AFR Business

In a 1941 speech on a Royal Navy ship, Winston Churchill directed his final comments to the US: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” After a significant victory in Kherson, and standing at the gates of Crimea facing a Russian army desperately trying to shore up its ramshackle defences, Ukraine has the troops and morale to defend what it has. However, despite some western assistance, the Ukrainians lack the tools – tanks, missiles and aircraft – to retake their land and impose strategic defeat on the Russians. If the west, and especially the US, is serious about helping to protect Ukraine, decisions on stepping up military assistance need to be made now. If Ukraine is to be able to secure its future after victory – assuming that is what the west truly wants – its forces need to begin to transition to Nato-standard equipment.

The US has not yet declared a political or military objective. However, in April the US secretary of defence, Lloyd Austin, said he wanted “to see Russia weakened to the point where it can’t do things like invade Ukraine”. Is it the intention of the United States genuinely to support military efforts to return Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders? Or does it instead suit US and western decision-makers to support a long war with Ukrainian forces used as proxies to bleed out Russia’s armed forces? Obviously, these are not at all the same thing. Decisions need to be made very soon about increasing military support, and those decisions will tell us which objective is being pursued.

Barring a collapse of Russian forces (which is possible), without a step-change in weapons supplies, it is unlikely that the Ukrainians will be able to defeat Russia. Certainly, General Mark Milley, the chairman of the US chiefs of staff, thinks there will be no victory any time soon, and fears a first world war-type stalemate. With the force levels and weapons they now have, he may be right. While the administration has worked to “clean up” these remarks, they almost certainly reflect the perspective of the US armed forces.

In September, his Ukrainian counterpart, General Valerii Zaluzhny, set out how he intends to achieve victory, starting by raising between 10 and 20 brigades (that is, up to 100,000 troops). These troops will be able to hold the land they have now, but unless they are properly trained and equipped, they are unlikely to be capable of sustained offensive action to complete the liberation of their country. Three additional forms of weapon systems, most of them American, are vital: heavy armour, long-range missiles and air defence.

First, heavy armoured vehicles, especially tanks. As matters stand, the Ukrainian armed forces remain largely equipped with Russian or ex-Soviet equipment. Despite assistance from Nato countries, largely in the form of unwanted ex-Soviet stock from former Warsaw Pact countries, more than half of Ukraine’s’s tank fleet comprises captured Russian vehicles. Ukraine has repeatedly asked for more and better armour to support its campaigns to retake occupied territory. The US M1 Abrams tank is battle-tested and a generation ahead of anything remaining in Russia’s arsenal. Of the 3,000 or so the US has in reserve storage, the Ukrainians would need far fewer than 1,000 to equip their new brigades. The same considerations apply to the release of up to 2,000 equally battle-proven Bradley armoured personnel carriers to protect Ukrainian infantry. Europe can supply excellent Nato-standard equipment, including tanks, but it won’t. This might be a blessing, as a single large fleet of tanks and armoured vehicles – which the US can supply without seriously affecting its military readiness – makes far better sense than multiple fleets, each with its own maintenance and logistical tail. Supply of American tanks has been “on the table” for several months. They need to go from the table and on to the ships and trains.

Second, one of the keynotes of Ukraine’s success has been Himars, the US-made rocket artillery launcher system which has devastated Russia’s ammunition stocks, and played a major role in offsetting Russia’s artillery advantage. Russia has no answer to it. However, the range of the rocket ammunition they currently have allows them only to attack targets up to 50km or so behind enemy lines. The Ukrainians have repeatedly requested ATACMS (or Army Tactical Missile System) missiles, with ranges up to 300km, for the Himars launchers. These would put at risk Russia’s military bases in Russian-occupied Crimea, or far behind the lines elsewhere. Targets might include the Black Sea Fleet in Sebastopol, or the Russian and Iranian drone-launchers currently immiserating Ukraine’s civilians.

Finally, Ukraine needs a vastly increased air defence capability. Ukrainian combat aircraft, astonishingly, are still operating. Over the next year or two it will need to be re-armed with western aircraft. The aircraft most often touted is the American F-16 fighter, the mainstay of many Nato and other air forces. There are plenty of these available. However, they are maintenance-intensive and possibly not suited to Ukraine’s airfields. And there are other options, such as the Swedish Saab Gripen.

More urgently, dozens of the latest anti-aircraft and anti-missile launchers are required to provide a systematic, effective and sustainable defence of Ukraine and its beleaguered people. The Ukrainians have requested top-of-the-range US Patriot and Italian-French SAMP/T launchers to shoot down ballistic missiles. The western systems already delivered, one German IRIS-T and two Norwegian-US NASAMS are a small fraction of what is needed.

The best way to ensure that Russia is, in Lloyd Austin’s words, “weakened to the point where it can’t do things like invade Ukraine” is to arm our allies properly to defeat them now and deter Russia in the future. Whether it is ever permitted to join Nato, a Ukraine armed with a relatively modern Nato-standard arsenal of heavy weaponry would become – like formerly neutral Sweden or Finland – capable of operating with western allies to secure its borders and those of Nato.

There is no time for delay: it will take many months to supply this essential equipment and to train troops to use and maintain it. Stepping up weapons supply would indicate that the US has opened the arsenal of democracy with clear intent for victory.

Most important, it would avoid an long drawn-out, bloody conflict with absolutely no guarantee of Ukrainian success. Getting this right will shorten the war and save thousands of Ukrainian – and incidentally Russian – lives.

Frank Ledwidge is a barrister and former military officer who has served in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan

There has been a lot of discussion about the need for gambling reform, quite rightly, but there is one important element that has been left out of the conversation – suicide.

Gambling is not only causing harm to people’s financial situation and relationships, it is risking people’s lives. The risk of suicide needs to be part of the dialogue if we’re to have a true understanding of the harm gambling is causing.

Reform is not just necessary, it’s urgent and it’s a non-negotiable, particularly when lives are at stake.

Australia is home to less than half a per cent of the world’s population but 20% of its poker machines. In New South Wales we have almost half of Australia’s 200,000 poker machines. There has also been a 300% increase in online gambling in the last two years and Australia now holds the unwanted position of being the country with the highest rate of gambling losses per person in the world.

Gambling apps are easy to access are and increasingly pushing the boundaries. A new sports betting app controversially entered the market by offering 100-to-1 odds on all runners in the Melbourne Cup. This marketing tactic attracted more than 300,000 new customers.

During a consultation we heard from a lawyer from a gambling legal service who shared that, in one day, four out of six clients admitted they were considering suicide.

A financial counsellor also shared that a bank had extended a line of credit of $120,000 to an aged pensioner, which should not have been granted. That person attempted suicide.

These are only a handful of the stories that we’ve uncovered and, sadly, there are many more like it. We know that gambling-related suicides are happening. But they are under-reported and not getting the policy attention they deserve.

Gambling regulation is failing to provide adequate consumer protection and myriad state and federal regulators are operating in silos. Not to mention the advertising, which is pervasive and targeted towards those most at risk of experiencing the harms of gambling, and often those most at risk of suicide.

Data from NSW suggests that of those who seek help for gambling problems, as many as 11% attempt suicide. Other studies found that almost one in five people presenting with suicidality also experienced problems with gambling.

So how can we better protect people at risk?

First, it is important to understand that suicide is complex human behaviour with many varied risk factors, including social and economic factors. We know that problematic gambling can heighten two key risk factors for suicide – financial hardship and relationship breakdown. Protective factors, such as social and financial supports, are compromised by the financial harms of gambling and this leaves people vulnerable.

As we emerge from the pandemic and compounding environmental disasters, research shows suicide rates can peak two to three years after a crisis. We’re already seeing this play out.

Indications from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Suicide and Self-harm Monitoring System point to a steady increase in suicides this year in NSW and Victoria. This rise is being observed alongside increases in gambling across the country.

An illustration of Aaron Perkins-Kemp-Berger
‘I would have had my own house by now’: the devastating effects of a life in thrall to the pokies
Read more
The state election in Victoria and the forthcoming NSW elections are therefore are critical. Bipartisan commitment to suicide prevention and addressing gambling harm can help save lives.

We need stronger gambling regulations, especially to curb emerging online gambling and the introduction of a cashless gaming card. We need greater education and awareness of the signs of gambling harm for individuals, families and frontline workers. We need a total ban on gambling advertising. And, finally, we need a coherent, adequately funded, national regulatory structure for gambling.

Every life lost to suicide is a tragedy and more needs to be done now to prevent suicides related to gambling and associated financial stress. Governments, service providers, the industry and the community all have a role to play in suicide prevention.

Don’t gamble with people’s lives. Reform is a no-brainer.

Nieves Murray is the chief executive of Suicide Prevention Australia