[Goose]

Rumors are ATACMS are finally going to be approved for Ukraine, but just like Turkey approving Sweden's NATO bid, I'll believe it when I see it.  I wouldn't be surprised if the rumored approval is an effort by someone trying to put pressure on Biden to finally approve them, as he seems to be the biggest holdup.  This is no shot at Biden in general, but just about this issue.  I'd like the US to change their focus from preventing Ukraine from losing, to giving everything Ukraine needs to win.

The problem here is that there is no combination of weapons we could give Ukraine that will allow them to "win". Even if we gave them tactical nuclear weapons, they would have to be trained and practiced in using them. That takes time, and despite all the attempts by Ukraine to minimize that time, the requirement exists.

A recent cogent example is the infantry training given to Ukrainian troops in Europe and the UK. The problem is that 30 days training does not make a qualified combat infantryman. This is especially true when the rest of the troops in the unit are equally inexperienced. Ukraine has been standing up new units that don't posses even a "core" of experienced troops. It is unavoidable, but as we see from the complaints made by Ukrainian troops, they are not prepared for what they face. Some have complained that the NATO training doesn't match the fight they are now experiencing. One Ukrainian complained that "NATO troops go into battle knowing they will probably survive". Well, no they don't. They know they might very well be in some desperate fights where not many come back. That is part of the process of understanding your MOS. NATO infantry gets probably 3 times the training and then join units that already exist and have a cadre of "old heads" that can lead them.  Most of the new Ukrainian units involved in the offensive have none of this. By now however, the ones that survived are "old heads". Lets hope there are enough of them. At this point, it isn't about weapons. Ukraine has those. It is about courage and skill. Ukraine has plenty of courage. A lot of the troops lack skill because they are inexperienced. We can't give them that.

All that said, weapons can help. Ukraine does need the F-16s or equivalent to keep Russian air off their troops. Part of this is psychosomatic. Russian air hasn't been all that effective, but if you are the one it kills, you won't see it that way. Having no air defense at all makes infantry feel naked and helpless. That needs to change. The F-16s would do that, even if they did nothing else. However, this will take time. You can't generate a fighter squadron from nothing in a few months. Does Ukraine have time? The Unforgiving Minute is always in play. We don't know.

Getting ATACMS would make it even more difficult for Russia to supply their troops, but, IMO, we have to be aware that the first target Ukraine wants ATACMS to hit is the Kerch bridge. Ukraine is expending lots of lives to cut the supply route to Crimea via the "land bridge". There is reason to believe they will succeed. They clearly see the best and quickest way to win the war is to take back Crimea. They need to do this anyway to have any chance of surviving as a country. If they can destroy the bridge, there is every reason to believe that Russia simply can't supply the population of Crimea plus all their troops in South Kherson and Crimea by sea. That debacle is the best bet for Ukraine to win the war. Ukraine knows it. Russia knows it.  We are seeing this play out. ATACMS can, in one or two attacks, take out the bridge. Does the US have the courage to let Ukraine have the missiles? My guess is no, unfortunately.

[Goose]

Rumors are ATACMS are finally going to be approved for Ukraine, but just like Turkey approving Sweden's NATO bid, I'll believe it when I see it.  I wouldn't be surprised if the rumored approval is an effort by someone trying to put pressure on Biden to finally approve them, as he seems to be the biggest holdup.  This is no shot at Biden in general, but just about this issue.  I'd like the US to change their focus from preventing Ukraine from losing, to giving everything Ukraine needs to win.

The problem here is that there is no combination of weapons we could give Ukraine that will allow them to "win". Even if we gave them tactical nuclear weapons, they would have to be trained and practiced in using them. That takes time, and despite all the attempts by Ukraine to minimize that time, the requirement exists.

A recent cogent example is the infantry training given to Ukrainian troops in Europe and the UK. The problem is that 30 days training does not make a qualified combat infantryman. This is especially true when the rest of the troops in the unit are equally inexperienced. Ukraine has been standing up new units that don't posses even a "core" of experienced troops. It is unavoidable, but as we see from the complaints made by Ukrainian troops, they are not prepared for what they face. Some have complained that the NATO training doesn't match the fight they are now experiencing. One Ukrainian complained that "NATO troops go into battle knowing they will probably survive". Well, no they don't. They know they might very well be in some desperate fights where not many come back. That is part of the process of understanding your MOS. NATO infantry gets probably 3 times the training and then join units that already exist and have a cadre of "old heads" that can lead them.  Most of the new Ukrainian units involved in the offensive have none of this. By now however, the ones that survived are "old heads". Lets hope there are enough of them. At this point, it isn't about weapons. Ukraine has those. It is about courage and skill. Ukraine has plenty of courage. A lot of the troops lack skill because they are inexperienced. We can't give them that.

All that said, weapons can help. Ukraine does need the F-16s or equivalent to keep Russian air off their troops. Part of this is psychosomatic. Russian air hasn't been all that effective, but if you are the one it kills, you won't see it that way. Having no air defense at all makes infantry feel naked and helpless. That needs to change. The F-16s would do that, even if they did nothing else. However, this will take time. You can't generate a fighter squadron from nothing in a few months. Does Ukraine have time? The Unforgiving Minute is always in play. We don't know.

Getting ATACMS would make it even more difficult for Russia to supply their troops, but, IMO, we have to be aware that the first target Ukraine wants ATACMS to hit is the Kerch bridge. Ukraine is expending lots of lives to cut the supply route to Crimea via the "land bridge". There is reason to believe they will succeed. They clearly see the best and quickest way to win the war is to take back Crimea. They need to do this anyway to have any chance of surviving as a country. If they can destroy the bridge, there is every reason to believe that Russia simply can't supply the population of Crimea plus all their troops in South Kherson and Crimea by sea. That debacle is the best bet for Ukraine to win the war. Ukraine knows it. Russia knows it.  We are seeing this play out. ATACMS can, in one or two attacks, take out the bridge. Does the US have the courage to let Ukraine have the missiles? My guess is no, unfortunately.