"Ukraine War: It’s Time for More Advanced Weapons" Topic

…Ukraine's highly successful use of the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, known as HIMARS, has prompted the Russians to move its ammunition depots and logistics hubs more than 100 kilometers from the front lines, Havrylov said. That places them out of the range of HIMARS.

"If we had a capability to destroy the targets of the depots to 100 kilometers [away], it would be a total disaster for Russia," he said. "That's why we're asking for ATACMS," which has a published range of 300 km…

Defense One: link

why the US may be 'rebuffing' the request to provide ATACMS to Ukraine by Mark Hertling (Gen. ret.), Sep 16, 2022.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Some in the US are saying we need to give them longer range etc. weapons. To help assure a Russian/Putin defeat … I say go for it.

I just pray for a speedy, quiet end to this needless mess. I hope the US will help Ukraine more.

But if one were being completely cynical one would notice that A) the Ukrainians are a very popular underdog, B) US high tech weapons are getting a very nice chance to promote themselves on their virtues, and C) US weapons exports are a big deal – the US gets a *lot* of influence and a *lot* of money from selling weapons.

It makes good business sense to give the Ukrainians ATACMS.

Aside from that, we probably need to figure out how we want this war to end (ie no nukes) and try to steer the war in that direction, by providing the right weapons or not and possibly attaching conditions to the weapons gifts. Someone needs to have a not-horrible endgame in mind that doesn't rely on Putin accidentally falling out of a fourth floor window or anything else outside our control.

The reason ATACMs are not being provided is because of a fear that Putin might widen the war. However, I think at this point we should call his bluff & provide some. Putin & his cronies has said many times that they are fighting the West. And this is ALL for internal consumption. It is to create a "us vs them" mentality, to shore up his support, elicit patriotism, & create the idea of an imminent threat. He wants to create the idea that The West only wants to destroy Russia (when in reality, no one in the West gave a rat's furry behind about Russia, IMHO). By creating this mythology, he can instill in the people that their country is still relevant, like the old Soviet Union.

Damon.

Yes, it is well known that the US leadership believes longer range weapons may be used to hit targets in Russia.

However, I think at this point we should call his bluff & provide some.

Agreed give him even more to worry about. and even kill more Russians in the Ukraine.

Putin & his cronies has said many times that they are fighting the West. And this is ALL for internal consumption. It is to create a "us vs them" mentality, to shore up his support, elicit patriotism, & create the idea of an imminent threat.

Exactly … However, reports are big Anti-War riots have broken out in Russia. So we will have to see how that plays out.

He wants to create the idea that The West only wants to destroy Russia (when in reality, no one in the West gave a rat's furry behind about Russia, IMHO).

Very true on both points. But his war did energize NATO, which now contains many former WP nations. Add Sweden & Finland to NATO.

By creating this mythology, he can instill in the people that their country is still relevant, like the old Soviet Union.

Very true … but they were supplying some in Western Europe with petroleum. Other than that, his Nukes make him somewhat relevant.

This war may turn Russia into a Pariah or cause it to become a new more "modern" European nation. With Putin dead or at the Hague for War Crimes. But I'm an old Cold War Warrior ]that is what they call us], I still don't trust them completely …

The US should stop worrying about widening the war and worry instead about winning the war. When we bombed Tokyo we did not worry about confining the war to little islands in the Pacific, we worried about winning.
In Korea and Vietnam we worried about widening the war and we ended up without victory in either war. Did Russia worry about widening those wars when they provided state of the art aircraft and pilots to North Korea and state of the art anti-aircraft missiles to Vietnam?
Give Ukraine long range missiles, anti-ship and anti-submarine missiles. Let them sink every Russian ship in the Black Sea. Putin sowed the wind, let him reap the whirlwind.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

The US should stop worrying about widening the war and worry instead about winning the war.

Last time I checked the US was not at war with Russia. I know it's all good stuff (and just gangbusters for business) that a president can send troops to any ol' place without any congressional oversight but maybe if the admin wants to play boom-boom some part of government should put their name on the dotted line. Just a crazy thought.

No, the US is not at war with Russia.

But If we allow unprovoked invasions of neighboring nations to be viewed as legitimate foreign policy, we soon will be.

There are 13 EU/NATO/Western or associated countries with Leopard 2 that have together more than 2,000 vehicles across different variants and levels of readiness:
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey.
Assumed half of those tanks are more or less battle ready, ten of these countries should donate 10% of their respective Leo's to Ukraine.
It would be a stronger signal to Russia and less of an headache for the USA.

And that is a critical point. It is NATO that has stood against Putin and the European members need to come on strong now as well so that Putin is reminded that his neighbors are still united and determined. The perception of this unity by Putin may be a key in getting him to an off ramp.

But the nukes are always somewhere on the table. Would he do it if he saw the end coming for him? Would his gang of advisors let him? He has no conventional military way to win this war at this point as long as the support for Ukraine continues.

The minute Ukraine gets ATACMS the war is over for Russia. Hit the Kerch bridge and Russia can no longer supply troops in Crimea or southern Ukraine.

There are no other possiblity to supply troops basically west of Mariupol. there are no rail tracks that can be used. Trucking supplies is not possible, quantities needed are too huge.

Four ATACMS and Russia has lost the war…

There are 13 EU/NATO/Western or associated countries with Leopard 2 that have together more than 2,000 vehicles across different variants and levels of readiness:

I suspect that the USA could spare a couple hundred of the Abrahms that the USMC decided they no longer need.

Double the HIMARS, SPGs and towed artillery and they would disrupt any build-up of troops and supplies.

nukes are always somewhere on the table

And even then, there are still ways to use nuclear bombs literally as a warning without triggering a third world war.
A nuclear 'test' underground, then a nuclear 'test' in the atmosphere, then a nuclear bomb over the Baltic sea.
It can go on like this, there are many ways to retreat 'red lines' and show that you are a cornered rat to be left alone.
Of course Putins 'extended nuclear suicide' is still an option, but in the long run, we're all dead anyway.

spare a couple hundred of the Abrahms

Wrong signal to Russia.
They already know that the US could wipe out their pathetic clowns troupe.
That's why they wanted them out of Europe and get rid of NATO in the first place.
Of course, now they can use the involvement of the USA as an excuse for their incompetence and proof of the truth of their propaganda to their own people.
"See, we told you, NATO wants to destroy us."

It would be better for the Europeans to show unity and determination on their own.

Besides, maintanance and logistics of Abrams tanks is more complicated.
But wait!
You're probably right, it is even more complicated to create unity and determination among Europeans.
…so just send those Abrams…