Shorten the war. Send 60 HIMARS to Ukraine.

[Celerity]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/11/help-ukraine-win-war-russia-weapons-himars/

https://archive.ph/Q7Emg



It has become commonplace to observe that Ukraine is mired in a “long war” — one that could last for years, according to NATO’s secretary general. That could well be correct. The war, after all, has already lasted nearly five months and continues to grind on. But I fear that by so readily accepting that there is no end in sight, we might be giving in to fatalism and defeatism. Instead of becoming resigned to a never-ending war, the West should be focusing on how to shorten the conflict by enabling Ukraine to win.

A long war, after all, probably favors Russia. Ukraine’s economy is set to shrink by 45 percent this year amid Russian attacks on economic infrastructure and a Russian blockade of the Black Sea coast. Russia is suffering from sanctions, but it is expected to take in more oil and gas revenue this year ($285 billion) than last year. While Russian dictator Vladimir Putin squelches domestic opposition, Western support for Ukraine could waver if Europeans have to endure sky-high prices for natural gas in the winter and if the increasingly isolationist Republicans take control of at least one house of Congress.

This is certainly no time for a “mission accomplished” moment — as if simply prolonging the war represents some kind of victory. It is dismaying to read in the New York Times that anonymous Biden administration officials are claiming the United States has already either accomplished or is about to accomplish its “strategic objectives” — ensuring that an independent Ukraine will survive, that the invasion will be a “strategic failure” for Russia, that there will be no “superpower conflict” and that the international order will be strengthened “around Western values.”

It is wildly premature to suggest that any of these objectives have been durably achieved; Putin hasn’t given up his evil scheme of enslaving Ukraine. It is also highly insensitive to tout supposed U.S. success when roughly 20 percent of Ukraine remains under enemy occupation and more Ukrainians are being slaughtered every day. Would we be satisfied if an army of war criminals occupied 20 percent of the United States? By my calculation, that would include the entire states of California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Michigan and Texas. We wouldn’t live with such an outrage — and neither should the Ukrainians.

snip

[SergeStorms]

1. I thought the U.S. had already sent...

or agreed to send HIMARS to Ukraine? I'm not certain of the numbers (I'm relatively certain it wasn't 60) but I thought this was already a done deal.

[Celerity]

2. at the link

Ukraine so far has received only nine HIMARS. The Biden administration just pledged four more in addition to nine others promised by allies. But Ukrainian officials are asking for many more HIMARS and would like to see them equipped with longer-range rockets. Michael G. Vickers, a former undersecretary of defense who helped mastermind the 1980s war against the Red Army in Afghanistan, recently suggested that Ukraine needs 60 to 100 HIMARS or other multiple-launch rocket systems to win the artillery duel.

[SergeStorms]

5. Why longer range rockets?

If Ukraine starts targeting inside of the Russian border that's going to escalate things to a very uncomfortable point with Ukraine's allies.

Remember, there's a terminally ill madman in control of Russia's nukes.

[Celerity]

9. because the shorter range (9km to 15km) missiles are still within easy Russian artillery range

I assume the 'longer' range ones they want are still capped at 84km (52 miles)

GMLRS



I doubt they get the ER GMLRS


disclaimer: I am in no way an expert on what missiles they are seeking or have been given so far

[SergeStorms]

3. OK...

having read the entire WP article I see the U.S. has sent 9 HIMARS and they're making a big difference. Russia has no defense against them. The Opinion is that 60-100 additional HIMARS would turn the tide.

I'm not sure if that opinion is correct, but that would be a huge expenditures. Doesn't the UK or NATO have a similar system?

[Abnredleg]

7. NATO has already supplied MLRS

which is a tracked launcher that fires the same rockets.

[FakeNoose]

4. This is how we make Pootie mad

[Abnredleg]

6. The issue is ammunition supply

As an ex- field artillery officer, I know from experience that these things eat up ammo at an incredible rate. If we were to supply 60 HIMARS there is no way the Ukrainians could keep them fed.

Link to article on artillery supply: https://www.g2mil.com/Arty.htm|

Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics.

[PortTack]

8. President Zelensky and his defense minister say the major fighting will be over by years end

Yes, of course they could be pushing the envelope..but, ya know they’ve been doing that since 2/24.

Slava Ukraine!!

[Just A Box Of Rain]

10. Yes, more of these multiple launch missile systems is precisely what Ukraine needs

to turn the tide against similar (but less capable) Russian multiple launch missile systems and artillery.

These and more anti-aircraft/anti-missile defenses are what's most urgent.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

11. Send Tucker Carlson and Moscow Mitch with them.

Give 'em each a cell phone, strap 'em to nose cones, and let 'em report the ride.