This idea of the West deliberately prolonging the war (again, why?) seems to rely on hindsight.
Yet that is what is happening.
The US has ATACMS. The Ukrainian staff that you just praised requested it. US could put it on a C-17 and it could be in Ukraine the next day, but nope, the US refused to provide it, for whatever reasons they have. If we believe the Ukrainian staff knows what they need to bring the war to its quickest conclusion, we can say the war is deliberately being prolonged.
Given this is the case, the next question is why.
Me and a few others have put forth a theory. I'm ok if others criticize it, it's just a theory, yet to me it's a valid theory because it fits the data points we have.
If the reason is the US fears an escalation, the theory still holds. It just means the US feels the outcome of the various escalation paths Russia might take is worse than just letting the meat grinder continue, in the hopes that there is eventually a breakthrough on the ground. Either that, or as WaPo suggests, the US wants to highlight the possible path to a negotiated settlement instead of looking like they are escalating, and a stalemate makes a negotiated settlement more likely.
Thanks for that, not being sarcastic at all, actually it’s made me consider a new train of thought with ATACAMS.
Unlike a HIMARS, much less a BM-21 or modern equivalents, its a larger rocket still on a ballistic trajectory though with more, much more range.
That’s the key word, ballistic
We know that NATO, the Pentagon, have been war gaming the hell out of this since day one or even before.
Coupled with direct allusions to the Cuba Crisis, 60 years ago but I suspect rather fresher in the minds of these doing this now, plus other situations where war was only narrowly avoided, so you have a ballistic track inside Russian airspace, Ukraine and NATO know it’s a MGM-140 but what if this time, there is no Stanislav Petrov to make the right call?
Or the Norwegian sounding rocket from 1995?https://military-history.fandom.com/wik ... t_incident
I suspect this might be why they have not been supplied, it’s not as if the US has fallen down in anything else with helping Ukraine.
A recent Perun video on the European defence sector was mentioned, in that one, he mentioned that France, aside from its strategic SSBN deterrent, it has a sub strategic element in its ASMP-A air launched system, which he described as a ‘warning shot’.
Since the retirement of the last WE-177 bomb in 1998, the UK has had, it is thought but not confirmed, one or two of the Trident D5’s with the on station boat, with a single warhead, for the sub strategic role. Finally the unneeded accuracy of D5 for the general UK deterrence stance has a use!
Which is fine if you are deterring a rouge state with a limited nuclear arsenal or is thinking of supplying material or a weapon to a non state actor.
It doesn’t work for Russia. To deter them, that’s the job of the sub in general for the ability to destroy the main Russian centers of population, those infamous letters of last resort on board etc.
That’s something that lessons learned going forward might have to consider.
Last edited by GDB
on Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.