07-24-2022, 07:19 AM
https://english.nv.ua/amp/us-will-not-se...58417.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-aiming-arm...00714.html
The apparent "goal" for the present is to provide 30 HIMARS systems to Ukraine. The statement that we do not have 100 such systems in our arsenal is probably true only under a very limited definition of "our arsenal". 540 such systems were built for the US, and many others for our allies. This statement IMHO is very disingenuous. I agree with the Ukrainians that 30 HIMARS won't be enough to do the job. I don't agree they need 100 to do so. That is a "nice to have". Ukraine needs enough HIMARS that it can go on the offensive in at least one area (preferably more) and still defend everywhere else. Ukraine is a big country. 30 HIMARS won't allow them to do that. There are also going to be combat losses and required maintenance intervals. You can't use every asset you have 24/7 for months and expect them to hold up.
The statement that the US would not sent ATACMS to Ukraine was exceedingly stupid IMHO. While I disagree with the policy, that isn't why I think the statement was stupid. First, it expressed the idea that doing so moved us all closer to WW III. While that may be arguably true, saying that we believe that gives credence to the idea that is indeed true and allows Russia to say that and then cite our government as agreeing. Stupid. Second, telling Russia what we are not going to do allows them to plan knowing that they don't have to worry about ATACMS, at least for now.
Even if we have no intention of sending such weapons, saying we won't isn't necessary or helpful. This is especially true if we decide to reverse this policy in the future. A statement that said we will announce what we are sending when we send it is the only correct policy IMHO. The Russians don't need to have advance warning. Some may say indicating we won't do something reduces the risk of a wider war. That might be true if we were really sure we wouldn't be doing it later and if Russia believed our statement of intent was durable. They clearly don't believe the latter (from past experience), so the statement has no utility in reducing risk. All it does is give Russia assurance that an ATACMS isn't going to fall on their head for the immediate future, indicates a limited commitment to Ukrainian victory, and makes us look foolish when/if we reverse it.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-aiming-arm...00714.html
The apparent "goal" for the present is to provide 30 HIMARS systems to Ukraine. The statement that we do not have 100 such systems in our arsenal is probably true only under a very limited definition of "our arsenal". 540 such systems were built for the US, and many others for our allies. This statement IMHO is very disingenuous. I agree with the Ukrainians that 30 HIMARS won't be enough to do the job. I don't agree they need 100 to do so. That is a "nice to have". Ukraine needs enough HIMARS that it can go on the offensive in at least one area (preferably more) and still defend everywhere else. Ukraine is a big country. 30 HIMARS won't allow them to do that. There are also going to be combat losses and required maintenance intervals. You can't use every asset you have 24/7 for months and expect them to hold up.
The statement that the US would not sent ATACMS to Ukraine was exceedingly stupid IMHO. While I disagree with the policy, that isn't why I think the statement was stupid. First, it expressed the idea that doing so moved us all closer to WW III. While that may be arguably true, saying that we believe that gives credence to the idea that is indeed true and allows Russia to say that and then cite our government as agreeing. Stupid. Second, telling Russia what we are not going to do allows them to plan knowing that they don't have to worry about ATACMS, at least for now.
Even if we have no intention of sending such weapons, saying we won't isn't necessary or helpful. This is especially true if we decide to reverse this policy in the future. A statement that said we will announce what we are sending when we send it is the only correct policy IMHO. The Russians don't need to have advance warning. Some may say indicating we won't do something reduces the risk of a wider war. That might be true if we were really sure we wouldn't be doing it later and if Russia believed our statement of intent was durable. They clearly don't believe the latter (from past experience), so the statement has no utility in reducing risk. All it does is give Russia assurance that an ATACMS isn't going to fall on their head for the immediate future, indicates a limited commitment to Ukrainian victory, and makes us look foolish when/if we reverse it.