Oct 12, 2022·edited Oct 12, 2022Liked by Lucian K. Truscott IV
Mr. Truscott, I read your headline and quite enthusiastically said out loud, Yes! Yes! That's what I posted yesterday! Of course, you presented it more succinctly and elegantly than my ramblings could ever express.
And you brought up a point that I had forgotten in my hotheaded post. 2007, the year the MGM-140's went out of production. Furthermore, there is also a finite number of M1140A1 chassis and M270A1 Launch Systems, though I suppose those would be less of an issue than the munitions themselves. Though there would be a need for more of the HIMARS, or some MLRS' with two pods, for the ATACMS to really be utilized effectively. For precedent, I'm thinking of Germany's Vengeance weapons in WWII. There were simply not enough launch sites for them to have anything but a terror effect on civilian populations even with having enough of the weapons themselves.
The other bones of contention in your post but aren't, by default, the tougher nuts to crack. "They are back in Washington, D.C., in heated and air-conditioned offices, and of course, politics comes into play." In this regard, my thinking is that whatever political lines that have been drawn, primarily by the far-right, are simply Fuck Joe Biden chimeras for the MAGA base and should be ignored. It doesn't matter what he does, they'll still be Fuck Joe Biden.
Finally, NATO. Poland has been hot to send more and better equipment, for obvious reasons. If the US begins sending ATACMS, M1's (as Gen. McCaffrey suggested,) and M-SHORAD's, more reluctant NATO members, I'm looking at you Germany, might be more likely to follow suit.
I can’t find it right off hand but Kos of Daily Kos does excellent analysis of what we sent to Ukraine and why we don’t send some weapon systems. Mostly to do with long training periods for operations and maintenance. He did this stuff as an artillery man in the army and is highly knowledgeable. Some of the best explanations of why the Russian army sucks Have come from him and Mark Summer. Check them out
Oct 12, 2022·edited Oct 12, 2022Liked by Lucian K. Truscott IV
There are political reasons why the United States is hedging its bets in being slow to provide advanced weaponry to Ukraine. We're not giving the keys to the most potent weapons we have to Ukraine, if the Ukrainian army will have both the incentive and the capability to hit Russian military targets within 190 miles of the Russian side of the Ukraine-Russian frontier. If forgiveness is easier to obtain than permission, it's best to take the temptation off the table. This is an alarm bell that can't be unsung. If they need those weapons, they can make the case if, as, and when that need occurs.
To use a baseball analogy, Ukraine can hit singles and doubles to put runs on the scoreboard, and swinging for the fences all too often ends up in strikeouts. Small victories won consistently are much more consistent in conveying the notion that Putin's neglect allowed Ukraine to overmatch him.
This was essentially a replay of the bloodless destruction of the Soviet Union thirty years ago. The Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight and incompetence. Better that Russia collapse from unresolved tensions within the regime, rather than risk a bloodbath that is incident to a violent external attack. Every day of patient pressure aimed at undermining the Russian military establishment saves lives, Russian and Ukrainian in the long run.
Getting Crimea returned to Ukraine, in the best of all worlds, would be a gimme. The question is really whether ownership of Crimea by Ukraine leaves Ukraine in an exposed and untenable position in the future. Diplomatic guarantees of Ukraine's sovereignty are worthless. It would be better to cede the peninsula to, say, Switzerland, than to attempt to turn the peninsula into some kind of impregnable Gibraltar. Gibraltar is British because their potential opponents and occupiers are Spanish, whose military prowess more or less ended with the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. Nineteenth Century military campaigns fought on Spanish soil were fought between British and French armies. The Spanish civil war was won by Franco's. Falangist army only with overwhelming military support by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, and with no help from the Western European democracies.
The Spanish Republicans were supported by the Soviet Union, but not enough to win. The lesson is clear, support people who are prepared to fight and die for their own country, something the United States Government was unwilling to do in Vietnam, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
Israel doesn't need to rely on American troops for its own defense, but Israel and Ukraine are effectively a matched pair in terms of motivation and enterprise, and fighting spirit when it comes to preserving their respective homelands. If Israeli troops found themselves as military advisors to Ukrainian soldiers, they would form common understandings and bonds from love of country and love of kinfolk at risk. Many of those Israeli soldiers would be able to trace their roots to Ukraine from forebears who fled Ukraine as a consequence of Czarist-inspired pogroms that attacked and destroyed numerous Jewish communities from the 1880s into the 1920s. It's a thought, anyway.
Yes! If we have to fight a proxy war (and we do), let's give the Ukrainian freedom fighters the best chance of winning...with good old American war technology - the best in the world (no sarcasm intended)
The war is now in a critical strategic phase. Each side is looking at what territories they can claim after an inevitable cease fire and the horse trading begins. Ukraine now needs all the help they can get to regain control over as much of its former territory as possible before the cease fire.
Is everyone at the Pentagon so straitjacketed by groupthink no subset is pushing your case? It just sounds so reasonable. …
About the condition of Russian materiel, I brushed past a piece somewhere today that, unread, seemed to speculate that the shabbiness means that Putin's nuclear threats may be exaggerated. To me, that makes Russians fooling around with Ukrainian power plants that much scarier.
I agree that Ukraine needs better weapons but bear in mind Russia will retaliate. I really wonder what would happen if Russia special forces blew up a munitions factory in Massachusetts or Washington State? Russia is not fighting Ukraine; they are fighting the United States. How long can this go on?
While the weather might be a factor, now would be the opportune time to start delivering these systems, and training the crews so everything is ready to be used next spring. Unless something magic happens between now and February, the Russians will no doubt launch a major offensive then with their undertrained, under equipped, and underfed cannon fodder. The chance for a knockout blow might be then. I yield to anyone who might have an idea of how much fighting might occur in the depths of winter, and how likely Ukraine might make major gains in the snow.
The US never learns from its mistakes! We repeat them over and over again.
Also, when the Soviet union collapsed, the truth about their weapons arsenal was bared: they were mostly useless,. The emperor had no clothes. Looks like their military (and leadership) haven't improved since then as well.
“ One of the others was killed in a Ukrainian attack on a Russian headquarters, and the other was presumably “sacked,” to use McCaffrey’s old but excellent description for firing commanders in the military.”
Just thought of some other things....perhaps means to strike back unconventionally...as I understand it, a truck bomb took out the bridge? How susceptible is the Russian public to psychological warfare broadcasts? I am thinking of the pamphlets that the Bolsheviks used against Allied forces in the aftermath of WW1? Just thinking aloud, but perhaps there are other weapons that can be used while awaiting ATACMS. Domn't know if they have commando units to spot or take out key Command andcontrol targets
Outstanding article...thank you. In the meanwhile, while we wait for that deployment of ATACMS, do the Ukrainians have the ability to selectively use cyber warfare to muck up the Soviet command and control?
I can’t get over how fascinating all the comments to Lucian’s columns turn out to be. I read his column, getting that familiar “wow” feeling brought on by how he pours out understanding and tech details I didn’t know. Then I click the ❤️ button that brings me to the comments, and I learn a whole batch of other insights from everyone. Now I’m off to check out Daily Kos and Mark Summer. Sigh. I’ll never get any writing done today.
Mr. Truscott, I read your headline and quite enthusiastically said out loud, Yes! Yes! That's what I posted yesterday! Of course, you presented it more succinctly and elegantly than my ramblings could ever express.
And you brought up a point that I had forgotten in my hotheaded post. 2007, the year the MGM-140's went out of production. Furthermore, there is also a finite number of M1140A1 chassis and M270A1 Launch Systems, though I suppose those would be less of an issue than the munitions themselves. Though there would be a need for more of the HIMARS, or some MLRS' with two pods, for the ATACMS to really be utilized effectively. For precedent, I'm thinking of Germany's Vengeance weapons in WWII. There were simply not enough launch sites for them to have anything but a terror effect on civilian populations even with having enough of the weapons themselves.
The other bones of contention in your post but aren't, by default, the tougher nuts to crack. "They are back in Washington, D.C., in heated and air-conditioned offices, and of course, politics comes into play." In this regard, my thinking is that whatever political lines that have been drawn, primarily by the far-right, are simply Fuck Joe Biden chimeras for the MAGA base and should be ignored. It doesn't matter what he does, they'll still be Fuck Joe Biden.
Finally, NATO. Poland has been hot to send more and better equipment, for obvious reasons. If the US begins sending ATACMS, M1's (as Gen. McCaffrey suggested,) and M-SHORAD's, more reluctant NATO members, I'm looking at you Germany, might be more likely to follow suit.
Another excellent article. Thank you.
I can’t find it right off hand but Kos of Daily Kos does excellent analysis of what we sent to Ukraine and why we don’t send some weapon systems. Mostly to do with long training periods for operations and maintenance. He did this stuff as an artillery man in the army and is highly knowledgeable. Some of the best explanations of why the Russian army sucks Have come from him and Mark Summer. Check them out
There are political reasons why the United States is hedging its bets in being slow to provide advanced weaponry to Ukraine. We're not giving the keys to the most potent weapons we have to Ukraine, if the Ukrainian army will have both the incentive and the capability to hit Russian military targets within 190 miles of the Russian side of the Ukraine-Russian frontier. If forgiveness is easier to obtain than permission, it's best to take the temptation off the table. This is an alarm bell that can't be unsung. If they need those weapons, they can make the case if, as, and when that need occurs.
To use a baseball analogy, Ukraine can hit singles and doubles to put runs on the scoreboard, and swinging for the fences all too often ends up in strikeouts. Small victories won consistently are much more consistent in conveying the notion that Putin's neglect allowed Ukraine to overmatch him.
This was essentially a replay of the bloodless destruction of the Soviet Union thirty years ago. The Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight and incompetence. Better that Russia collapse from unresolved tensions within the regime, rather than risk a bloodbath that is incident to a violent external attack. Every day of patient pressure aimed at undermining the Russian military establishment saves lives, Russian and Ukrainian in the long run.
Getting Crimea returned to Ukraine, in the best of all worlds, would be a gimme. The question is really whether ownership of Crimea by Ukraine leaves Ukraine in an exposed and untenable position in the future. Diplomatic guarantees of Ukraine's sovereignty are worthless. It would be better to cede the peninsula to, say, Switzerland, than to attempt to turn the peninsula into some kind of impregnable Gibraltar. Gibraltar is British because their potential opponents and occupiers are Spanish, whose military prowess more or less ended with the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. Nineteenth Century military campaigns fought on Spanish soil were fought between British and French armies. The Spanish civil war was won by Franco's. Falangist army only with overwhelming military support by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, and with no help from the Western European democracies.
The Spanish Republicans were supported by the Soviet Union, but not enough to win. The lesson is clear, support people who are prepared to fight and die for their own country, something the United States Government was unwilling to do in Vietnam, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
Israel doesn't need to rely on American troops for its own defense, but Israel and Ukraine are effectively a matched pair in terms of motivation and enterprise, and fighting spirit when it comes to preserving their respective homelands. If Israeli troops found themselves as military advisors to Ukrainian soldiers, they would form common understandings and bonds from love of country and love of kinfolk at risk. Many of those Israeli soldiers would be able to trace their roots to Ukraine from forebears who fled Ukraine as a consequence of Czarist-inspired pogroms that attacked and destroyed numerous Jewish communities from the 1880s into the 1920s. It's a thought, anyway.
Yes! If we have to fight a proxy war (and we do), let's give the Ukrainian freedom fighters the best chance of winning...with good old American war technology - the best in the world (no sarcasm intended)
I like the last sentence. Change is happening! They must have had their heads screwed on tight finally!
The war is now in a critical strategic phase. Each side is looking at what territories they can claim after an inevitable cease fire and the horse trading begins. Ukraine now needs all the help they can get to regain control over as much of its former territory as possible before the cease fire.
Really hoping your prediction becomes reality!
Is everyone at the Pentagon so straitjacketed by groupthink no subset is pushing your case? It just sounds so reasonable. …
About the condition of Russian materiel, I brushed past a piece somewhere today that, unread, seemed to speculate that the shabbiness means that Putin's nuclear threats may be exaggerated. To me, that makes Russians fooling around with Ukrainian power plants that much scarier.
I agree that Ukraine needs better weapons but bear in mind Russia will retaliate. I really wonder what would happen if Russia special forces blew up a munitions factory in Massachusetts or Washington State? Russia is not fighting Ukraine; they are fighting the United States. How long can this go on?
While the weather might be a factor, now would be the opportune time to start delivering these systems, and training the crews so everything is ready to be used next spring. Unless something magic happens between now and February, the Russians will no doubt launch a major offensive then with their undertrained, under equipped, and underfed cannon fodder. The chance for a knockout blow might be then. I yield to anyone who might have an idea of how much fighting might occur in the depths of winter, and how likely Ukraine might make major gains in the snow.
The US never learns from its mistakes! We repeat them over and over again.
Also, when the Soviet union collapsed, the truth about their weapons arsenal was bared: they were mostly useless,. The emperor had no clothes. Looks like their military (and leadership) haven't improved since then as well.
“ One of the others was killed in a Ukrainian attack on a Russian headquarters, and the other was presumably “sacked,” to use McCaffrey’s old but excellent description for firing commanders in the military.”
I always liked the term “cashiered”…
Just thought of some other things....perhaps means to strike back unconventionally...as I understand it, a truck bomb took out the bridge? How susceptible is the Russian public to psychological warfare broadcasts? I am thinking of the pamphlets that the Bolsheviks used against Allied forces in the aftermath of WW1? Just thinking aloud, but perhaps there are other weapons that can be used while awaiting ATACMS. Domn't know if they have commando units to spot or take out key Command andcontrol targets
Outstanding article...thank you. In the meanwhile, while we wait for that deployment of ATACMS, do the Ukrainians have the ability to selectively use cyber warfare to muck up the Soviet command and control?
I can’t get over how fascinating all the comments to Lucian’s columns turn out to be. I read his column, getting that familiar “wow” feeling brought on by how he pours out understanding and tech details I didn’t know. Then I click the ❤️ button that brings me to the comments, and I learn a whole batch of other insights from everyone. Now I’m off to check out Daily Kos and Mark Summer. Sigh. I’ll never get any writing done today.
I am very glad that former Ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, is your friend. And visa versa.