(07-24-2022, 07:54 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: While I want ATACMS to be sent ASAP, we do have limited stocks of them, so any we donate would be more cherry on top versus game changer.
You are certainly correct about limited stocks. These missiles are also more expensive and using them will reveal more of their capabilities. Right now, you are correct Ukraine doesn't absolutely "require" them. However, there are a couple of areas where they would be a big force multiplier even if Ukraine never fired one (or fired relatively few). First, their extended range would allow many fewer HIMARS maneuvering further back from the FEBA to effectively defend against Russian attacks in Donbas while Ukraine is attacking in Kherson. If Ukraine had 65 HIMARS, that wouldn't matter much, but with 30 it matters (a lot). Russia probably doesn't have the combat power to defend in Kherson Oblast at a high level while simultaneously attacking in Donbas (or elsewhere) as long as Donbas has an "adequate" level of defense. With limited numbers of HIMARS available to operate there (because of needs in the offensive), a few "long range" ones can effectively stop a limited Russian offensive while Ukraine redeploys its (limited) defensive assets.
Second, the ability to hold at risk troop and supply movements among Donbas, Crimea and Kherson Oblast by rail and the M14 at a minimum complicates Russian planning. It is a lot further from Donbas to Kherson if you have to go via the Kerch bridge instead of the M14/train. If Russia decides to take the "direct" route Ukraine could, if allowed, really mess up any attempt to transfer resources from one battle area to another. A relatively few missiles can do a lot of damage and stop the movement. That ability can be critical to the success of an offensive. Preventing reinforcement and resupply for a few days/weeks can easily make the difference between the offensive succeeding or failing.
Quote:And we have gone back on our initial declarations when it comes to weapons we would deliver several times, without any negative consequence.
If we send ATACMS, I don't think our presently saying we won't will be any issue. We didn't send HIMARS for a while until we did.
True, but I don't recall that we ever stated the decision to not supply HIMARS was driven by the fact doing so would increase the danger of WW III. That is an important difference. You are certainly correct that nobody (certainly not Russia) believes that because we do not deliver X today that we won't tomorrow. That is why linking delivering X to increasing WW III probability is IMHO stupid. Granted, it's just words, but he still should not have said it.
Quote:I do wonder if there are back channel conversations about this somewhere in the vein of if you don't stick to the grain agreement, Ukraine gets ATACMS and we take off the reins.
Good question. FWIW I suspect Russia knows that at a minimum it would give us a good excuse. I do think the grain agreement and exactly what Russia has agreed not to do could come under some "stress" along the way. I actually hope it doesn't, because Russia may miscalculate what they can get away with.
Quote:.....
Some more high value kit taken down in Kherson. Pretty clear the counter attack is coming there, does Russia have enough resources to defend it is the question.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/155...KBR0JQz1Hw
Depends a lot on what Ukraine's immediate goals are. If they want to take the city of Kherson, the dam, and establish a line along the river, I don't think Russia can move fast enough to stop them. The defense in that area is probably not sufficiently strong IMHO. There just aren't enough Russians. Russia will have to reinforce from somewhere and their only substantial nearby assets are in Donbas. Russia has not shown the ability to quickly move troops from point A to point B and have them ready to fight on arrival. They theoretically should be able to do this, but have not.
Ukraine so far has confined themselves to attack by light infantry, because that's mostly what they have. They have increasingly started using artillery and HIMARS effectively to augment infantry, but so far only in defense. We are going to see how that goes on offense pretty soon. As long as there are infiltration routes available and the Russians are concentrated in strong points, Ukraine's tactics have every chance of working. Taking the dam if they only hold one side of the river will be extremely costly. I expect they are going to need at least two bridgeheads on the other side of the river to surround/take Kherson city and the dam. There things may get more complicated and more costly. If Ukraine wants to actually liberate the rest of the Oblast, it is going to take more than what they have shown so far to do it. They will need a mechanized force. They may in fact have such a force and we are about to see it used, or they may be expecting to do that "later".
It will be a race to see if A) Russia intends to defend on the west bank of the river (they may not given their actions so far) B) how quickly Ukraine can surround the Russian outposts on the west bank of the river, and C) if and how quickly Russia will deploy reinforcements from Donbas or elsewhere. This is the scenario where 300 km ranges would be "very nice to have".
![[Image: 7115ef4f246a40066a8cd6377241553e.jpg]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/15/ef/7115ef4f246a40066a8cd6377241553e.jpg)