Hmm. We said we wouldn’t send our tanks just before we sent our tanks.
Then we said we wouldn’t send our fighters all while we’re training the Ukrainians to fly our fighters.
Now we say we won’t send long range missiles? Yup, I’d give that anywhere between 30 and 90 days before it’s revealed we’ve sent them.
You’ve been wrong about everything dear, this is no exception.
Hmm. We said we wouldn’t send our tanks just before we sent our tanks.
Then we said we wouldn’t send our fighters all while we’re training the Ukrainians to fly our fighters.
Now we say we won’t send long range missiles? Yup, I’d give that anywhere between 30 and 90 days before it’s revealed we’ve sent them.
——————-
Same same with sending US troops……NATO is a paper tiger, and they know it.
ATACMS have been around since 1991. It’s very hard to believe we don’t have some ready for retirement soon, and deliveries in 2022 (including to foreign operators) look pretty healthy.
Countries friendly to Ukraine which have ATACMS now include Poland, Romania, Estonia, and Lithuania. Moreover, the South Koreans now make them, too, plus their own version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-140_ATACMS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-140_ATACMS#Current_operators
Tactically, I’d argue the Ukrainians need only a few ATACMS, for, say, targets like the Kerch bridge. Given the above, it is very hard to accept that the US can’t spare, say, 6 pods. Given that Russia has had little success in taking out HIMARS launchers, and the ATACMS pods look virtually identical, plus can be further from the front, replacement needs should be light.
The much cheaper GLSDB’s will do just fine for most of Ukraine’s medium range needs. Those can even hit moving targets. Bye-bye, effective resupply by rail.