[Goose]

Is it a recipe for failure? I think the US system has worked thus far. They have provided equipment at a small but ever increasing scale while trying not to overwhelm with new equipment or pulling too many men off the front lines. Would a few weeks here or there made an ultimate difference with HIMARS or M777s? I don't think on a strategic level anything would've been different.

Well, as you probably know I believe beginning the process of deploying HIMARS back in the middle of March would have got them there at least a month and a half sooner and possibly a bit more. Given that Ukraine now believes the situation in the Donbas is "manageable", having it be so at the end of May/first week of June would have kept Russia out of most of Luhansk, in particular the cities of Severodonetsk and Lysychansk as well as the surrounding area. It would also have saved probably 1500 Ukranian soldier's lives at a minimum and God knows how many civilians. Strategically, this is significantly different. Ukraine will now have to fight to take those cities back and use up lives and resources doing it. Furthermore, they are totally destroyed which would not be the case if Russian artillery could have been suppressed. So yes, I think that is pretty different.

[Goose]

Is it a recipe for failure? I think the US system has worked thus far. They have provided equipment at a small but ever increasing scale while trying not to overwhelm with new equipment or pulling too many men off the front lines. Would a few weeks here or there made an ultimate difference with HIMARS or M777s? I don't think on a strategic level anything would've been different.

Well, as you probably know I believe beginning the process of deploying HIMARS back in the middle of March would have got them there at least a month and a half sooner and possibly a bit more. Given that Ukraine now believes the situation in the Donbas is "manageable", having it be so at the end of May/first week of June would have kept Russia out of most of Luhansk, in particular the cities of Severodonetsk and Lysychansk as well as the surrounding area. It would also have saved probably 1500 Ukranian soldier's lives at a minimum and God knows how many civilians. Strategically, this is significantly different. Ukraine will now have to fight to take those cities back and use up lives and resources doing it. Furthermore, they are totally destroyed which would not be the case if Russian artillery could have been suppressed. So yes, I think that is pretty different.