ext_262515 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
luvdovz.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2015-02-14 09:30 pm
luvdovz.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2015-02-14 09:30 pm
Entry tags:
What gives with Ukraine's weapons anaemia?
The Ukrainian political elite seems to be backing the request of president Petro Poroshenko for arms supplies from abroad. I'm not talking of tanks of course, but mostly modern communication and radar technology. However, Ukraine also needs armor-piercing weapons, as well as anti-air missiles. All in all, it seems Kiev can't do jack shit on the battlefield without the "deadly weapons" that we've heard being discussed lately.
The ongoing discussion in the US about the possible arms supplies has certainly increased the appetites in Kiev, although president Obama is still hesitating, and for a reason. In principle, German chancellor Angela Merkel is opposed to arms supplies to Ukraine, as that would further escalate the conflict - especially now that a fragile truce has been negotiated. After Germany's categorical rejection to supply arms, the focus has now been shifted on the Ukrainian arms producers. The question is, why are the large weapons factories in Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk so incapable of supplying the Ukrainian army with Ukraine-produced weapons? We're talking of arms factories that have been well known ever since Soviet times. The problem there is, most of them are facing bankruptcy, and Ukraine desperately needs investments in the arms industry, and a modernization of its management practices.
Of course, we shouldn't completely write off the Ukrainian arms industry just yet. There are still ample production facilities around the country. But then why are the arms factories in Ukraine not delivering weapons for the Ukrainian military, even if these are a bit out of date? That question has been put by lots of MPs at the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, and by representatives of the ministry of defense. A bit later next week the national security committee will be holding hearings of Stepan Poltorak, the fourth defense minister in a row for the last year. And there are increasing signals coming from Kiev that the ministry of defense has done some crucial management mistakes.
There's a suspicion among the observers that the ministry of defense itself is sabotaging the country's military industrial complex. It's not like Ukraine doesn't have a significant production potential, one that could probably provide the bulk of the needed weapons if managed properly. So far Ukraine has mostly been exporting arms, granted, but now that the country desperately needs them, the conclusion is that the ministry and high command has failed to respond to the new realities by adjusting their policy to the needs of the military. They're just failing to commission the producers with the production of the weapons they need. Which is absurd, when you think of it. It's either deliberate sabotage, or staggering incompetence, or mere corruption. Turns out, the top officers and the government representatives are pursuing their own interests and are so corrupt that they're undermining their own country's fighting capabilities, and they're not giving a damn about it.
One of Ukraine's biggest problems has long been the lack of loyalty. Ukraine is now in a delicate moment, in a transition period. For more than two decades the Russian secret services had been using every opportunity to infiltrate the Ukrainian institutions, which is why all military-related officials should probably go through a thorough vetting process, if the Ukrainians really want to clean up their house. And I'm not just talking about the chiefs of staff and the ministry of defense, but also all the parts of the cabinet which are even remotely related to the military industry, and are now blocking certain policies and decisions in one way or another. That's the only way to achieve clarity about who works for whom and which interests are being propped up, and why isn't the whole system working as it's supposed to.
Last week the Ukrainian secret services arrested a top officer from the chiefs of staff, who had been leaking the positions of the Ukrainian army to representatives of the rebel Donetsk and Lugansk "People's Republics". That's probably a good start. And if Ukraine manages to further tighten its internal security and adjust its otherwise big military industrial complex in a relatively adequate manner, the US wouldn't have to go through all that delicate stuff with the arms supplies, which could be interpreted as an act of aggression by the increasingly paranoid Russians.
The ongoing discussion in the US about the possible arms supplies has certainly increased the appetites in Kiev, although president Obama is still hesitating, and for a reason. In principle, German chancellor Angela Merkel is opposed to arms supplies to Ukraine, as that would further escalate the conflict - especially now that a fragile truce has been negotiated. After Germany's categorical rejection to supply arms, the focus has now been shifted on the Ukrainian arms producers. The question is, why are the large weapons factories in Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk so incapable of supplying the Ukrainian army with Ukraine-produced weapons? We're talking of arms factories that have been well known ever since Soviet times. The problem there is, most of them are facing bankruptcy, and Ukraine desperately needs investments in the arms industry, and a modernization of its management practices.
Of course, we shouldn't completely write off the Ukrainian arms industry just yet. There are still ample production facilities around the country. But then why are the arms factories in Ukraine not delivering weapons for the Ukrainian military, even if these are a bit out of date? That question has been put by lots of MPs at the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, and by representatives of the ministry of defense. A bit later next week the national security committee will be holding hearings of Stepan Poltorak, the fourth defense minister in a row for the last year. And there are increasing signals coming from Kiev that the ministry of defense has done some crucial management mistakes.
There's a suspicion among the observers that the ministry of defense itself is sabotaging the country's military industrial complex. It's not like Ukraine doesn't have a significant production potential, one that could probably provide the bulk of the needed weapons if managed properly. So far Ukraine has mostly been exporting arms, granted, but now that the country desperately needs them, the conclusion is that the ministry and high command has failed to respond to the new realities by adjusting their policy to the needs of the military. They're just failing to commission the producers with the production of the weapons they need. Which is absurd, when you think of it. It's either deliberate sabotage, or staggering incompetence, or mere corruption. Turns out, the top officers and the government representatives are pursuing their own interests and are so corrupt that they're undermining their own country's fighting capabilities, and they're not giving a damn about it.
One of Ukraine's biggest problems has long been the lack of loyalty. Ukraine is now in a delicate moment, in a transition period. For more than two decades the Russian secret services had been using every opportunity to infiltrate the Ukrainian institutions, which is why all military-related officials should probably go through a thorough vetting process, if the Ukrainians really want to clean up their house. And I'm not just talking about the chiefs of staff and the ministry of defense, but also all the parts of the cabinet which are even remotely related to the military industry, and are now blocking certain policies and decisions in one way or another. That's the only way to achieve clarity about who works for whom and which interests are being propped up, and why isn't the whole system working as it's supposed to.
Last week the Ukrainian secret services arrested a top officer from the chiefs of staff, who had been leaking the positions of the Ukrainian army to representatives of the rebel Donetsk and Lugansk "People's Republics". That's probably a good start. And if Ukraine manages to further tighten its internal security and adjust its otherwise big military industrial complex in a relatively adequate manner, the US wouldn't have to go through all that delicate stuff with the arms supplies, which could be interpreted as an act of aggression by the increasingly paranoid Russians.
no subject
I'm sorry if you're perceiving my attempt to put Russia's reactions to the US geopolitical stances in some context, as a "tu quoque".
What Russia is doing in Ukraine is showing to the West that it can't just make inroads into Russia's backyard, and what for a long time used to be Russia's sphere of influence, with impunity. Whether that's working or not is another story. The point is, they believe that's the only course of action that they have. The alternative is to just roll over and keep giving concessions.
I'm of the opinion that Russia's place is within the EU and NATO, but I might be a minority in this regard. I'm not seeing that happening any time soon - certainly not while Putin is in office. If for anything, because the US wouldn't want that to happen. Having a second powerful player within NATO would create tensions, and power struggles. Not to mention that NATO's role, from a Russian perspective, seems to have been mainly to counter and suffocate Russia for the most part, which means it could lose its primary function if it fully allied with Russia.
As for what Putin's main rationale is and how does his mind operate, I'm afraid you're asking your questions to the wrong person. Perhaps you could try to contact some of Putin's aides and think-tank associates, or better yet Putin himself, then report back. All I'm doing here is trying to put the latest developments into some geopolitical context, to the best of my knowledge, using the information that's readily available on the Internet and in the media, or from the contacts that I've had with people from the former Soviet republics. That's all.
For the sake of constructive discourse, I really, really hope this wasn't actually very subtly directed at me.
no subject