The Pentagon did not confirm the WSJ data on the assignment of a name to the mission to support Ukraine. Arms deliveries to Ukraine will not yet receive their own name. The WSJ wrote about the corresponding US plans, indicating that this would mean the intention to long-term support Kyiv ” media=”(max-width: 320px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2), (max-width: 320px) and (min-resolution: 192dpi)” >
The United States does not yet plan to give a name to the mission to supply weapons to Ukraine, Pentagon spokesman Patrick Ryder said during a briefing.
“I cannot confirm this. I am not aware of any plans to organize a named operation in support of security assistance to Ukraine, — said the spokesman.
Earlier, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) sources reported on the plans of the White House to name this mission and appoint it as the head of the general. The newspaper pointed out that the title was important from a bureaucracy point of view, as it meant long-term targeted funding and included additional payments, ribbons of distinction and awards for the military involved. In addition, the appointment of the head of mission means the creation of a command that would be responsible for coordinating its work, wrote the WSJ.
The US has given names to its operations in the past, particularly in Iraq, the Philippines and Afghanistan. In the first, hostilities began in 2003 and were officially called “Iraqi Freedom”; (Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIF). The military actions in Afghanistan and the Philippines were called “Enduring Freedom” in the USA. They were launched as a response to the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in New York in 2001.
Western countries actively support Ukraine in the diplomatic, financial and military spheres, since February 24 they have supplied or pledged to supply almost $ 40 billion worth of weapons, military equipment and other equipment to Kyiv. As RBC calculated based on public reports (some deliveries may not be announced) , over the past six months, NATO countries and allies of the alliance have transferred more than 5.6 thousand units of heavy weapons and military equipment to Ukraine. Thus, if at the beginning of the year the bloc and its partners handed over to Kyiv weapons of the 1970s and 1990s, which, in terms of their characteristics, were worse than similar systems in service with the Russian army, then in recent months the situation has changed.
By the time the Russian troops entered Ukraine, heavy weapons and military equipment of the Ukrainian army mainly (91%) consisted of Soviet weapons, 8% of Ukrainian-made weapons, and less than 1% were NATO-style weapons. A few months later, by June, the share of NATO-style heavy weapons and military equipment in the Ukrainian army could exceed 40%.
Read on RBC Pro Pro Recognizing the future leader: how to determine the potential of employees Articles Pro How the economic miracle led Japan to the “lost 30th anniversary” What's Happening to Them Pro Articles How a Small Manufacturer Fits an Inventory for a Large Chain Pro Instructions How Amazon and Walmart Fight Falling Consumer Demand Pro x Articles The Economist Instead of Alibaba: Which Companies Are Now Thriving in China — The Economist Pro Articles Russians are making their careers faster. Why it is dangerous for companies Articles
Russia criticizes the supply of arms to Ukraine by other states. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed confidence that such a situation only “prolongs the agony” authorities of a neighboring country and prolongs the conflict. He believed that NATO was thus waging a “proxy war” against Russia; and warned: “In war as in war.” The ministry has repeatedly called arms deliveries “pumping”.