December 1, 2022

ACN Center

Area Control Network

$100 Million in Additional U.S. Security Assistance for Ukraine

10 min read

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

The world has been shocked and appalled by the atrocities committed by Russia’s forces in Bucha and across Ukraine.  Ukraine’s forces bravely continue to defend their country and their freedom, and the United States, along with our Allies and partners, stand steadfast in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

I have authorized, pursuant to a delegation from the President earlier today, the immediate drawdown of security assistance valued at up to $100 million to meet Ukraine’s urgent need for additional anti-armor systems.  This authorization is the sixth drawdown of arms, equipment, and supplies from Department of Defense inventories for Ukraine since August 2021.  Combined with $300 million in assistance announced by the Department of Defense on April 1 under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, this additional drawdown brings the total U.S. security assistance commitment to Ukraine to more than $2.4 billion since the beginning of this Administration, and more than $1.7 billion* *since the beginning of Russia’s brutal assault against Ukraine began on February 24.

In addition to what we have provided, more than 30 countries have joined us to deliver security assistance to Ukraine since Russia’s invasion began. Together, we are delivering security assistance every day, and we are expediting shipments of even more of the arms and defense equipment Ukraine is using to defend itself.  As we strengthen Ukraine’s position on the battlefield and at the negotiating table, we will also work with our Allies and partners to gather information to document reported abuses and make it available to the appropriate bodies to hold those responsible to account.

United with our Allies and partners, we will continue to provide security assistance in support of Ukraine’s defense, as well as economic support, and humanitarian aid for communities devastated by Russia’s ruthless brutality.

More from: Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Republic of Korea Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong, and Republic of Korea Defense Minister Suh Wook at a Joint Press Availability
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Bonnie Jenkins to Participate in the IAEA General Conference (September 20-21) and UN General Assembly (September 23)
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • New NASA Research Projects Probe COVID-19 Impacts
    The new projects look at [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Announces Funding Opportunities to Support Public Safety in Tribal Communities
    In Crime News
    The U.S. Department of Justice today announced the opening of the FY 2022 Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation period.

    [Read More…]

  • Deputy Secretary Biegun’s Calls with Armenian Foreign Minister Mnatsakanyan and Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Bayramov
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Advertising Platform OpenX Agrees to Injunctive Relief and $2 Million Payment in Case Alleging Violations of Children’s Privacy Law
    In Crime News
    Online advertising platform OpenX Technologies Inc. (OpenX) has agreed to a court order requiring it to pay $2 million and to be bound by injunctive relief provisions mandating its compliance with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act and Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule. This stipulated order resolves a lawsuit the government filed against OpenX in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. 

    [Read More…]

  • Department Press Briefing – February 5, 2021
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
  • Capital One CEO to Pay Civil Penalty for Violating Antitrust Pre-Transaction Notification Requirements
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, at the request of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), filed a civil antitrust lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, against Richard D. Fairbank, the CEO of Capital One Financial Corporation, for violating the pre-transaction notification and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act of 1976 (HSR Act) when he acquired voting securities of Capital One in 2018. At the same time, the department filed a proposed settlement, subject to approval by the court, under which Fairbank has agreed to pay a $637,950 civil penalty to resolve the lawsuit.

    [Read More…]

  • Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Delivers Remarks at International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Officer Safety and Wellness Symposium
    In Crime News
    Thank you for welcoming me to the 2022 Officer Safety and Wellness Symposium. I want to thank the entire IACP team for your leadership and for your partnership.  

    [Read More…]

  • Joint Statement on the Occasion of a Trilateral Discussion among Afghanistan, Tajikistan and the United States
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • The Life and Legacy of Archbishop Desmond Tutu
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Commercial Shipping: Information on How Intermodal Chassis Are Made Available and the Federal Government’s Oversight Role
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found Containerized shipping—performed by oceangoing vessels using standardized shipping containers—accounted for approximately 60 percent of all world seaborne trade, which was valued at approximately $12 trillion in 2017. At a port, shipping containers are placed on “intermodal chassis” (chassis), standardized trailers that carry shipping containers and attach to tractors for land transport. Multiple entities are involved in the movement of shipping containers, including intermodal equipment providers (IEP) (which own and provide chassis for a fee); ocean carriers (which transport cargo over water); and motor carriers (which transport shipping containers over land via chassis). Four distinct models are used in the U.S. to make chassis available to motor carriers (see table), each with benefits and drawbacks according to the entities GAO interviewed. While chassis are generally provided to motor carriers using one of these four models, more than one model may be available at a port. Chassis Provisioning Models Model 1: Single chassis provider An individual intermodal equipment provider (IEP) owns chassis that are directly provided to shippers or motor carriers. Model 2: Motor carrier-controlled A motor carrier owns or is responsible for a chassis that it has procured under a long-term lease. Model 3: Gray pool A single manager, often a third party, oversees the operations of a pool that is made up of chassis contributed by multiple IEPs. Model 4: Pool-of-pools Each IEP manages its respective chassis fleet, but each allow motor carriers to use any chassis among the fleets and to pick up and drop off chassis at any of the IEPs’ multiple locations. Source: GAO.  |  GAO-21-315R Entities GAO interviewed identified multiple benefits and drawbacks to each of the chassis provisioning models. Regarding benefits, for example, both the single chassis provider model and the motor carrier-controlled model allow IEPs and motor carriers to have direct control over the maintenance and repair of their chassis, something these entities potentially lose under other chassis provisioning models. Further, the gray pool and the pool-of-pools models can resolve many of the logistical concerns regarding the availability of chassis, leading to operational efficiencies for port operators and the ability of motor carriers to choose whatever chassis they wish. Regarding drawbacks, cost considerations were identified in some cases. For example, under the single chassis provider model, two IEPs told us that while an expected part of the business, repositioning chassis to ensure there is a sufficient supply of chassis where they are needed can be costly to the IEPs. The federal government provides oversight of chassis safety but has a limited economic oversight role regarding chassis. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) employs several inspection methods to help oversee chassis safety and compliance with regulations. For example, inspectors perform roadside inspections on commercial vehicles, including chassis, in operation. FMCSA also performs investigations of individual IEPs to oversee chassis safety. While one stakeholder GAO spoke with stated that FMCSA should consider maintaining safety ratings for IEPs—as is currently done for motor carriers—FMCSA officials told us that the current processes provide sufficient information to select IEPs for investigation. The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) oversees ocean carriers that provide service to and from the U.S. and works to ensure a competitive and reliable ocean transportation supply system. Entities may file complaints with FMC to allege violations of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended. One such complaint was filed in August 2020, in which the complainants allege, among other things, that although ocean carriers do not own chassis, they still control the operation of chassis pools at ports. An initial decision on this complaint is expected in August 2021. None of the entities GAO spoke with identified additional actions they would like for FMC to take regarding chassis. Why GAO Did This Study Senate Report 116-109—incorporated by reference into the explanatory statement accompanying the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020—contained a provision for GAO to study intermodal chassis. Within the U.S., some entities have expressed concerns about chassis, including limited availability of chassis in some circumstances, as well as the age and safety of chassis. This report describes selected stakeholders’ views on: (1) the ways in which chassis are made available for the movement of shipping containers and the benefits and drawbacks of those models, and (2) the federal government’s role in the chassis market. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed relevant reports on chassis provisioning and federal oversight. GAO interviewed representatives from FMC, FMCSA, five industry associations, and the three largest intermodal equipment providers. GAO also interviewed three ocean carriers, five port operators, and a motor carrier selected, in part, for their large number of container movements. The information obtained from these interviews provides a broad perspective of relevant issues but is not generalizable to all entities. For more information, contact Andrew Von Ah at (202) 512-2834 or vonaha@gao.gov.

    [Read More…]

  • Bulgaria Travel Advisory
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Convicted Sex Trafficker Sentenced to 270 Months in Prison
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department today announced that Senior Judge William K. Sessions III sentenced Brian Folks, 45, to 270 months in prison today.

    [Read More…]

  • Deputy Secretary Sherman’s meeting with Argentine Secretary for Strategic Affairs Béliz 
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Readout of the Political Directors Small Group Meeting of the Global Coalition to Defeat Daesh/ISIS
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • High Ranking MS-13 Gang Member Facing Federal Firearms Charges After Nightclub Shooting
    In Crime News
    A criminal complaint was unsealed Nov. 6 charging the local leader of an MS-13 Gang clique with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, announced Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian C. Rabbitt of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Don Cochran for the Middle District of Tennessee.

    [Read More…]

  • Weapon Systems Cybersecurity: Guidance Would Help DOD Programs Better Communicate Requirements to Contractors
    In U.S GAO News
    Since GAO’s 2018 report, the Department of Defense (DOD) has taken action to make its network of high-tech weapon systems less vulnerable to cyberattacks. DOD and military service officials highlighted areas of progress, including increased access to expertise, enhanced cyber testing, and additional guidance. For example, GAO found that selected acquisition programs have conducted, or planned to conduct, more cybersecurity testing during development than past acquisition programs. It is important that DOD sustain its efforts as it works to improve weapon systems cybersecurity. Contracting for cybersecurity requirements is key. DOD guidance states that these requirements should be treated like other types of system requirements and, more simply, “if it is not in the contract, do not expect to get it.” Specifically, cybersecurity requirements should be defined in acquisition program contracts, and criteria should be established for accepting or rejecting the work and for how the government will verify that requirements have been met. However, GAO found examples of program contracts omitting cybersecurity requirements, acceptance criteria, or verification processes. For example, GAO found that contracts for three of the five programs did not include any cybersecurity requirements when they were awarded. A senior DOD official said standardizing cybersecurity requirements is difficult and the department needs to better communicate cybersecurity requirements and systems engineering to the users that will decide whether or not a cybersecurity risk is acceptable. Incorporating Cybersecurity in Contracts DOD and the military services have developed a range of policy and guidance documents to improve weapon systems cybersecurity, but the guidance usually does not specifically address how acquisition programs should include cybersecurity requirements, acceptance criteria, and verification processes in contracts. Among the four military services GAO reviewed, only the Air Force has issued service-wide guidance that details how acquisition programs should define cybersecurity requirements and incorporate those requirements in contracts. The other services could benefit from a similar approach in developing their own guidance that helps ensure that DOD appropriately addresses cybersecurity requirements in contracts. DOD’s network of sophisticated, expensive weapon systems must work when needed, without being incapacitated by cyberattacks. However, GAO reported in 2018 that DOD was routinely finding cyber vulnerabilities late in its development process. A Senate report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 included a provision for GAO to review DOD’s implementation of cybersecurity for weapon systems in development. GAO’s report addresses (1) the extent to which DOD has made progress in implementing cybersecurity for weapon systems during development, and (2) the extent to which DOD and the military services have developed guidance for incorporating weapon systems cybersecurity requirements into contracts. GAO reviewed DOD and service guidance and policies related to cybersecurity for weapon systems in development, interviewed DOD and program officials, and reviewed supporting documentation for five acquisition programs. GAO also interviewed defense contractors about their experiences with weapon systems cybersecurity. GAO is recommending that the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps provide guidance on how programs should incorporate tailored cybersecurity requirements into contracts. DOD concurred with two recommendations, and stated that the third—to the Marine Corps—should be merged with the one to the Navy. DOD’s response aligns with the intent of the recommendation. For more information, contact W. William Russell at (202) 512-4841 or russellw@gao.gov.

    [Read More…]

  • Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Republic of Korea First Vice Foreign Minister Choi
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with Azerbaijani President Aliyev
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [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