Uncovering the Challenge: Handling the Risks of Arms Dissemination in Post-Conflict Ukraine

Ukraine, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, found a unique way to monetize its vast weapons stockpiles. The country flooded the global market with relatively cheap Soviet arms, including weapons capable of destroying even the most advanced tanks.

This influx of military equipment has had a significant impact in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), such as the Stinger and Starstreak systems, have been destroying Russian military jets and helicopters on a weekly basis. Approximately thirty thousand of these weapons are currently in the hands of Ukrainian defenders.

The West has also provided Ukraine with powerful antitank guided missiles like the American Javelin and British NLAW. The introduction of these weapons has fundamentally changed the course of the conflict, contributing to the Ukrainian forces' successes against the Russian military.

The success of the Ukrainian defenders in utilizing these advanced weapons, however, comes with its own set of challenges. There is a very real danger that a post-conflict Ukraine may again become a clearinghouse for advanced weapons, enriching corrupt individuals and posing a risk to regional security.

The proactive initiative undertaken by the CIA to recover the Stinger MANPADS before the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan represents a model for disarmament efforts in Ukraine. The plan should include resources dedicated to compensating individuals who return various weapon systems (above market rates) and to education and training opportunities so that former fighters have incentives to return to the workplace.

The flow of military equipment from the fall of the Qaddafi regime in Libya poses a similar risk, with the potential for contributing to regional insecurity. The proliferation of military equipment, as seen in the Libyan intervention in 2011, played a critical role in providing key military capabilities to transnational opposition groups in Mali, Niger, Chad, and other regions.

The international community should consider these issues and learn from the past to prevent history from repeating itself. A multifaceted disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration approach is necessary for the weapons supplied to the Ukrainians. Emphasis should be placed on developing a Ukrainian-led plan to rebuild the country, with global support playing a crucial role in its success.

This article does not present new facts about the weapons provided to Ukraine or their destructive capabilities. However, it underscores the need for careful management of these advanced weapons to avoid the risks they pose to regional security and civilian safety.

The views expressed in this article do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense, or any organization the authors are affiliated with, including the London School of Economics and Political Science and the Office for Military-Affiliated Communities at the University of Chicago.

Lieutenant Colonel Doug Livermore, the deputy commander of a deployed Army National Guard special operations detachment, and Dr. Erin K. McFee, a UKRI future leaders fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science Latin America and Caribbean Centre, are among the experts contributing to the discussion on this topic.

Uncovering the Challenge: Handling the Risks of Arms Dissemination in Post-Conflict Ukraine