Ukraine

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. Dowd in the American Legion Magazine be printed in the Congressional Record.

Dowd)

Russia's war on Ukraine serves as a preview of what a 21st- century great-power war might look like. The glimmer of hopeful news amid the grim cruelties of Putin's war is that we have a chance to prevent the next great-power war--but only if we learn lessons from this one.

Modern warfare between industrially developed countries devours personnel and resources. The Russian military has lost approximately 120,000 killed in action in two years of war. By way of comparison, the USSR lost 15,000 in Afghanistan in a decade. Russia has lost 2,742 tanks, 5,031 armored vehicles/APCs/IFVs, 135 helicopters, 103 fixed-wing aircraft, 20 surface ships and one submarine.

Ukraine's losses are more appalling: some 70,000 troops and 100,000 civilians killed. Ukraine has lost 742 tanks, 1,603 armored vehicles/APCs/ IFVs, 80 fixed-wing aircraft and 28 warships. Europe hasn't seen this kind of war in 80 years. The United States hasn't endured such a war since Korea. To be sure, America engaged in costly operations during the postwar era. Afghanistan, Iraq and other fronts of the war on terrorism claimed more than 7,000 American lives--over a span of 20 years. Vietnam claimed more than 58,000 Americans-- again, over a span of 20 years. Korea claimed 37,900 Americans in just 37 months.

Yet none of those conflicts and none of America's battlefield foes since World War II--not Kim Il-Sung or Ho Chi Minh, not Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic, not Taliban terrorists or Hezbollah's henchmen, not Osama bin Laden or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi--represented the military- technological-industrial threat of a peer-adversary.

Put another way, the war in Ukraine offers a glimpse of what a PRC assault on Taiwan, Russian attack on NATO or Korean War II would unleash. Such a conflict would produce massive front line combat losses. But it wouldn't be neatly quarantined ``over there.'' It would scar the U.S. homeland through cyber, missile, drone, nuclear, biological and/or satellite attacks. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall describes it as the ``kind of war we have no modern experience with''--which is why America must return to the time-tested principle of deterrence.

Deterring war is far less costly than waging war. ``Freedom must be armed better than tyranny,'' President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine observes. When it's not, the result is Ukraine 2022, Korea 1950, Pearl Harbor 1941. With Russia on the march, China on the rise, North Korea setting the free world on edge, and Iran and its Hamas-Hezbollah-Houthi proxies setting the Middle East on fire, larger investments in defense are desperately needed. The good news is that 27 NATO members have increased defense spending. Poland is devoting 4% of GDP to the common defense. Germany is nearly doubling defense spending. Japan will soon boast the world's third-largest defense budget. South Korea's defense budget has jumped 37% in recent years, Australia's 47%.

The bad news is that, even as threats metastasize, U.S. defense spending hovers in the 3%-of GDP range. As a result, the Army is trying to deter war in Europe with one third the soldiers it deployed during the Cold War. Navy leaders say they need 500 ships; they have 296. Only 14% of the Air Force bomber fleet could survive peer-adversary air defenses.

These numbers call to mind Winston Churchill's warning that ``we cannot afford . . . to work on narrow margins, offering temptations to a trial of strength.'' Churchill understood the benefits of deterrence and the dangers of shortchanging defense. So should Americans. In the eight years before entering World War I, the United States devoted an average of 0.7% of GDP to defense. Waging war swallowed up an average of 16.1% of GDP--and 116,516 Americans. In the decade before entering World War II, America devoted an average of 1.1% of GDP to defense. Waging war devoured an average of 27% of GDP--and 405,399 Americans. During the Cold War, America invested an average of 7% of GDP on defense. That didn't end all wars, but it did deter Moscow from starting World War III.

Political leadership matters. As the Russian army rumbled toward Kiev, Zelensky was offered a chance to evacuate. His defiant response--``I need ammunition, not a ride''-- galvanized Ukraine and rallied the free world. It's no exaggeration to say that Ukraine remains free because Zelensky remained in Ukraine. He serves as a reminder of a truth too many in our postmodern age never learn: Individuals make a difference, especially in a time of war--from Judah Maccabee and Abraham Lincoln to Churchill and Zelensky.

America is highly effective at helping those willing to help themselves. U.S. anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons helped Ukraine thwart Russia's initial assault. U.S. anti- missile systems helped Kiev weather Putin's rocket attacks. U.S. artillery and intelligence helped Ukraine liberate occupied territory. This effort is very much in America's wheelhouse. From Britain (World War II) to Israel (1973 and today) to the mujahideen (1980s) to the Balkans (1990s) to Iraqi Kurdistan (2010s) to Ukraine, America excels at assisting people willing to fight for their freedom and territory. That phrase ``willing to fight'' is key. The difference between Ukraine's political leadership in 2022 and Afghanistan's in 2021 is captured in the images of Kabul and Kiev today. In Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and South Korea, America must continue helping those willing to defend their freedom and territory. U.S. leaders have espoused this idea for generations: ``Support for freedom-fighters is self- defense'' and ``tied to our own security,'' President Ronald Reagan explained.

``It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures,'' President Harry Truman declared.

``A free man contending for liberty on his own ground is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth,'' President George Washington observed.

Resiliency is essential. Russia has targeted Ukraine's government, cities, food supply, transportation system, electric grid, internet and communications. Thanks in part to foreign assistance and in part to a national ethos of resiliency, Ukraine has withstood the onslaught.

During the Cold War, America grafted resiliency into national-security strategy. The highway system would serve a dual purpose in a time of war. Civil-defense programs were at the ready. Continuity-of government protocols were rehearsed. Mountain hideaways, ships and planes were on call to serve as command-and-control nodes. Signaling to Moscow that the United States was prepared to soldier on--even amid nuclear attack--reinforced U.S. deterrent strategy. Twenty first- century equivalents to that sort of resiliency--mechanical- analog backups for digital systems, critical infrastructure hardened against EMP attack, vaccines and therapeutics prepositioned for emergency distribution, updated continuity- of-government procedures, systems to identify and counter deepfakes, backup power generation and water purification-- are lacking.

One step in the right direction is the Space Force's Victus Nox Initiative, which allows the Pentagon to rapidly reconstitute the U.S. satellite fleet. Another is the Pentagon's investment in dispersed regional microchip- manufacturing hubs. Other government agencies--along with industry--should follow these examples and devote resources to resiliency.

Unmanned systems are integral to modern warfare. Ukraine purchased or produced 200,000 drones in 2023--some as big as planes, some as small as lunchboxes, some made of plastic or cardboard.

Ukraine's military includes the Achilles Company, which deploys drone swarms to overwhelm Russian targets. In addition, there's Aerorozvidka, an organization that builds killer drones. Ukraine has deployed drones as loitering airborne artillery, in long-range attacks on Moscow and longer-range attacks against Russian targets in Sudan, and in numerous seaborne operations. Indeed, Ukraine has made history with torpedo-like unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV) and uncrewed sea vehicles (USV). With a 600-mile range, Ukraine's UUVs bring most of the Black Sea within reach.

Ukraine's unmanned air force and remote-control missiles are changing the arithmetic of war. At $250,000, Ukraine's USVs are a tiny fraction of the cost of the warships, cargo ships and bridges they have destroyed. By modifying off-the shelf airborne drones into mortar-dropping systems--at an estimated cost of $2,000 per unit--Ukraine's military has eliminated scores of multi-million-dollar Russian tanks and taken hundreds of Russian troops off the battlefield. According to Aerorozvidka, every dollar spent on one of its R18 octocopter drones delivers $670 in Russian losses.

America's military is taking notes. The Pentagon has an office devoted to countering uncrewed systems. The Pentagon is testing microdrones that can independently attack targets, swarm targets and lie in wait for targets. The Pentagon's new Replicator initiative will field ``attritable autonomous systems at scale of multiple thousands,'' military officials report. The Navy just received its first Orca uncrewed mine- laying submarine.

Creativity is crucial. ``History books will show,'' says Adm. Rob Bauer, Norway's defense chief, ``Ukraine has transformed modern warfare.'' Ukraine's creative warriors have re-engineered Soviet-designed rockets into high- precision anti-ship missiles (which sank Russia's Black Sea flagship). They've utilized 3-D printing to produce RPG-like bombs light enough to air-drop from off-the-shelf drones but lethal enough to cripple tanks. They've reconfigured Western missiles to fire from Soviet-era warplanes, turned jet skis into kamikaze-drones, strapped rockets onto unmanned speedboats, retrofitted Russian anti-aircraft missiles into ground-attack rockets and masterfully leveraged digital technologies.

Ukraine's wireless warriors have hacked into Russian government agencies and television stations, weaponized video of Russian war crimes, shaped how the world views the war, crowdsourced weapons procurement, and used text-messaging and psyops to encourage Russian surrenders/desertions (bloodlessly sweeping 17,000 Russians from the battlefield). Ukraine's tech-savvy troops even developed a smartphone application that enables soldiers to order an artillery strike like a civilian would order an Uber.

America must be equally creative--but also capable of combining the stamina of a superpower with the agility of a startup: nimble industry-military collaborations to reshape the battlespace, Army artillery and Marine rockets affixed to Navy ships, manned-unmanned teaming in the skies and on the seas, cargo planes refashioned into airborne arsenal-ships, F-35Bs crammed onto amphibs, U.S. fighter-jets flying off allied carriers, hot-pit bomber deployments and lily pad bases, left-of-launch cyberstrikes against missile threats and allied islands sprinkled with antiship missiles, reminding Beijing two can play the anti-access/area-denial game.

Nuclear weapons cast a long shadow across today's battlefield. Putin's nuclear saberrattling has understandably given the West pause Recall that Putin promulgated a doctrine declaring nuclear weapons can be used to--somehow--de- escalate conflict, and recently deployed nuclear weapons into Belarus.

Recall that Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal in exchange for Russia's 1994 commitment to ``refrain from the threat or use of force'' and respect Ukraine's ``sovereignty and . . . existing borders.'' The free world's failure to back up those words after Putin's 2014 lunge into eastern Ukraine not only set the stage for 2022; it crippled the cause of nonproliferation. Ukraine serves as an object lesson of the deterrent power of nuclear weapons--and the danger of not having them. Allies like South Korea and adversaries like Iran are pondering that lesson.

Putin's war reminds us state-to-state proliferation isn't our only nuclear nightmare. During its mutiny, Wagner's army of warlords came within a whisker of seizing a facility where Russia stores nuclear weapons.

NATO is the solution, not the problem. Putin and his apologists say Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 because Ukraine wanted to join NATO, but they have it precisely backwards: Ukraine wanted to join NATO because Putin had invaded Ukraine in 2014. Blaming NATO for this war is akin to blaming me for offering my neighbor a garden hose to extinguish fires-- rather than the serial-arsonist for starting fires.

Sovereign nations seek NATO membership because they distrust Moscow and recognize that NATO is the only source of security in Europe. That distrust has been validated repeatedly--from the Baltics and Poland during World War II, to Hungary and Czechoslovakia during the Cold War, to Georgia and Ukraine today. NATO grows not by conquest but by consent, not by the force of arms of its members but by the desire for security of its aspirants.

Russia's rampage through Ukraine reminds us that helping free nations harden their territory against invasion--as NATO has done since 1949--is wiser than scrambling to help them claw it back. As Reagan declared at Normandy, ``It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost.''

Missile defense is essential. With Moscow launching 7,400 missiles and 3,700 kamikazedrones, Kiev has used Soviet-era S-300s, domestically produced electronic-warfare jammers, and Western-supplied Patriot, IRIS-T, NASAMS, Hawk and Stinger systems (the Pentagon calls Ukraine's patchwork air defense ``FrankenSAM'') to intercept thousands of inbound threats, including 78% of the kamikaze-drones. The lesson: A layered missile-defense system is not only feasible but essential.

U.S. intelligence still works. Rebounding from its 9/11-era woes, the intelligence community used a mix of signals intercepts, satellite imagery and assets inside Russia to forewarn policymakers about Putin's plans. The Biden administration released that intelligence to alert Ukraine, brace Europe and prevent Russian false-flag operations. This preemptive use of intelligence enabled allies to rush defensive systems into Ukraine, giving it a chance to thwart Russia's kill-shot thrust at Kiev.

In the months since, U.S. intelligence has helped Ukraine eliminate Russian generals, strike munitions depots, degrade Russian forces in occupied Crimea and develop counteroffensives. Plus, U.S. Cyber Command--whose commander serves as director of the NSA, a key piece of the intelligence community--``bolstered the resilience of Ukraine'' by conducting ``offensive, defensive, information operations, Gen. Paul Nakasone cryptically reports.

There's a democratic community committed to defending the free world. At $46.6 billion in military assistance--and another $30.3 billion in humanitarian financial assistance-- the United States has sent more aid than any single country. But America isn't alone. Fifty nations are sending aid to Ukraine. The European Union (EU) has sent more total aid and (with Britain) more military aid than the United States. EU nations planned to deliver a million rounds of 155mm ammunition between last spring and this spring. South Korea is sending artillery rounds to Ukraine, howitzers to Estonia, tanks to Poland. Australia has sent anti-armor weapons and drones to Ukraine. Israel is sharing missile-warning systems with Ukraine and missile-defense systems with Germany. Japan recently approved reforms that will allow it to ship arms to freeworld allies and partners.

There's an axis of autocrats committed to rolling back the free world. Russia is trying to erase Ukraine, occupies parts of Georgia and Moldova, and props up tyrants in Belarus, Syria, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela and Africa. It spews military threats against NATO's democracies, is arming Hezbollah, and has attacked U.S. and British aircraft in international airspace.

China has absorbed Hong Kong, threatens to seize Taiwan, is building militarized islands in the South China Sea, boasts the world's largest navy, is tripling its nuclear arsenal and is conducting a cyber siege of the free world.

Nuclear-armed North Korea is sending ammunition to Moscow and constantly threatens to attack America, South Korea and Japan.

Iran supplies Moscow with kamikaze-drones, has unleashed Hamas and the Houthis, bankrolls Hezbollah, harbors al- Qaida's leader and is building a nuclear bomb.

The impact of war is never limited to the war zone. Putin's war has spawned energy-price spikes, refugee flows and food scarcity around the world. But it exposed his weakness, triggering a 40% devaluing of the ruble, military mutinies, fratricides, mass desertions, mass emigration and anti-regime guerrilla movements. He may not lose his grip on the Kremlin or Crimea, but by his own measure of the war's objectives he has lost.

Putin's war has cemented Moscow's position as Beijing's junior partner, galvanized Ukraine as an independent nation and reinvigorated NATO.

A planned three-day blitzkrieg that devolved into a disaster has given Xi pause as he gazes across the Taiwan Strait. Ukraine's tactics and tenacity have given Taiwan a roadmap for deterring and, if necessary, repelling an invasion.

Indeed. Putin's war reminds us that the world is connected. Just as the defense of West Berlin and South Korea were linked during the Cold War, the defense of Ukraine and Taiwan and Israel, the Baltics and the Philippines, the Red Sea and Black Sea and South China Sea are linked today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source