[Treefence]

We did say we had given Ukraine "anti-radiation" missiles in advance of so doing.

Not quite. We saw AGM88 wreckage before the US announced providing ARM missiles, like a day or two before they announced it. A Ukrainian govt official stated a week or two before the wreckage photo that we had provided ARMs but did not state the type.

So we have sent weapons at least once before announcing it.

You are correct. I knew the confirmation that we had sent AGM-88 missiles was after the fact. For some reason I thought the "anti-radiation" missile quote preceded the finding of debris. It did not. While I am not "morally outraged" that we did this, it is IMHO unfortunate. I would be fine with NEVER announcing in advance what we are sending, but if we set the precedent of doing so IMHO we should either continue to do so or say we no longer will. I have no idea what the thinking was here, but it could be a lot of things, like somebody jumping the chain of command for instance. Bears looking into. It makes no sense to do it intentionally IMHO. The idea we just forgot to mention it is certainly possible, but that shouldn't happen either.

Of course, the cynic in me says sending the AGM-88 and not announcing it is just getting even for announcing we are sending NASAMs and not sending them :-). Seriously, it seems they don't yet have a contract???

Yeah I mean who knows, your guess is as good as mine with everything.  I was listening to the briefing of the recent draw down and they were asked about HIMARS ammunition.  He was asked how many rounds had been said, he was careful to answer and said many hundreds, but that he also didn't want to tip their hand to the Kremlin. I believe he mentioned it they gave the shorter range rounds, but maybe that could be a lie by omission.  There was also a rumor immediately after that ATACMS would be sent, by the twitter account of @ChuckPfarrer.  This was also a noticeable large draw down after the Olenivka massacre, which happened Jul 29th.  Would that timing make sense logistically for them to deliver the ammunition?  

I thought the Olenivka massacre might be an atrocity on the level Bucha and what the world saw after Russia withdrew from their Kyiv front. If I'm remembering right, after that the west started finally providing heavy military assistance in artillery, apc's afv's, ifv's mlrs, tanks, and Slovakian S-300.  Lots of those were announced, some we found out about after the fact.  Granted the US has almost always announced ahead of time, and still mostly has, but maybe for OPSEC reasons they'll keep some things close to the vest, to give Ukraine their best opportunity to benefit from them.  Anyways just my thoughts and logic jumping from step to step. Hopefully we will know soon enough, and hopefully Ukraine can replicate the success of this attack, because if they can, this war might end a lot sooner than we expect.

[Treefence]

We did say we had given Ukraine "anti-radiation" missiles in advance of so doing.

Not quite. We saw AGM88 wreckage before the US announced providing ARM missiles, like a day or two before they announced it. A Ukrainian govt official stated a week or two before the wreckage photo that we had provided ARMs but did not state the type.

So we have sent weapons at least once before announcing it.

You are correct. I knew the confirmation that we had sent AGM-88 missiles was after the fact. For some reason I thought the "anti-radiation" missile quote preceded the finding of debris. It did not. While I am not "morally outraged" that we did this, it is IMHO unfortunate. I would be fine with NEVER announcing in advance what we are sending, but if we set the precedent of doing so IMHO we should either continue to do so or say we no longer will. I have no idea what the thinking was here, but it could be a lot of things, like somebody jumping the chain of command for instance. Bears looking into. It makes no sense to do it intentionally IMHO. The idea we just forgot to mention it is certainly possible, but that shouldn't happen either.

Of course, the cynic in me says sending the AGM-88 and not announcing it is just getting even for announcing we are sending NASAMs and not sending them :-). Seriously, it seems they don't yet have a contract???

Yeah I mean who knows, your guess is as good as mine with everything.  I was listening to the briefing of the recent draw down and they were asked about HIMARS ammunition.  He was asked how many rounds had been said, he was careful to answer and said many hundreds, but that he also didn't want to tip their hand to the Kremlin. I believe he mentioned it they gave the shorter range rounds, but maybe that could be a lie by omission.  There was also a rumor immediately after that ATACMS would be sent, by the twitter account of @ChuckPfarrer.  This was also a noticeable large draw down after the Olenivka massacre, which happened Jul 29th.  Would that timing make sense logistically for them to deliver the ammunition?  

I thought the Olenivka massacre might be an atrocity on the level Bucha and what the world saw after Russia withdrew from their Kyiv front. If I'm remembering right, after that the west started finally providing heavy military assistance in artillery, apc's afv's, ifv's mlrs, tanks, and Slovakian S-300.  Lots of those were announced, some we found out about after the fact.  Granted the US has almost always announced ahead of time, and still mostly has, but maybe for OPSEC reasons they'll keep some things close to the vest, to give Ukraine their best opportunity to benefit from them.  Anyways just my thoughts and logic jumping from step to step. Hopefully we will know soon enough, and hopefully Ukraine can replicate the success of this attack, because if they can, this war might end a lot sooner than we expect.