October 2, 2022

ACN Center

Area Control Network

Additional Military Assistance for Ukraine

17 min read

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

Ukraine is a sovereign, democratic, and peace-loving nation. The United States and Ukraine have been partners since Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union more than 30 years ago. After Russia invaded and partially occupied Ukraine in 2014, the United States intensified efforts to help Ukraine deter further Russian aggression, and, if needed, to defend itself from additional attacks. Last fall, as the present threat against Ukraine from Russia developed, under authority delegated by the President, I authorized the Department of Defense to provide $60 million in immediate military assistance to Ukraine. In December, as that threat materialized, I authorized a further drawdown worth $200 million. Today, as Ukraine fights with courage and pride against Russia’s brutal and unprovoked assault, I have authorized, pursuant to a delegation by the President, an unprecedented third Presidential Drawdown of up to $350 million for immediate support to Ukraine’s defense. This brings the total security assistance the United States has committed to Ukraine over the past year to more than $1 billion.

This package will include further lethal defensive assistance to help Ukraine address the armored, airborne, and other threats it is now facing. It is another clear signal that the United States stands with the people of Ukraine as they defend their sovereign, courageous, and proud nation.

More from: Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

  • The United States Impedes Hizballah Financing by Sanctioning Seven Individuals
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Drug Misuse: Agencies Have Not Fully Identified How Grants That Can Support Drug Prevention Education Programs Contribute to National Goals
    In U.S GAO News
    The Department of Education (Education), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) manage six key federal grant programs that can support drug prevention activities in schools. The flexibility of these grants supports a variety of drug prevention education programs. The agencies generally monitor grantees’ compliance with grant requirements through periodic reporting. The aim of the National Drug Control Strategy (Strategy) is to reduce drug misuse, but HHS, and ONDCP have not fully defined how several key grant programs support the Strategy. ONDCP’s guidance directs agencies to report, for each grant program, performance measures that relate to the Strategy’s goals. However, some performance measures for several programs did not relate to drug prevention, did not link directly to the Strategy’s prevention goals, or were not reported at all. For example: A $372 million set-aside for HHS’s Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant program must be used on drug prevention, but HHS did not link the program’s performance measures to the Strategy’s prevention education goal.   ONDCP did not report on any performance measures in the Strategy or document how its $100 million Drug-Free Communities Support program contributes to achieving specific goals in the Strategy. GAO also found that the approximately $10 million grants to states component of Education’s School Climate Transformation Grant program could more fully provide performance information related to the Strategy’s prevention education goal. Fully understanding these programs’ contributions to the goals of the National Drug Control Strategy could help Congress and the public better understand and assess how the nation’s significant investments in drug prevention education programs help address the drug crisis. Most people who develop a substance use disorder begin using substances as adolescents. To reach adolescents, drug prevention programs are frequently provided in schools. Education, HHS, and ONDCP manage most federal programs that support school-based drug prevention activities. This report (1) describes how Education, HHS, and ONDCP support drug prevention activities in schools, and monitor those efforts and (2) examines the extent to which these agencies identify how their prevention activities support the National Drug Control Strategy. GAO reviewed agency documentation, the 2019 and 2020 National Drug Control Strategy documents which ONDCP identified as being most relevant to our review including the fiscal year 2019 drug control budget, ONDCP guidance, relevant federal laws, and GAO’s prior work on attributes of successful performance measures that can help achieve agency goals. GAO also interviewed federal and state officials. GAO is making four recommendations, including that Education, HHS, and ONDCP clarify how grants that can include drug prevention education programs support related goals of the National Drug Control Strategy. HHS and ONCP agreed with the recommendation and Education partially concurred, saying it would explore collecting and reporting related performance data. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov.

    [Read More…]

  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with Peruvian Foreign Minister Wagner
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Acting Assistant Secretary of State Joey Hood Visits Tunisia
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Afghanistan: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight
    In U.S GAO News
    The United States has provided approximately $38.6 billion in reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan and has over 35,000 troops in the country as of February 2009. Some progress has occurred in areas such as economic growth, infrastructure development, and training of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), but the overall security situation in Afghanistan has not improved after more than 7 years of U.S. and international efforts. In response, the new administration plans to deploy approximately 21,000 additional troops1 to Afghanistan this year, and has completed a strategic review of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Based on our past work and the significance of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan to the overall U.S. counterinsurgency strategy, we have highlighted Afghanistan as an urgent oversight issue facing this Congress. The government of Afghanistan, with the assistance of the international community, developed the Afghanistan National Development Strategy (ANDS), which was finalized in June 20083, as a guiding document for achieving Afghanistan’s reconstruction goals. The ANDS articulates the priorities of the government of Afghanistan as consisting of four major areas: (1) security; (2) governance, rule of law, and human rights; (3) economic and social development; and (4) counternarcotics. The United States adopted the ANDS as a guiding document for its efforts, and has also identified an end state for Afghanistan using four strategic goals: namely, that Afghanistan is: (1) never again a safe haven for terrorists and is a reliable, stable ally in the Global War on Terror (GWOT); (2) moderate and democratic, with a thriving private sector economy; (3) capable of governing its territory and borders; and (4) respectful of the rights of all its citizens. In discussing his new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan in March 2009, the President noted his goals were to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. In addition, according to Department of State (State) officials, the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan is assembling provincial plans for security and development. Department of Defense (DOD), State, and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) officials have suggested that securing, stabilizing, and reconstructing Afghanistan will take at least a decade and require continuing international assistance.Security in Afghanistan has worsened significantly in the last 3 years, impeding both U.S. and international partners’ efforts to stabilize and rebuild the country. The security situation, including the overall increase in insurgent attacks from 2005 to 2008, is the result of a variety of factors including a resurgence of the Taliban in the south, the limited capabilities of Afghan security forces, a continuing and thriving illicit drug trade in the south, and the threat emanating from insurgent safe havens in Pakistan. Between fiscal years 2002 and 2009, the United States provided approximately $38.6 billion to support Afghanistan’s reconstruction goals, which can often be characterized as construction. According to DOD, $22 billion of the $38.6 billion has been disbursed. Over half of the $38.6 billion was provided to support the development of the Afghan national army and police forces. Almost a third of the funding was provided to support economic and social development efforts, such as the construction of roads and schools, and the remainder was provided to governance, rule of law, and human rights and counternarcotics programs. Since 2003, we have issued 21 reports and testimonies on U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Over the course of this work we have identified improvements that were needed as well as many obstacles that affect success and should be considered in program planning and implementation. In most of the U.S. efforts in the past, we found the need for improved planning, including the development of coordinated interagency plans that include measurable goals, specific time frames, cost estimates, and identification of external factors that could significantly affect efforts in key areas such as building Afghanistan’s national security forces. We also concluded that several existing conditions, such as worsening security; the lack of a coordinated, detailed interagency plan; and the limited institutional capacity of the Afghanistan government continue to create challenges to the U.S. efforts to assist with securing, stabilizing, and rebuilding Afghanistan. To assist the 111th Congress, GAO is highlighting key issues for consideration in developing oversight agendas and determining the way forward in securing and stabilizing Afghanistan. Significant oversight will be needed to help ensure visibility over the cost and progress of these efforts. The suggested areas for additional oversight include the following topics: (1) U.S. and international commitments, (2) Security environment, (3) U.S. forces and equipment, (4) Afghan national security forces, (5) Counternarcotics efforts, (6) Economic development, (7) Government capacity, (8) Accountability for U.S. provided weapons, and (9) Oversight of contractor performance.

    [Read More…]

  • Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Call with Portuguese Political Director Vinhas
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • DRL FY19 Supporting Transitional Justice in Burma
    In Human Health, Resources and Services
    Bureau of Democracy, [Read More…]
  • Zimbabwe Independence Day
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Thorold Barker of The Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • U.S.-India Joint Statement on Launching the “U.S.-India Climate and Clean Energy Agenda 2030 Partnership”
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Attorney General William P. Barr Announces Publication of Cryptocurrency Enforcement Framework
    In Crime News
    Attorney General William P. Barr announced today the release of “Cryptocurrency: An Enforcement Framework,” a publication produced by the Attorney General’s Cyber-Digital Task Force.  The Framework provides a comprehensive overview of the emerging threats and enforcement challenges associated with the increasing prevalence and use of cryptocurrency; details the important relationships that the Department of Justice has built with regulatory and enforcement partners both within the United States government and around the world; and outlines the Department’s response strategies. 

    [Read More…]

  • International Military Education and Training: Agencies Should Emphasize Human Rights Training and Improve Evaluations
    In U.S GAO News
    Since 1976, the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program has provided education and training to foreign military personnel. The program’s objectives include professionalizing military forces and increasing respect for democratic values and human rights. In 2010, Congress appropriated $108 million in IMET funding for more than 120 countries. The Department of State (State) and the Department of Defense (DOD) share responsibility for IMET. In response to a mandate in the conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, this report assesses (1) changes in the program from fiscal years 2000 to 2010, by funding levels, students trained, and recipient countries; (2) the program’s provision of and emphasis on human rights training for its students; and (3) the extent to which State and DOD monitor IMET graduates and evaluate program effectiveness. GAO reviewed and analyzed agency funding, planning, and performance management documents, and interviewed U.S. officials in Washington, D.C., and overseas.Although IMET funding has increased by more than 70 percent since fiscal year 2000, the number of students trained has decreased by nearly 14 percent. Over the last 10 years, countries in the Europe and Eurasia region have continued to receive the largest portion of IMET funding, receiving $30 million in 2010. However, all regions have received increased IMET funding since fiscal year 2000, with the levels of funding to the Near East and South and Central Asia regions more than doubling from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2010. Professional military education represents the largest single use of IMET funds– nearly 50 percent in fiscal year 2010. Other major types of training funded by IMET include English language training and technical training, which represented 13 and 11 percent, respectively, of fiscal year 2010 IMET program costs. Training to build respect for internationally recognized human rights standards is provided to IMET students through various in-class and field-based courses, but human rights training was generally not identified as a priority in the IMET country training plans GAO reviewed. IMET students primarily receive human rights training through human rights courses that focus on promoting democratic values, and through a voluntary program that sends them on visits to democratically oriented institutions. However, human rights and related concepts were identified as key objectives in only 11 of the 29 country training plans GAO reviewed for IMET participant countries that received low rankings for political and civil freedoms by Freedom House, an independent nongovernmental organization. State and DOD’s ability to assess IMET’s effectiveness is limited by several weaknesses in program monitoring and evaluation. First, State and DOD have not established a performance plan for IMET that explains how the program is expected to achieve its goals and how progress can be assessed through performance measures and targets. Second, State and DOD have limited information on most IMET graduates, due to weaknesses in efforts to monitor these graduates’ careers after training. DOD has collected updated career information on only 1 percent of IMET graduates. Training managers identified limited resources and lack of host country cooperation as among the key challenges to monitoring IMET graduates. Third, the agencies’ current evaluation efforts include few of the evaluation elements commonly accepted as appropriate for measuring progress of training programs, and do not objectively measure how IMET contributes to long-term, desired program outcomes. The agencies could incorporate existing evaluation practices, including those of other State and DOD entities, or suggestions from training managers overseas to improve IMET monitoring and evaluation efforts. IMET training managers have offered suggestions for improving monitoring efforts, such as by clarifying DOD’s monitoring guidance and strengthening DOD’s IMET data systems. Training managers also offered ideas to improve program evaluations, such as surveying U.S. military groups to assess participant nations’ proficiency in key areas, assessing career progress of IMET graduates against non-IMET graduates in specific countries, and testing students before and after training to measure changes in knowledge or attitudes. GAO recommends that the Secretaries of State and Defense (1) ensure human rights training is a priority in IMET recipient countries with known human rights concerns, and (2) take initial steps to begin developing a system to evaluate the effectiveness of the IMET program, including adopting existing evaluation practices used by other State and DOD agencies and soliciting IMET training managers for suggestions on improving monitoring and evaluation efforts. State and DOD both concurred with our recommendations.

    [Read More…]

  • Comoros National Day
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Opening Remarks by Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo Before the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Program Evaluation: Key Terms and Concepts
    In U.S GAO News
    Both the executive branch and congressional committees need evaluative information to help them make decisions about the programs they oversee—information that tells them whether, and why, a program is working well or not. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) established a framework for performance management and accountability within the federal government. Building on that foundation, Congress has since passed, among other laws, the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act) to strengthen the evidence-building efforts of executive branch agencies. This product updates our previous glossary (GAO-11-646SP) to highlight different types of evaluations for answering questions about program performance, as well as relevant issues to ensure study quality. This glossary can help agency officials better understand fundamental concepts related to evaluation and enhance their evidence-building capacity. For more information, contact Lawrance Evans, Jr. at 202-512-2700 or EvansL@gao.gov.

    [Read More…]

  • Defense Health Care: Oversight of Military Services’ Post-Deployment Health Reassessment Completion Rates Is Limited
    In U.S GAO News
    Military servicemembers engaged in combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq are at risk of developing combat-related mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In many cases, signs of potential mental health conditions do not surface until months after servicemembers return from deployment. In 2004, Army researchers published a series of articles that indicated a significant increase in the number of servicemembers reporting mental health concerns 90 to 120 days after returning from deployment, compared with mental health concerns reported before or soon after deployment. These findings led the Department of Defense (DOD) in March 2005 to develop requirements and policies for the post-deployment health reassessment (PDHRA) as part of its continuum of deployment health assessments for servicemembers. PDHRA is a screening tool for military servicemembers; it is designed to identify and address their health concerns–including mental health concerns–90 to 180 days after return from deployment. Servicemembers answer a set of questions about their physical and mental health conditions and concerns, and health care providers review the answers and refer servicemembers for further evaluation and treatment if necessary. A November 2007 study showed that a larger number of servicemembers indicated mental health concerns on their PDHRAs than on assessments earlier in their deployment cycles. Although DOD established PDHRA requirements and policies, it gave the military services discretion to implement them to meet their unique needs as long as the services adhere to the requirements and policies. DOD oversees the military services’ compliance with PDHRA requirements through its deployment health assessment quality assurance program and is required to report on the quality assurance program annually to the Armed Services Committees of the House of Representatives and Senate. In June 2007, we reported that DOD’s oversight of its deployment health assessments does not provide DOD or Congress with the information needed to evaluate DOD and the military services’ compliance with deployment health assessment requirements. That report is part of a body of work in which we identified weaknesses in DOD’s quality assurance program. The Senate Committee on Armed Services directed us to review DOD’s oversight of PDHRA, and the House Committee on Armed Services and 11 senators also expressed interest in this work. In this report, we focus on how DOD ensures that servicemembers complete the PDHRA. Specifically, we discuss how well DOD’s quality assurance program oversees the military services’ compliance with the requirement that they ensure that servicemembers complete the PDHRA.DOD’s quality assurance program has limitations and does not allow the department to accurately assess whether the military services ensure that servicemembers complete the PDHRA. DOD’s quality assurance program relies on quarterly reports from each military service, monthly reports from AFHSC, and site visits to military installations to oversee the military services’ compliance with deployment health assessment requirements, including completion of PDHRA. Each of these sources of information has limitations. The military services’ quarterly reports and the monthly reports from AFHSC do not provide the information DOD needs to accurately assess the military services’ PDHRA completion rates, which would allow DOD to determine if the military services have ensured that servicemembers completed the PDHRA. These reports do not allow DOD to calculate a completion rate because they do not provide essential information, such as the total number of servicemembers who returned from deployment and should have completed the PDHRA in that quarter or month. Furthermore, DOD cannot use information collected from site visits to validate the services’ quarterly reports because the small number of site visits constitutes an insufficient sample for validation purposes. In our 2007 report, we recommended that DOD make enhancements to its quality assurance program, which would allow the department to better evaluate compliance with deployment health requirements. Although DOD concurred with the recommendation included in the 2007 report, as of June 2008, the department had not implemented the recommendation. As a result, DOD’s quality assurance program cannot provide decision makers with reasonable assurance that servicemembers complete PDHRA. Overall, DOD concurred with our report’s findings and conclusions; however, DOD identified several items in the report that it addressed in written comments. DOD suggested that the function of oversight is beyond the scope of the quality assurance program. Additionally, DOD commented that the department is taking steps that it believes will resolve some of the issues we note in this report. However, DOD did not provide us with relevant details or evidence pertaining to these efforts. We believe that oversight is an essential function of the quality assurance program and that the program currently does not receive the information necessary to perform this function.

    [Read More…]

  • Kremlin Decision on Eastern Ukraine
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Attorney General William P. Barr Honors Department of Justice Employees and Others for the 68th Annual Attorney General’s Awards
    In Crime News
    Today, Attorney General [Read More…]
  • District Court Orders New Jersey Defendants to Stop Distributing Unapproved ‘Nano Silver’ Products Touted as COVID Treatment
    In Crime News
    A federal court permanently enjoined a New Jersey entity and its principals from distributing unapproved and misbranded drugs touted as a treatment for COVID-19.

    [Read More…]

  • Coast Guard Health Care: Improvements Needed for Determining Staffing Needs and Monitoring Access to Care
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) staffs its clinics and sickbays with Coast Guard enlisted personnel and officers, who primarily serve as health service technicians and physician assistants, as well as with U.S. Public Health Service officers, including physicians and dentists. In addition, the Coast Guard uses a contract to fill some of its vacancies and augment other health care staff roles. As of July 2021, Coast Guard data show the service had 1,022 Coast Guard, Public Health Service, and contracted health care staff serving its health services program of clinics and sickbays. U.S. Coast Guard Health Care Staff by Source, as of July 2021 Note: U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps are public health professionals that serve in federal agencies. The Coast Guard generally fills positions for its clinics and sickbays based on historical staffing levels. However, the current staffing approach does not address surge deployments of health care staff for missions away from clinics, such as to respond to hurricanes. Deployments have nearly quadrupled from 4,111 days in 2018 to more than 16,000 days in 2021, according to the service’s data. Coast Guard officials expressed concern with difficulties in maintaining already burdened clinic operations when health care staff are deployed, which can result in clinics deferring services. Implementing staffing standards for its health services program that account for surge deployments would help ensure the Coast Guard is best targeting its resources to meet mission needs. To monitor access to care, the Coast Guard relies on each of its clinics to manually estimate access by counting the number of days to the next available appointment. However, Coast Guard officials stated that this approach does not produce reliable information on whether the Coast Guard is meeting its access-to-care standards. Coast Guard officials said they hope to collect system-wide data on access to care using a new electronic health record system. The Coast Guard expects to complete the system’s initial rollout by September 2022, but officials have not yet determined how to use the system to monitor access. While the service works to better understand the capabilities of the new system, improving its process to collect more reliable access data will allow the Coast Guard to more accurately monitor whether its clinics and sickbays are meeting its access standards. Why GAO Did This Study In support of its maritime safety, security, and environmental stewardship missions, the Coast Guard—a military service within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—is tasked with providing health care to its approximately 47,000 active duty and reserve personnel. The Coast Guard offers certain outpatient medical and dental services to its personnel through 43 outpatient clinics and 122 sickbays, which are small facilities typically staffed by a health technician. The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 required GAO to review the Coast Guard health care system. This report examines how the Coast Guard 1) staffs its clinics and sickbays, 2) determines its staffing needs, and 3) monitors whether access-to-care standards are being met at its clinics and sickbays. GAO analyzed Coast Guard medical staffing and vacancy data as of July 2021, and reviewed relevant staffing and access-to-care policy documents. GAO also interviewed Coast Guard officials responsible for the health services program as well as Coast Guard staff from three clinics selected for variation in geographic location and number of staff.

    [Read More…]

Source: Network News
Area Control Network

Copyright © 2022 ACN
All Rights Reserved © ACN 2020

ACN Privacy Policies
ACN TOS
Area Control Network (ACN)
Area Control Network
Area Control Network Center