Though the United States is engaged in military aid efforts with dozens of countries across the globe, few take place in more contested environments or hold more battlefield significance than in Ukraine. Kyiv’s grinding defense against Russia’s full-scale invasion has depended on the over $43 billion in direct U.S. military aid committed to Ukraine over the last 17 months, the contours of which are shaping daily realities for troops on the ground.
But despite its very immediate and weighty consequences for Ukraine’s war effort, Washington’s military aid effort for Kyiv has eschewed the sort of secrecy that typifies more routine U.S. security assistance partnerships. Instead, the Biden administration has adopted a remarkably transparent (albeit imperfect) approach to U.S. security assistance to Ukraine, publishing regular updates on the value, quantity, and type of military transfers to Kyiv, engaging consistently to respond to and, in some cases, pre-empt congressional inquiries, and publicizing the rationale and risk-mitigation efforts associated with the aid effort. But while the administration deserves credit for the public engagement it has committed to on this partnership, the approach casts a stark light on the opacity of broader security cooperation programming and begs the question – if transparency is possible with respect to Ukraine, why is it so difficult for other partnerships?
Read the full article on Just Security
Originally published in Just Security
Conventional Arms
Though the United States is engaged in military aid efforts with dozens of countries across the globe, few take place in more contested environments or hold more battlefield significance than in Ukraine. Kyiv’s grinding defense against Russia’s full-scale invasion has depended on the over $43 billion in direct U.S. military aid committed to Ukraine over the last 17 months, the contours of which are shaping daily realities for troops on the ground.
But despite its very immediate and weighty consequences for Ukraine’s war effort, Washington’s military aid effort for Kyiv has eschewed the sort of secrecy that typifies more routine U.S. security assistance partnerships. Instead, the Biden administration has adopted a remarkably transparent (albeit imperfect) approach to U.S. security assistance to Ukraine, publishing regular updates on the value, quantity, and type of military transfers to Kyiv, engaging consistently to respond to and, in some cases, pre-empt congressional inquiries, and publicizing the rationale and risk-mitigation efforts associated with the aid effort. But while the administration deserves credit for the public engagement it has committed to on this partnership, the approach casts a stark light on the opacity of broader security cooperation programming and begs the question – if transparency is possible with respect to Ukraine, why is it so difficult for other partnerships?
Read the full article on Just Security
Recent & Related
Made in the Gulf, Designed in America: How the Iran War Has Incentivized Drone Production in the GCC
The Orphan of the Summit of the Future: The Declaration on Future Generations
Experts React: Takeaways from the Trump-Xi Summit
Kabuki Diplomacy Between US and Iran at UNGA
Is the Iran War Worth It? Six Months Later, Still No
Why Iran-Backed Iraqi Armed Groups Are Hedging on Disarmament
9 Issues to Watch at UNGA 81
Why the Houthi Capture of Mocha Matters Far Beyond Yemen
Nuclear Disruption: The US-Saudi 123 Agreement and the Future of Nuclear Cooperation in the Middle East
The Nation Is Not Alone. We Need Reflexive Multilateralism
“No, History Begins Today”: Why Washington Could Not Reshape Pakistan’s Interests After 9/11
What if the US Had Made Peace With Iran After 9/11?
Find an Expert
Home to more than 100 scholars and global affiliates, the Stimson Center is proud to be a magnet for the world’s leading experts on the most pressing foreign policy and national security issues of our time. Explore our experts and their work.