Far From the Front Lines, Javelin Missiles Go Unused in Ukraine

From Foreign Policy, here is a summary pasted:

"During a press conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last week, U.S. President Donald Trump took a shot at his predecessor, claiming that Barack Obama had supplied “pillows and sheets” to Ukraine while his own administration had delivered “anti-tank busters” to help Kyiv in its fight against Russia and its proxies in eastern Ukraine.

Trump was referring to FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles, which played a central role in the infamous July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky that is at the heart of the current impeachment inquiry. After Zelensky suggested he wanted to buy more Javelins, Trump asked him for a “favor” and then later urged him to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of Trump’s Democratic challenger Joe Biden, and his business dealings in the Eastern European country."
But while there is evidence that the Javelin sale has been a powerful gesture of support for Kyiv, the missiles’ military application has been far more limited. Under the conditions of the foreign military sale, the Trump administration stipulates that the Javelins must be stored in western Ukraine—hundreds of miles from the battlefield.

“I see these more as symbolic weapons than anything else,” said Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at Rand Corp. Experts say the conditions of the sale render them useless in the event of a sustained low-level assault—the kind of attack Ukraine is most likely to face from Russia.

Trump’s claim about supplying far more critical military aid to Ukraine than Obama is hyperbolic at best in other ways. The Obama administration did draw criticism for its refusal to approve lethal assistance to Ukraine, including the Javelin missile sale Trump cited. But it did commit to Kyiv more than $600 million in security assistance and equipment, including armored Humvee vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, counter mortar radars, night vision equipment, and medical supplies."

This is interesting as these facts highlight two important facts:

1.) Trump's restrictions on the storage and use of the javelins make them effectively useless for deterrence or self-defense.

2.) Obama did provide a large amount of aid for equipment for self-defense, as well as, medical supplies.

These two facts when taken together show how the Trump narrative of supporting Ukraine has been greatly exaggerated and how this administration has diminished the support of the past administration as well.

More can be seen here:

https://www.defense.gov/Explore/New...ts-with-ukrainian-defense-minister-in-london/

and here:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/poli...tary-aid-sheets-pillows-fact-check/index.html

"During a joint press conference Wednesday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, President Donald Trump took a shot at former President Barack Obama, claiming that while the Trump administration provided Ukraine with "anti-tank busters," Obama simply sent "pillows and sheets."

Facts First: Trump is being hyperbolic here. While the Obama administration was criticized for its refusal to provide lethal assistance to Ukraine, it did provide more than $100 million in security assistance, as well as a significant amount of defense and military equipment.
By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices, and medical supplies, according to the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles."

If these sources are not well-respected by some members here, there are a plethora of other sources and fact-checking resources that show the evidence.

 

I am curious to hear how this position is justified, by offering weapons that cannot be useful or even placed strategically to act as a deterrent.

And the rating on Foreign Policy as a source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foreign-policy/

 

Why would Ukraine bother accepting weapons which they could not use where they might be strategically needed??

 

Great question and in it we have the answer.

 

And your answer is???

 

Well, the answer is in the references I provided: Trump's corruption and collusion with Russia.

 

Ukraine is relatively small. Every point is about 1 flight hour away. In case of a major Russian offensive, the Jovelins will be at the front within hour.

 

Incorrect:

https://www.worldatlas.com/eu/ua/where-is-ukraine.html

"in western Ukraine—hundreds of miles from the battlefield. " https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/03/far-from-the-front-lines-javelin-missiles-go-unused-in-ukraine/

 

Not to mention Russia has been building military on the border of Russia and Eastern Ukraine at an alarming rate since 2016.

 

I was born in Ukraine, I know their geography very well. They have quite a few mid-range military transport aircraft that they build themselves (Antonov) and to transport Javelins from west to east could not take more than 1 flight hour. Distance from Lviv to Kyiv is less than the distance from Minneapolis to Chicago. A flight from Chicago to Minneapolis is about 55 minutes and it’s not even a straight path as the plane first climbs north to Milwaukee and then turns west when it reaches that area. Entire Europe is small - if you pay attention to maps when you fly your would know that from Great Britain to Kyiv it’s less than 3 hours of flight time.

While I’m all for Ukraine defending self and fully support the US aid, claiming that just because those Javelins are sitting in western Ukraine it can’t use them in case of open Russian invasion is technically incorrect.

 

I respect you were born there, and all of your insights you have to offer, but an hour is far too long. The javelins should still be allowed to be closer to where they need to be.

 

I also have doubts about this report that you quote.
Under the conditions of sale the Javelins are to be stored in Western Ukraine. Is there a restriction on their actual use? Because even in low-level warfare one can interpret storage as “storing when not in use”, therefore in low-level warfare the units are used, even if they are not fired from for extended periods of time. I also wouldn’t rule the possibility of the sale agreement having classified portions.
In October Ukraine acquired 2 more units + 150 missiles for the system. That brings the total missiles in Ukraine to at least 360. Considering the track record of accuracy of those things, I think it’s a pretty good deterrent because Ukraine is a relatively large flat country that is good for tank warfare and Ukraine can literally take down at least 300 tanks using Javelins + they have their own anti-tank systems (though, not as good as Javelins). If Javelins were useless they wouldn’t buy them.

 

I'm no fan of how Russia and the EU respectively have treated the Ukraine, but it's time to withdraw entirely and leave it up to them. It's their country. It has no reasonable security implications here.

If anyone actually cared about Crimea they woulf have proposed a monitored, reputable referendum to supplant the Russian one. Instead it was just "push them back to the arms of Kiev nationalists, **** any pretence of self-determination"

 

The storage requirements are insisted upon by the Trump administration and the stipulation is they cannot be stored closer to where they would be needed. The most likely attacks by Russia would mean the javelins would not be implemented in time.

There are several reputable sources used in the article, experts and people close to the sale and conditions attached by the Trump Administration.

Military strategists among others agree the javelins need to be closer to the battlefield. As far being low on the bias scale Foreign Policy is ranked independently as very neutral, low bias and only slightly right, and it has won numerous awards, hence why I reference it so much.

The second author has serious experience reporting on and understanding defense issues:



DUHON PHOTOGRAPHY
Lara Seligman
PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT | LARA.SELIGMAN@FOREIGNPOLICY.COM


Lara Seligman is Foreign Policy’s Pentagon correspondent. Before joining FP, she served as the Pentagon editor for Aviation Week and Space Technology. Seligman has also held positions at Inside Defense, Defense News, National Journal, and The Hill. She is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania.

Follow Lara Seligman:
On Twitter

 

NATO was doing a pretty good job while Obama was President, but more could have, and should be done, in my opinion internationally.

 

I think the restriction could be lifted in time. With Ukraine being a corrupt country I can see concerns with Javelins getting into wrong hands. Your own article talks about such concerns and that with time Ukraine proves itself to be responsible user of these systems. Who knows, maybe with the sale of additional 150 missiles there is another clause about their storage and use.

 

Obamas foreign policy sucked.
I blame him for Ukraine and Syria.

 

We agree on potential corruption and the need to properly train Ukrainian soldiers as well. Yes, the article does address these issues.

 

I think all President's foreign policy suck I hear you. Trump is even worse, but that is another conversation.

 

"The wrong hands." Well, what does that mean?

 

An hour is fine, do you suggest that Russia may be planning another Kursk? I think they are better used as a strategic reserve to be deployed where needed in response to aggression that may come from different points.

 

I think the Ukraine is in the best position to determine that.

 

Still much better than MREs and blankets.

BTW, Yovanovitch testified their were two funding programs and the Javalin funding was not part of the hold.

 

So you are claiming that the Javelins are a waste of money because no Russian tanks have crossed the Ukrainian border or attacked Ukrainian troops ?? Are you Jim Acosta who claimed whilst standing in front of a border fence that the fence was not needed and a waste of money because people were not congregating on the Mexican side and no one was trying to climb over it ??

Name the sources.

 

The Ukranian conflict is presently in a low intensity phase. It's mostly irregular cecessionist vs gov milicia holding their respective position. Both side have low availability of armored vehicule. Those Javelin missilies are there in case Russia decide to go all in, in which case you don't want them already deployed willy nilly, but you may want to deploy them where you know the enemy will breakthru with his tanks.