take a tougher line against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which is considered a terror group by
Turkey and the European Union, and another group it blames for a 2016 coup attempt.
The three nations reached an agreement on a way forward in Madrid last June, but Ankara suspended talks last month following protests in Stockholm in which a far-right Danish politician burned a copy of the Muslim holy book, the Koran.
In a letter to
President Joe Biden, 29 Democratic and Republican senators said the two Nordic countries were making "full and good faith efforts" to meet the conditions for NATO membership that Turkey asked, even though Ankara says Sweden needs to do more.
"Once the NATO accession protocols are ratified by Türkiye, Congress can consider the sale of F-16 fighter jets. A failure to do so, however, would call into question this pending sale," the senators wrote.
It was the first time Congress explicitly and directly linked the F-16 sale to Turkey with the NATO accession bids of the two Nordic countries.
The Biden administration has repeatedly said it supports the sale and refused to link the two issues, although it acknowledged that the ratification of Sweden and Finland's NATO accession would facilitate the sale process in Congress.
Turkey has said it could approve Finland's NATO membership application ahead of
Sweden's, but the Finnish president and foreign minister have both rejected this idea, arguing that the security of the two Nordic countries is mutually dependent of NATO's 30 members, only Turkey and Hungary have yet to ratify the Nordic countries' memberships.
Turkey requested in October 2021 to buy 40 Lockheed Martin Corp F-16 fighters and nearly 80 modernization kits for its existing warplanes.
In a visit to Washington last month, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said the NATO issue should not be a precondition for the sale and urged the Biden administration to persuade Congress to drop its objection.
While Congress can block foreign arms sales, it has not previously mustered the two-thirds majorities in both chambers required to overcome a presidential veto.
France and Australia to make artillery shells for Ukrainian army
The Australian and French governments have agreed to a deal to jointly manufacture and supply thousands of artillery shells to the Ukrainian army, the defence and foreign ministers of the two countries announced on Monday. The plan, unveiled at a “2+2” ministerial meeting in Paris, reportedly involves the Australian supply of explosives for the shells, to be made in France.
“Several thousand 155mm shells will be manufactured jointly” by French arms supplier Nexter, French Defence Minister Sébastien Lecornu said. His Australian counterpart and deputy prime minister Richard Marles said the plan would come with a “multi-million-dollar” price tag, but neither provided an actual figure.
The agreement marks a further significant stepping up of both governments’ involvement in the US-NATO war against Russia in Ukraine, in line with the dangerous escalation by the US and Germany, marked by the deployment of advanced heavy tanks.
It came soon after the January 4
announcementby French President Emmanuel Macron that France would deliver AMX-10 RC light tanks to the Ukrainian military. That was the first dispatch of Western tanks, soon followed by Washington and Berlin.
It also came on the heels of the Australian Labor government sending 70 military personnel two weeks ago to join Operation Interflex, a UK-led mission that has already trained around 10,000 Ukrainian troops. That took Australia’s military contribution to at least $655 million, including the supply of 90 Bushmaster armoured vehicles, making it one of the largest non-NATO contributors to the war.
Several types of artillery sent to Ukraine from the NATO powers fire 155mm shells, including French-made CAESAR truck-mounted guns, the British-built M777 howitzer and the German Panzerhaubitze 2000 self-propelled gun.
Marles declared that the ammunition supplies fit into “the ongoing level of support both France and Australia are providing Ukraine to make sure Ukraine is able to stay in this conflict and… see it concluded on its own terms.” That language indicates an indefinite commitment, echoing similar aggressive statements from the Biden administration.
Lecornu said the aid would be “significant” and “an effort that will be kept up over time,” with the first deliveries slated for the first quarter of 2023, that is, within two months.
Such comments underscore the intent of the US-led powers to deliberately stoke and ramp up the war, using Ukraine as a battleground for a drive to defeat and dismember Russia, having goaded Putin’s oligarchic regime into a disastrous invasion.
Monday’s meeting was the first Australia-France Foreign and Defence Ministerial Consultations since the diplomatic rupture caused by the September 2021 AUKUS treaty between the US, UK and Australia. Australia dumped a $90 billion contract to purchase French submarines in favour of a deal with the US and UK to supply nuclear-powered attack submarines.
The resumption of strategic and military ties between Australia and France, which has colonies and bases across the Indian and Pacific oceans, highlights the reality that the war against Russia is regarded by the US and all its imperialist allies as a prelude to one against China for control over the entire strategic and resource-rich Eurasian landmass.
By repairing relations with France, which began with a visit to Paris last July by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the Labor government in Australia is assisting the Biden administration to strengthen a network of military alliances encircling China, while bolstering the interests of Australian and French capitalism in the region.
Marles said the signed agreement was the opening of “new cooperation between the Australian and French defence industries.” He said the meeting also agreed to “grow and deepen the relationship between our two defence forces” and the two countries would have greater access to their respective defence facilities in the Indo-Pacific region.
As indicated by the joint statement issued by the four ministers, the two imperialist powers regard this collaboration as part of a wider alliance, focused on the Indo-Pacific, directed against China as well as Russia.
The statement declared that “France and Australia agreed to continue to work together” to “address shared security challenges” in the Indo-Pacific region. While not explicitly naming China as the target, the statement left no doubt about that. It employed all the catchphrases used by the US and its allies against China, including vowing to support “freedom of navigation” naval operations and overflights in Chinese-controlled areas of the South China Sea.
The statement effectively lined up behind Washington’s escalating steps to provoke China into a conflict over Taiwan by eroding the 50-year-old “One China” policy, whereby the Chinese government was in effect recognised as the legitimate government over all of China, including Taiwan.
While claiming to support the “status quo” and “peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait,” the statement pledged to “support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the work of international organisations” and “continue deepening relations with Taiwan in the economic, scientific, trade, technological and cultural fields.”
French imperialism, which once directly controlled a vast colonial empire, notably in Africa and Indochina, remains a major nuclear-armed power across the Indo-Pacific. It retains colonial rule over territories with about 1.65 million citizens and five permanent military bases manned by 7,000 personnel, from the Indian Ocean islands of Mayotte and Reunion, to the Pacific Ocean islands of New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna and French Polynesia.
During a
visit to the region in 2018, Macron called for a new Indo-Pacific “axis” directed against China, signalling moves alongside other European imperialist powers, particularly the UK and Germany, to assert their own predatory interests in the region under conditions of rising Chinese influence and Washington’s aggressive moves against China.
Monday’s statement signalled a heightened involvement of French forces in allied military exercises and operations in the region. “The ministers welcomed Australia’s increased involvement in the Croix du Sud multilateral exercise this April and Australia’s support for France’s first full participation in Exercise Talisman Sabre in 2023, following its participation as an observer member in 2021.”
Croix du Sud is a French military exercise held every two years in New Caledonia and surrounding waters. Talisman Sabre is a major US-Australian exercise, involving thousands of troops, held in Australia every second year since 2005.
In 2021, the French nuclear attack submarine Émeraude, along with the naval support ship Seine, conducted patrols in the South China Sea.That year, France also sent an amphibious assault ship, the Tonnerre, and the frigate Surcouf to pass through the disputed waters twice during its annual Jeanne d’Arc mission, and French SIGINT ship
Dupuy de Lôme sailed through the Taiwan Strait.
This week, French naval sources said the country’s navy was working toward a Pacific Region deployment in 2025 for its Charles de Gaulle carrier strike group, which carries nuclear weapons.
Ever since taking office last May, the Australian Labor government has outdone its Liberal-National predecessor in placing the country on the frontline of US war plans, joining NATO and other US-led alliance summits, bullying Pacific island states into security pacts aimed against China and spending billions on new military hardware—at least $4 billion in the first three weeks of 2023.
The visit to Paris by Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong was just the first part of a bigger mission. It centres on talks in London and Washington to seek to finalise the AUKUS arrangements for the far-greater Australian purchases of submarines, hypersonic missiles and other weaponry.
Ukrainian troops to start training on Leopard tanks next week
Ukrainian servicemen will begin training on German-made Leopard-2 main battle tanks as part of an EU-funded training mission next week, Financial Times reported on Feb. 2, citing two informed sources.
According to the sources, everything is in place to begin training Ukrainian crews. The final details of the training plan were agreed upon during a meeting of representatives of Western defense departments in Germany on Feb. 1. The training is expected to take about six weeks.
One of the FT sources said that hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers have already gone to the training centers in Germany and Poland.
On Feb. 2, head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, announced that the EU would double the number of Ukrainian military personnel (to 30,000) who would be trained as part of the EUMAM military assistance mission to Ukraine.
Earlier, the commander of the Polish training center for Leopard tanks said that the training time for the Ukrainian soldiers could be reduced from ten to five weeks.
On Jan. 25,
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz officially announced that Germany would transfer 14 Leopard-2 tanks to Ukraine and approve their re-export from partner countries. According to German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, the tanks could be sent to Ukraine in around three months.
The same day,
U.S. President Joe Biden announced plans to supply 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, along with the equipment and spare parts needed to keep them running. Biden added that while the delivery of Abrams will take some time, training of Ukrainian crews will begin as soon as possible.
America’s top priority is to help Ukraine ‘defend itself’ as a sovereign nation, Blinken adviser says
What are Washington's current strategic goals and limitations in Ukraine? And how do they align with Kyiv? Derek Chollet, a counselor at the US State Department who advises Secretary of State Antony Blinken, joined The World's host Marco Werman to shed some light.
As Russia continued firing missiles on residential areas in the east of the country on Thursday, senior officials from the European Union paid a visit to the Ukrainian capital Kyiv.
European Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen stood beside Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, and promised more aid. She also announced the establishment in The Hague of an international center for the prosecution of war crimes in Ukraine.
"Russia must be held accountable in courts for its odious crimes," she said.
Leading generals from the US and Ukraine also spoke on the phone on Thursday. They discussed developments on the battlefield and how Washington can boost the war effort. But what are Washington's current strategic goals and limitations in Ukraine? And how do they align with Kyiv?
Derek Chollet, a counselor at the US State Department who advises Secretary of State Antony Blinken, joined The World's host Marco Werman to shed some light.
Marco Werman: I'm hoping you can pull back the lens a bit and help us get a sharper view of how Washington sees its role in the war in Ukraine. Is what's happening there an existential threat to Western values or something more limited, do you think?
Derek Chollet: It's the former, in the sense that what we're seeing happen in Ukraine is, in fact, an assault on the most fundamental principle of international politics, which is that countries should not use force to invade another country and try to gobble up their land. That's what we and all of our partners are pushing back hard against. It's very important. The EU visit that you mentioned today at the top of the piece is yet just another sign of the unity of the coalition that we have so painstakingly worked to put together and maintain its strength over the last year.
I mean, in terms of the military support, it seems like every time the US puts limits on what it'll do, whether it comes to sending Stinger missiles, the Patriot system, armored fighting vehicles, and more recently, Abrams tanks, Every time Washington draws a line, policy eventually blows past it. I mean, isn't that fair?
It's not so much of drawing lines or taking them away. We are in a constant conversation with our Ukrainian partners about their needs as this conflict has evolved, and as you rightly noted, in the early days of the conflict, it was all about Stinger, shoulder fire, anti-aircraft missiles. Then it became about Javelin anti-tank missiles, then it was about air defense. And it's been about armor. And undoubtedly, Ukraine's needs are going to evolve as this conflict evolves. Our goal is very simple. We want to give Ukraine as best we can, and take into account all of our interests around the world, the means to be able to defend itself and take back the territory that Russia is trying to take away from Ukraine.
Isn't that what you just kind of outlined there? Isn't that exactly the definition of mission creep?
Well, the mission is quite clear. Again, to give Ukraine the means to defend itself and to be democratic, independent and sovereign. That's our mission. And importantly, that's not just the US mission. There are more than 50 countries around the world that are giving Ukraine some kind of assistance to defend itself.
I didn't mean mission creep in terms of the overall mission and the goals, but the mission creep in terms of what the US will supply. For example, President Biden this week flatly ruled out providing F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, but the same thing happened with tanks, and tanks are now on their way. I mean, you used to work at the Pentagon — why give the Ukrainians tanks but not aircraft, if we're all in? Why is one OK, but not the other?
Again, it's an evolving conversation that we're having with Ukrainian friends and it's a constant one. Every time Secretary Blinken talks to the Ukrainian foreign minister or President Zelenskiy, as he does very often, almost on a weekly basis, we're hearing more about their needs as their needs evolve. And look, I fully understand the Ukrainians' perspective on this. They are fighting an existential fight. This is a fight for the survival of their country. Russia is trying to take out the government of Ukraine and occupy the territory of Ukraine. So there's no such thing as too much from their perspective. But of course, we have to weigh all sorts of competing interests and needs. We are taking supplies out of our own stocks to give them to Ukraine. These are not munitions or systems that were just sitting on the shelf waiting for someone else to use. These are all being taken away from other Pentagon priorities that we've deemed Ukraine more important. But we always have to take that into account whenever we're making these sorts of decisions.
Would you be surprised if F-16 fighter jets did get a green light in the months ahead?
Yeah, I don't want to speculate on any particular system that Ukraine may or may not get right now. All I can say is it is a constant conversation we're having with them on their needs and what we can do to try to help them.
Can you think of a historical parallel where Washington has given so much military aid in such a short time in a conflict where the US is not a combatant?
Well, it's hard to find a parallel. I mean, I think the closest that comes to mind to my mind is the early days of World War II in the 1940s, through the Lend-Lease Act, where the United States came to assist the UK, in terms of defense of this country.
And if we follow the World War II model, at some point the US does get directly involved and it's a broader war. How much does that stay in your kind of collection of scenarios?
You can overdo the historical parallels on this, of course. But look, we pay very close attention and don't for a second feel the need to apologize for thoughts about controlling escalation here. We've got many interests around the world. Foremost among them right now is the defense of Ukraine.
So as we think about ending the war and maintaining any sort of peace, the illegally annexed territory of Crimea is, of course, crucial. Can Ukraine get Crimea back and keep it? Would Russia ever agree to giving up the naval base in Sevastopol?
I don't want to speculate on what Russia may or may not be willing to give up. All I can say is the United States has never recognized the annexation of Crimea as Russia conducted in 2014, and we believe that Ukraine needs to be able to regain all the territory that Russia has tried to take from it. Full stop.
There's been some reporting mostly recently in The New York Times suggesting US officials are strongly considering giving Ukraine the go ahead to attack Crimea. Is there new thinking on Crimea in official US government circles?
All I can say, and I'm not going to comment specifically on these reports, is that we are in constant dialogue alongside our partners with the Ukrainians on the fight that they're in and trying to give them our best advice about what steps they should take. Also trying to best assess their needs and the ways that we can collectively support them as they try to regain their sovereignty and their independence and get Russia out of their territory.
What does a post-war Ukraine look like? Some have suggested it might look like Israel, you know, deal-making whereby no one is really happy and tensions live long.
What we're seeking is for Ukraine to be independent, to be sovereign, to be able defend its territory, to be democratic, to be clean, to be free of corruption, which is something that's plagued that country for far too long. ... Zelenskiy [is] taking some pretty serious steps just in recent days to try to get at that. And we've been quite impressed, by the way, by Ukrainian stewardship of all of the assistance they have been receiving from us and others. That's our overall goal. And we're going to do whatever we can in the best way we can to try to support Ukraine.
Finally, and something of a wild card: China. What about China? Is Beijing going to continue to sit on the fence in this conflict?
Well, we've been very clear with the leadership in Beijing that they need to do whatever they can to try to convince Vladimir Putin to stop what he's doing in Ukraine and to have his forces leave Ukraine. We've also been very clear with the leadership in Beijing that they do nothing to help Russia in this conflict, whether that's providing them with military supplies, whether that is helping them circumvent sanctions. And they are well aware of our concerns about this and also the potential consequences if they were to make such decisions.
This interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
