Biden may send US special operations forces to protect US embassy in Kyiv

dukkha

Verified User
For now, the embassy and its limited number of personnel are protected by State Department diplomatic security officials. The discussion centers around whether an increase in security is needed if the number of personnel increase, and whether special operations forces are best equipped to fulfill those requirements.

The Wall Street Journal first reported that special operations forces are being considered for embassy security.

US Marines typically guard US embassies around the world, but in Kyiv, for now, there is a general agreement that the typical Marine Corps embassy guard personnel may not be suited to the uncertain security picture in Ukraine without additional forces, officials say.

Last week, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said the Department of Defense was having conversations with the State Department about what their security requirements might look like.

“We are having that conversation with the State Department about what their security requirements might look like, but it’s ultimately up to the secretary of state to determine there or anywhere else around the world, how he wants to better secure and protect his diplomats, and if there’s a role we can play, then we will absolutely have that discussion with them,” Kirby said.

On Monday afternoon, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told a press conference at the Pentagon that talks about returning a small number of troops to Ukraine are “underway at a relatively low level.”

Those plans “have not made it to the Secretary or myself for that matter for refinement of courses of action and what’s needed,” Milley said. “At the end of the day any reintroduction of US forces into Ukraine would require a presidential decision,” he added.

The US doesn’t believe Russia would overtly attack the embassy. But the concern is that Russia air defenses or missiles could inadvertently target the compound and the situation could dramatically escalate the situation, officials say. US officials say Russia has a thorough understanding on an official basis that the US uses military personnel to guard its embassies around the world and any presence should not be viewed as escalatory. Still, an introduction of US forces into Ukraine could raise concerns that it could lead to a perception of US escalation since Biden has been adamant that US ground troops will not fight in Ukraine.

The concern is that if special operations forces go into Ukraine, then the US must be able to provide a rapid means of getting them and embassy personnel out in a crisis. Currently, the only options are vehicle or rail transport to the border.

For now, there is no appetite at the Pentagon to provide air support such as helicopters or fixed wing transport.
If that was done, it could rapidly escalate the US military footprint because of the need to then provide potential rescue and reconnaissance forces if a US plane was shot down down.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/politics/us-embassy-kyiv-special-operations-forces/index.html
 
a-jpg.1000367
 
not their mission at all. sounds like an excuse to send more in (they are already some there and have been for some time directing the natives).
if thies are that squirley then pull Americans OUT.
 
a lot of Americans are going to see ominous undertones in a new move under consideration by the Biden administration. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal ran a story headlined, "Pentagon Weighs Deploying Special Forces to Guard Kyiv Embassy.
" The paper reported that U.S. officials are considering sending elite troops "for the defense and security of the [American embassy in Kyiv], which lies within range of Russian missiles." The paper added that the presence of U.S. special forces "would mark an escalation from Mr. Biden's initial pledge that no American troops will be sent into the country."

Biden not only pledged that no American troops will be sent into Ukraine -- he pledged not to send the highest levels of other U.S. assistance to Ukraine, lest it draw the U.S. into the war. "The idea that we're going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews -- just understand, don't kid yourself, no matter what y'all say, that's called World War III," Biden said in early March, when he refused to facilitate the transfer of fighter jets to Ukraine.

More recently, on May 3, during a visit to a Lockheed Martin facility in Alabama, where the company makes the Javelin anti-tank missiles the U.S. is sending by the thousands to Ukraine, Biden told workers that, "You're making it possible for the Ukrainian people to defend themselves without us having to risk getting in a third world war by sending in American soldiers fighting Russian soldiers."

And now there is a plan to send American soldiers into Ukraine, ostensibly just to protect the U.S. embassy, but also creating the risk that a Russian military action, intentionally or not, might hit Americans, drawing the U.S. further into the war. The Journal reports the special forces plan has not yet been presented to the president. But when it is, Biden -- and the United States -- will have a deeply consequential decision to make.
https://townhall.com/columnists/byr...n-became-president-to-invade-ukraine-n2607744
 
For now, the embassy and its limited number of personnel are protected by State Department diplomatic security officials. The discussion centers around whether an increase in security is needed if the number of personnel increase, and whether special operations forces are best equipped to fulfill those requirements.

The Wall Street Journal first reported that special operations forces are being considered for embassy security.

US Marines typically guard US embassies around the world, but in Kyiv, for now, there is a general agreement that the typical Marine Corps embassy guard personnel may not be suited to the uncertain security picture in Ukraine without additional forces, officials say.

Last week, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said the Department of Defense was having conversations with the State Department about what their security requirements might look like.

“We are having that conversation with the State Department about what their security requirements might look like, but it’s ultimately up to the secretary of state to determine there or anywhere else around the world, how he wants to better secure and protect his diplomats, and if there’s a role we can play, then we will absolutely have that discussion with them,” Kirby said.

On Monday afternoon, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told a press conference at the Pentagon that talks about returning a small number of troops to Ukraine are “underway at a relatively low level.”

Those plans “have not made it to the Secretary or myself for that matter for refinement of courses of action and what’s needed,” Milley said. “At the end of the day any reintroduction of US forces into Ukraine would require a presidential decision,” he added.

The US doesn’t believe Russia would overtly attack the embassy. But the concern is that Russia air defenses or missiles could inadvertently target the compound and the situation could dramatically escalate the situation, officials say. US officials say Russia has a thorough understanding on an official basis that the US uses military personnel to guard its embassies around the world and any presence should not be viewed as escalatory. Still, an introduction of US forces into Ukraine could raise concerns that it could lead to a perception of US escalation since Biden has been adamant that US ground troops will not fight in Ukraine.

The concern is that if special operations forces go into Ukraine, then the US must be able to provide a rapid means of getting them and embassy personnel out in a crisis. Currently, the only options are vehicle or rail transport to the border.

For now, there is no appetite at the Pentagon to provide air support such as helicopters or fixed wing transport.
If that was done, it could rapidly escalate the US military footprint because of the need to then provide potential rescue and reconnaissance forces if a US plane was shot down down.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/politics/us-embassy-kyiv-special-operations-forces/index.html

It's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation, politically. The Republicans/conservatives will play "gotcha" with this either way. If he takes such steps to increase security at the facility, they'll accuse him of "mission creep" and blame him for any harm that comes to those forces. If he doesn't, though, and some of the personnel there are harmed and there's a question of whether he should have done more to protect them, the wingnuts will go to the Benghazi playbook to thrash him.

It's not at all like it is with Republican presidents, where if something bad happens at one of our foreign missions we treat it as a national tragedy and grieve together (e.g., Karachi in the Bush years, or Beirut in the Reagan years). When there's a Democratic president, it's always going to be about looking for that "gotcha" moment. It's not even just embassies where that happens, either. Consider the "gotcha" approach to the attack on the Cole, versus the "shared grieving" approach with the attack on the Stark. The rules just change utterly depending on who is in the White House.
 
It's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation, politically. The Republicans/conservatives will play "gotcha" with this either way. If he takes such steps to increase security at the facility, they'll accuse him of "mission creep" and blame him for any harm that comes to those forces. If he doesn't, though, and some of the personnel there are harmed and there's a question of whether he should have done more to protect them, the wingnuts will go to the Benghazi playbook to thrash him.

It's not at all like it is with Republican presidents, where if something bad happens at one of our foreign missions we treat it as a national tragedy and grieve together (e.g., Karachi in the Bush years, or Beirut in the Reagan years). When there's a Democratic president, it's always going to be about looking for that "gotcha" moment. It's not even just embassies where that happens, either. Consider the "gotcha" approach to the attack on the Cole, versus the "shared grieving" approach with the attack on the Stark. The rules just change utterly depending on who is in the White House.
The Ukraine war machine is bi-partisan - you needlessly making everything partisan
 
The Ukraine war machine is bi-partisan - you needlessly making everything partisan

I'd like it if we could be less partisan about these things. For example, wouldn't it have been lovely if Republicans and conservatives had been patriots in the wake of the Benghazi attacks? We could have simply grieved together and then focused in a non-partisan way on "lessons learned," to help make our foreign missions more secure in the future. Sadly, that's just not how they operate, though. As you're aware, the goal of the Benghazi investigation, from the start, was never about identifying better ways to secure facilities in the future. It was ALWAYS about finding a way to cause political harm to the presumptive Democratic nominee. Time and again, they focused not on operational minutia that was decided by the security experts, but rather one angles to get at Hillary Clinton's emails and to make her testify under oath, in hopes of getting her to stumble into a perjury trap.

That's what makes it hilariously hypocritical when the right turns from their hyper-partisan approach to everything, to blubbering about partisanship when someone merely identifies the gotcha game they're playing.
 
Last edited:
I'd like it if we could be less partisan about these things. For example, wouldn't it have been lovely if Republicans and conservatives had been patriots in the wake of the Benghazi attacks? We could have simply grieved together and then focused in a non-partisan way on "lessons learned," to help make our foreign missions more secure in the future. Sadly, that's just now how they operate, though. As you're aware, the goal of the Benghazi investigation, from the start, was never about identifying better ways to secure facilities in the future. It was ALWAYS about finding a way to cause political harm to the presumptive Democratic nominee. Time and again, they focused not on operational minutia that was decided by the security experts, but rather one angles to get at Hillary Clinton's emails and to make her testify under oath, in hopes of getting her to stumble into a perjury trap.

That's what makes it hilariously hypocritical when the right turns from their hyper-partisan approach to everything, to blubbering about partisanship when someone merely identifies the gotcha game they're playing.
I dont GAF about "Bengazi" the crime was NATO's regime change ( and bombing civilians)
led by Hillary who wanted Qadaffi to be a "military target"

I bet you havent looked at Libya since then..i follow the civil war ( which we precipitated) and saw how drones changed the battlefield there and knew they would be used againt Russia if Turkey sent weapons
same with JAVELIN in Syria
take your partisanship elsewhere -not interested
 
I'd like it if we could be less partisan about these things. For example, wouldn't it have been lovely if Republicans and conservatives had been patriots in the wake of the Benghazi attacks? We could have simply grieved together and then focused in a non-partisan way on "lessons learned," to help make our foreign missions more secure in the future. Sadly, that's just now how they operate, though. As you're aware, the goal of the Benghazi investigation, from the start, was never about identifying better ways to secure facilities in the future. It was ALWAYS about finding a way to cause political harm to the presumptive Democratic nominee. Time and again, they focused not on operational minutia that was decided by the security experts, but rather one angles to get at Hillary Clinton's emails and to make her testify under oath, in hopes of getting her to stumble into a perjury trap.

That's what makes it hilariously hypocritical when the right turns from their hyper-partisan approach to everything, to blubbering about partisanship when someone merely identifies the gotcha game they're playing.
Not once did Republicans admit that Stevens has no business being in Benghazi. Unfortunately, he was a dedicated diplomat who loved to be among the people. He was told that there is a 100% chance that the consolate in Benghazi would be attacked, but he left his post at the embassy in Tripoli nevertheless.

Tragic for sure, especially Dummkopf and others here lied about the ability to get support troops to Benghazi after the attack.

But you are correct. There is a double standard w/respect to our nation's tragedies.

All of them
 
But you are correct. There is a double standard w/respect to our nation's tragedies.

Yep. Karachi is a great example. There were multiple attacks on our Karachi consulate in the Bush years. In June 2002, one of them killed 12 and injured 51 others. In 2002, another attack killed two and wounded five. In 2006 yet another deadly attack occurred just outside the consulate, targeting our diplomat, David Foy, and killing him along with three Pakistanis. Yet never once was there a Democratic witch-hunt focused on how to turn that into a partisan political win. It was treated as a national tragedy leading to a joint project to better secure our facilities, rather than treated as an opening for years of constant hearings to try to score political points. And you see that again and again and again, where Democrats react to these tragedies as if there will be a team effort to deal with the threat, while Republicans react to them with the glee of a "gotcha" moment to bring down their domestic rivals.
 
I dont GAF about "Bengazi"

Well, you're a rarity then, since most of the right-wingers I know online spent YEARS obsessing over that attack, in hopes that somehow it could be bent into a scandal that could be used against Clinton.

I bet you havent looked at Libya since then

You bet wrong.
 
I never gave a damn about Bengazi!
My interest is keeping us out of expensive useless wars that degrade countries, or war with Russia
Ukraine is the next money pit (already is) and permanent war against Russia
 
Well, you're a rarity then, since most of the right-wingers I know online spent YEARS obsessing over that attack, in hopes that somehow it could be bent into a scandal that could be used against Clinton.
You bet wrong.
so you know how the militas took over -despite Hillary insisting on"democracy" from the NTC, ISIS infested Libya and the civil war has wrecked the country.
All from regime change masquerading as a "no fly zone"
 
Yep. Karachi is a great example. There were multiple attacks on our Karachi consulate in the Bush years. In June 2002, one of them killed 12 and injured 51 others. In 2002, another attack killed two and wounded five. In 2006 yet another deadly attack occurred just outside the consulate, targeting our diplomat, David Foy, and killing him along with three Pakistanis. Yet never once was there a Democratic witch-hunt focused on how to turn that into a partisan political win. It was treated as a national tragedy leading to a joint project to better secure our facilities, rather than treated as an opening for years of constant hearings to try to score political points. And you see that again and again and again, where Democrats react to these tragedies as if there will be a team effort to deal with the threat, while Republicans react to them with the glee of a "gotcha" moment to bring down their domestic rivals.
They still abide by the Gingrich playbook of 'flinging shit' at every possible turn. It works.
 
Back
Top