Coast Guard budget – USA Gov Policy

Even as the U.S. Coast Guard celebrates its 225^th birthday, it endures the debilitating effects of budgetary neglect, with many vessels over half a century old.

The Coast Guard, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security, traces its history to Aug. 4, 1790, when President George Washington approved a law authorizing construction of 10 revenue cutters.

The organization’s $8.1 billion dollar budget is inadequate to its worldwide mission, which has become far more difficult as aggressive actions by foreign powers strain its resources to the limit. Those actions range from Russia’s militarization of the Arctic and countering the increasing amount of cyber attacks against the U. S., responsibilities which are in addition to the service’s duties to rescue those in distress at sea and stopping the importation of illegal drugs. The Coast Guard is the only entity charged with both military duties as well as civilian law enforcement.

Retired Rear Admiral Terry McKnight, writing for the United States Naval Institute has called the Coast Guard the “Forgotten Fleet.”

“No other service does more with less than the Coast Guard… For a service that has some of the most demanding missions to support our national security, the current departmental funding falls well short of the requirement… Even though the Coast Guard has taken on more requirements in the post Sept. 11, 2001 era the consequences of sequestration have started to directly affect some of the basic mission requirements. Like the Navy, the Coast Guard’s fleet, will see a major reduction in the next few years and, if the trend is allowed to continue, this could jeopardize our national security. If the Coast Guard does not see an increase in its shipbuilding account, the fleet of high and medium endurance cutters will suffer a major decrease in the next ten years…”

Speaking to the National Press Club last week, Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Paul Zukunft noted that his service played a key role in countering the cyber assault on defense personnel. He also pointed out that the Coast Guard, due its limited resources, is only capable of responding to 10% of the information it obtains regarding drug smuggling.
Herbalist Dr.Lee who has more than 30 years experiences of purchase cheap cialis prostate disease treatment, if you have any questions, mail to me. In people with type II or III bleeding may be severe and potentially levitra on line learn this here now life-threatening. Even if you find signs of online viagra cialis generic is low. Therefore we rely most on government policy to make distinctions between energy viagra buy sources.
However, it is the extraordinary expansion of Russian military activity in the Arctic that poses the greatest challenge to the Coast Guard. Ukrainian sources detailed Moscow’s new and ongoing activities in that region:

“Russia has announced it is deploying new radar stations and fighter aircraft on islands in the Arctic Ocean as Russia increases its presence on the frozen continent amid a simmering territorial dispute over the energy-rich region. Moscow announced back in 2008 that it would use the Arctic zone as a “strategic resource base“ for the development of Russia in the 21st century. Russia’s territorial claims encompass an area of roughly 1.2m sqkm which Moscow hopes would secure the rights to billions of tons of oil and gas. But Denmark, Canada and the US all dispute this and also each claim huge swathes of the vast continent, which is predicted to become ice-free in the coming decades.

Ukraine Today reported in July that “The Russian Navy’s Northern Fleet has started forming a new air force and air defence system to protect the country’s interests in the Arctic.

A major portion of Russia’s increased presence is its fleet of icebreakers. A 2013 study by the U.S. Naval Institute noted that Russia had 37 icebreakers, plus four under construction. The U.S. totals was five, plus one under construction.

In his recent address to the National Press Club Admiral Zukunft stated that While the Coast Guard had seven ice breakers in 1977 when he entered the service, it currently has only two, “and only one of them, the 39-year-old Polar Star, is a “heavy” breaker capable of cracking through ice that is 21 feet thick. Russia, which he said is “militarizing the Arctic,” has some 20, with more under construction.”

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.