Buy Russian Military Surplus

Steven Pifer testifies before the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe on the growing Russian military threat in Europe, assessing and addressing the challenges by looking at Ukraine as a case study. Watch the hearing live

Mr. Chairman, Co-Chairman Smith, members of the Commission, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to testify on the growing Russian military threat to Europe and how that threat has manifested itself in Ukraine.

Russia is also modernizing its conventional military forces. While much of this appears to be replacing old with new, the Russian military clearly aims to enhance its ability to conduct offensive operations outside of Russian territory, spurred in part by a desire to improve on the mediocre performance of Russian forces in the 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict. Over the past three years, it appears that Russia has deployed and operated a number of its new conventional weapons systems in Ukraine.

Moscow is clearly unhappy about Western economic sanctions, yet it has eschewed steps that would lead to their easing. For example, it would not be difficult for the Kremlin to enforce a real ceasefire, given its control over Russian/separatist forces in the Donbas. It could also implement a withdrawal of heavy weapons away from the line of contact. If the Russians feared that the Ukrainian military might try to take advantage of the situation, they could visibly position additional Russian military units along the Russia-Ukraine border as a deterrent. Having implemented the ceasefire and withdrawal steps, OSCE monitors could then be invited to travel freely around the occupied part of the Donbas to confirm that the measures had been implemented.

The United States should work with its European partners to respond in a serious way. They should continue to provide Ukraine with political, economic and military support; maintain and intensify economic and other sanctions on Russia to induce a change in Kremlin policy; and keep open channels of communication for a settlement if Moscow alters its policy. This will require a sustained, patient effort. That is essential if we wish to realize the kind of Europe that was envisaged when the Final Act was signed in 1975.

As a result, turning towards Western suppliers, particularly the United States, will require compromises. India may have to loosen requirements that exporters contribute to its domestic industry, facilitate research and development, or provide other assistance. The United States may have to expand the capabilities and technology that it is willing to export while simultaneously streamlining the foreign military sales approval process. On April 11, a 2+2 dialogue brought together the U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense with their Indian counterparts. This may provide an opportunity to overcome some of these challenges.

A jig grinder is a high-precision grinding machine system that does not require a license to export to European Union countries but does require a license for export and reexport to Russia because of its applications in nuclear proliferation and defense programs. At no time did the defendants apply for, receive or possess a license of authorization from the U.S. Department of Commerce to export or reexport the jig grinder to Russia, as required by the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which restrict the export of items that could make a significant contribution to the military potential of other nations or that could be detrimental to the foreign policy or national security of the United States.

If Moscow secures a deal with the Gulf Arab state, Russia could use the money to finance the development of an export version of the machine. In the near term however, the prospect of a deal is fairly remote because the Uran-9 has not entered service with the Russian military.

Some of the assistance provided has been new and purchased on contract from defense industry manufacturers as a part of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. But much of the equipment, some $12.5 billion worth, has been provided as part of presidential drawdown authority. That means things such as Javelin and Stinger missiles, HIMARS rocket launcher systems, and Switchblade unmanned aerial systems, for instance, have been pulled directly from existing U.S. military inventory to be sent overseas.

Because so much gear has been pulled from U.S. military units, that equipment must now be replaced in order to sustain America's own readiness, and the Defense Department has already contracted with an array of manufacturers to give back to military units what was taken from them in order to support Ukraine.

Already, about $1.2 billion in contracts are underway to replenish U.S. military stocks for weapons sent to Ukraine, LaPlante said. That includes about $352 million in funding for replacement Javelin missiles, $624 million for replacement Stinger missiles, and $33 million for replacement HIMARS systems.

Missile Launch A U.S. Army paratrooper fires an FGM-148 Javelin shoulder-fired, anti-tank missile during a combined arms live-fire exercise at Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany, August 21, 2019. Javelin missiles have been pulled from U.S. military inventory to be sent to Ukraine. Now, the Defense Department is contracting to backfill those weapons. Share: Share Copy Link Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp var addthis_config = { data_use_flash: false, data_use_cookies: false, ui_508_compliant: true, } Download: Full Size (921.6 KB) Photo By: Army Sgt. Henry Villarama VIRIN: 190821-A-AR102-001D

High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems Airmen and soldiers sit alongside High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, which are loaded inside a C-17 Globemaster III cargo aircraft, March 6, 2015. HIMARS systems have been pulled from U.S. military inventory to be sent to Ukraine. Now. the Defense Department is contracting to backfill those weapons. Share: Share Copy Link Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp var addthis_config = { data_use_flash: false, data_use_cookies: false, ui_508_compliant: true, } Download: Full Size (2.93 MB) Photo By: Air Force Airman 1st Class Nathan Clark VIRIN: 150306-F-OK506-128

Arctic Edge Marines fire an FIM-92 Stinger missile during Exercise Arctic Edge 18, at Fort Greely, Alaska, March 15, 2018. Stinger missiles have been pulled from U.S. military inventory to be sent to Ukraine. Now, the Defense Department is contracting to backfill those weapons. Share: Share Copy Link Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp var addthis_config = { data_use_flash: false, data_use_cookies: false, ui_508_compliant: true, } Download: Full Size (1.97 MB) Photo By: Marine Corps Cpl. Sean Evans VIRIN: 180315-M-DV652-0015

Among those sanctioned are top political representatives, oligarchs, military personnel and propagandists. Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine now apply to:

This package introduces new EU import bans to curb Russia's revenues, as well as export restrictions, which will further deprive the Kremlin's military and industrial complex of key components and technologies and Russia's economy of European services and expertise.

Additional individuals and entities have been sanctioned. It also includes individuals and entities working in the defence sector, such as high-ranking and military officials, as well as companies supporting the Russian armed forces.

New export restrictions have been introduced on sensitive dual-use goods and advanced technologies that contribute to Russia's military capabilities and technological enhancement. This includes, among others:

But this favourable environment might change quickly if Russian domestic military purchases decrease again, if India (the other major buyer of Russian weapons) imports fewer weapons and if the anticipated compensatory growth of new markets for Russian military exports fails to occur.

In the past, military surplus ammo from the U.S. was often sold to the public, but the military has lately needed more and more ammunition, reducing the available ammo and drying up the surplus market. But the U.S military is not the only source of surplus ammo. Russia and Germany as well as many former Warsaw Pact countries sold and still sell massive volumes of military surplus ammunition.

The equipment started popping up in the general dry goods and department stores around the country. But it was one man, Francis Bannerman, whose supply company was the first to sell both new and used military equipment. His store opened right on Broadway in New York City in 1872.

He did well for himself at the end of the Civil War when he was just 14 years old. Not only did he clean up selling surplus to the general public, he also made a killing outfitting entire regiments of the United States Army during the Spanish-American War. Bannerman's Castle, a storage facility on Pollepel Island along the Hudson River, became the place where Bannerman stored his massive cache of military surplus gear. The store itself was massive: seven stories at a total of 40,000 square feet. He also made money through his 350-page mail order catalog.

Surplus stores went into decline after the 1990s. A quick trip to your local army and navy surplus store is going to reveal a lot of equipment that is anything but military surplus. This is because, even though the United States has been bogged down in ever increasing wars, far fewer Americans have served in them. Compare the nine million men who served during the Vietnam War with the 2.5 million who served in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Collectors of military paraphernalia place great value on ammunition boxes and accessories. They display the cans personally and in museums. Shooters of surplus ammunition often find that surplus ammo shoots just as well as commercial ammo, or sometimes even better. The only real downsid