The latest twist in the push by US politicians to undermine DJI not only underscores the unacknowledged protectionist motivations of their campaign, but also lays bare both their lack of understanding of drone activities, and willingness to surrender Ukraine’s defensive efforts in their zeal to subsidize American manufacturers.
Following numerous attempted and fulfilled initiatives to have DJI drones blacklisted at the federal level and by certain states, a group of U.S. politicians now want the game-changing craft to be removed from Ukraine defensive fleets, too. On Monday, ten legislators joined West Virginia Representative Rob Wittman urging Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to send US small drones to Ukraine for the purpose of “replacing Chinese systems” responsible for allowing Kyiv to hold off Russia for over two years now.
The call for US-funds and materiel sent to Ukraine to include domestic rivals to Chineses-made UAVs wouldn’t be noteworthy were it not for compiling evidence that American drones aren’t up to the task.
A recent Wall Street Journal investigation provided details and illustrations of what defenders in Ukraine have been demonstrating online for over two years: DJI drones are by far the preferred off-the-shelve consumer and enterprise UAV repurposed to the war effort. That’s because they’re far more effective than US models the Journal described as being “expensive, glitchy and hard to repair.”
“The general reputation for every class of US drone in Ukraine is that they don’t work as well as other systems,” Skydio CEO Adam Bry told the Journal, noting even his own company’s UAVs are “not a very successful platform on the front lines” in comparison.
Yet at this very moment – after taking nearly a year of internal political bickering to approve new funding to depleted Ukraine forces; and as Russian forces stage major new advances facilitated by limitations Washington sets on how Kyiv can use US-supplied materials – Wittman and his peers have decided to step up and urge the Pentagon to force DJI drones out of Ukraine’s hands to boot.
“Delivering American drones to Ukraine and displacing Chinese drones is a geopolitical victory for the United States,” the letter reads, ignoring the elephant in the war-is-raging-right-now room that DJI craft turned the tide of what initially seemed like Russia’ cakewalk invasion two years ago. “Drone exports are an increasingly important tool for influence abroad; replacing Chinese systems in Ukraine will further erode Chinese influence and control of this critical global industry.”
At least he was honest about his real US-centric and anti-DJI goal. But Ukraine in that?
Wittman and Co. acknowledged that “(w)ithout drones, Ukrainian forces are unable to direct battlefield fires, identify and surveil enemy positions, and protect their own forces.” But they then resort to the unsubstantiated allegations and intentional inaccuracy that have characterized the DJI backlisting campaign: claiming that, without the Pentagon supplying countless US alternatives, Kyiv has no choice but to “rely on insecure drones from China that are increasingly difficult to procure.”
Unreliable and tough to obtain? According to a September report by the Center for European Policy Analysis, “small and cheap commercial Chinese-made DJI quadcopters, (have) helped Kyiv to repel and stop its much stronger opponent.”
Topping that list are “Mavic and Matrice series, most of which have been sourced from crowdfunding.” Those and other DJI craft, the paper notes, have become “ubiquitous along the forward line of troops and provide crucial real-time ISR, battle damage assessment, and fire correction for artillery units thanks to full-motion video feed and thermal vision capabilities for night operations.”
“Ukrainian forces are burning through about 10,000 drones a month, which they couldn’t afford if they had to buy expensive US drones,” the Journal reported, refuting Wittman’s procurement claim before he even uttered it. “Many American commercial drones cost tens of thousands of dollars more each than a Chinese model.”
US companies like AeroVironment that produce larger UAVs and loitering munitions are having considerably more success than their domestic small drone maker peers in Ukraine’s defense. But those bigger military systems aren’t the ones Wittman and his partners are referring to. Meaning their small UAV focus seeks to use US taxpayer money to send thousands of costly, under-performing American drones to Ukraine in what the letter makes clear are primarily economic and business development objectives.
If Ukraine’s citizens and independence has to suffer – or worse – to obtain those, that’s apparently the price Wittman is willing to accept. How very big of him.
“Ukraine’s use of drones provides a window into the future of near-peer conflict, with drone tactics evolving on a daily basis,” Wittman’s letter says, making it clear his push identifies the Russian invasion as an opportunity to fund US drone companies, all them to continue tinkering with their development in live conditions, and improve what the Journal says are their currently limited capabilities.
“Surging small, American-made systems to Ukraine benefits the United States military and our industrial base by enabling rapid iteration and improvement in the world’s most demanding battlefield conditions,” it continues. “The use of American drones in Ukraine allows the United States to iterate and build systems superior to Chinese drones and develop capabilities that are necessary for deterring–and if necessary, winning–future near-peer conflicts.”
The problem is, Ukraine doesn’t have the luxury of time to facilitate Wittman’s extension of the US anti-DJI campaign, nor its obvious commercial support and military subsidies of domestic small drone makers. With the New York Times headlines today warning that “Facing Russian Advance, a Top Ukrainian General Paints a Bleak Picture,” it’s evident Ukraine has no more time to lose to the kind of exhibitionist political vaudeville that delayed the critically needed US funding package for so long.
If that charade now morphs further into the ridiculous – and pathetic – of seeking to extend Washington’s protectionist anti-DJI drive into Ukraine, the end for Kyiv may not be far off, and Wittman and his lobby-focused chums will likely lose a potentially lucrative current and future market to Russian foes. Smart people, those pols.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Comments