It is not clear where the weapons the US is sending to Ukraine are going

• Since Russia renewed its attack on Ukraine, the US has sent Kyiv more than $10 billion in military aid.
• The US is sending massive arms shipments despite a lack of clarity about where the weapons will end up.
• Benjamin Giltner is a contributor to Defense Priorities.

After six months since Russia’s February 24 invasion, Ukraine wants more weapons. And the US plans to comply.

The latest aid package, worth $3 billion, will include drones and other weapons. Since the start of this war, the US has sent more than $10 billion in military aid to Ukraine.

Some critics of this aid point to its costs. Politicians like Thomas Massie come to mind when thinking of these detractors. Others are concerned about the diminished weapons stockpiles the United States will have after these arms shipments. More weapons sent to Ukraine means less weapons for us.

However, two questions remain to be answered: Where could these arms shipments end up? What are its longterm safety consequences? The answer to both: we’re not sure.

This answer should make people more cautious about these massive arms shipments. Jordan Cohen of the Cato Institute raises this concern about arms shipments, saying it could be a problem 10 years from now.

NATO and EU members have been generous in sending arms to Ukraine. However, they are increasingly concerned about where these weapons may end up and want a tracking system to track the movement of these weapons. These are legitimate concerns. No one wants an adversary, or a potential one, to have weapons.

To mitigate this problem, the US must avoid opening the floodgates to arms shipments. Being the “indispensable nation” for arms shipments throws up historical instances of when those shipments have come back to bite us.

Take the Iraq War of 2003. The US provided weapons to the Iraqi security forces and other armed groups, including M4 and Kalashnikov assault rifles. Many of these weapons ended up in the hands of the insurgents that US military units were fighting.

In Syria, the US undertook an operation in 2013, known as Timber Sycamore, to arm and train Syrian rebels in Jordan. However, many of the US weapons ended up on the black market and in the hands of fighters from the Nusra Front, a USdesignated terrorist group.

Finally, in Yemen’s civil war, American weapons were found in the hands of Salafists—alQaida in the Arabian Peninsula—and Iranian fighters. You don’t need to be an expert on international security to know that this outcome is not good.

This does not mean that the US should stop sending weapons to Ukraine. Instead, the US must avoid sending large quantities of small arms to Ukraine and elsewhere.

As Rachel Stohl and EJ Hogendoorn demonstrate in their report on small arms, small arms are cheap and easy to use. According to the authors, these qualities make small arms the perfect choice of weapon for most international actors.

The US should also be aware of the great strategic consequence of arms shipments. As John Mearsheimer details in his book, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” it is difficult to know whether weapons are offensive or defensive in nature.

In reality, weapons are both offensive and defensive. Stephen Biddle states that countries require defensive and offensive weapons for tactical operations in defensive strategies. This means that Ukraine requires both offensive and defensive weapons to defend itself against invading Russian forces.

The more weapons, defensive i offensive: The more the US sends to Ukraine, the more Russia will see these weapons as hostile offensive maneuvers against itself. Simply put, defense is often perceived as offense.

Between the unintended recipients of arms shipments and their resulting creation of a security dilemma, arms shipments tend to make armed conflict more—not less—likely.

U.S. policymakers must avoid placing so much faith in weapons as a means to international goals. Guns and guns are certainly part of foreign policy. However, there are other tools, such as diplomatic negotiations, that can also serve US foreign policy goals. Ukraine and the US need to use something other than weapons to end this war.

A negotiated end to this war is preferable sooner rather than later. When will this war be negotiated to the end? Tragically, not anytime soon. Both Russia and Ukraine seem determined to continue this war. Both see a bumpy road to victory rather than a bloody, soggy path to misery. The United States must do everything in its power to foster a peaceful end.

This perception among American policymakers that guns and arms were the dominant response in foreign affairs was not always the case. As David Hendrickson makes clear, war and violence used to be perceived as the antithesis of republican and liberal forms of government. Perhaps America’s policymakers today should remember this noble concept.

Benjamin Giltner is a contributor to Defense Priorities.