US preparing to approve long-range rocket system for Ukraine
By: Jim Sciutto,Natasha Bertrand,Alex Marquardt (CNN)
Ukraine needs guns. More guns. Bigger guns. Wonder guns. Vengeance weapons.
While intellectual sophisticates rehash hackneyed tropes and memes on the evils of guns that we've heard for decades, our President is reveling in the American gun culture. Biden hasn't even tried for a peaceful resolution. The answer is always more guns, bigger guns, wonder guns. The intellectual sophisticates who declare America's love of guns is incomprehensible only need talk to President Biden.
The United States has been on a war footing for 81 years. Constant war. Endless war. A perpetual need for guns. More guns. Bigger guns. Wonder guns.
And we're completely clueless about America's love of guns? What is the color of the sky in that world of conscious incompetence?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Washington (CNN) — The Biden administration is preparing to step up the kind of weaponry it is offering Ukraine by sending advanced, long-range rocket systems that are now the top request from Ukrainian officials, multiple officials say.
The administration is leaning toward sending the systems as part of a larger package of military and security assistance to Ukraine, which could be announced as soon as next week.
Senior Ukrainian officials, including President Volodymyr Zelensky, have pleaded in recent weeks for the US and its allies to provide the Multiple Launch Rocket System, or MLRS. The US-made weapon systems can fire a barrage of rockets hundreds of kilometers — much farther than any of the systems Ukraine already has — which the Ukrainians argue could be a gamechanger in their war against Russia.
In this File photo from 2020, a US soldier sits at a Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) after an artillery live fire event by the US Army Europe's 41st Field Artillery Brigade in Germany. Christof Stache/AFP/Getty Images/FILE
Another system Ukraine has asked for is the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, known as HIMARS, a lighter wheeled system capable of firing many of the same types of ammunition as MLRS.
Russia has in recent weeks pummeled Ukraine in the east, where Ukraine is outmanned and outgunned, Ukrainian officials have said.
The Biden administration waivered for weeks, however, on whether to send the systems, amid concerns raised within the National Security Council that Ukraine could use the systems to carry out offensive attacks inside Russia, officials said.
The issue was at the top of the agenda at last week's two meetings at the White House where deputy Cabinet members convened to discuss national security policy, officials said. At the heart of the matter was the same concern the administration has grappled with since the start of the war- whether sending increasingly heavy weaponry to Ukraine will be viewed by Russia as a provocation that could trigger some kind of retaliation against the US.
One major hang-up, the sources said, had been the rocket systems' extensive range. The MLRS and its lighter-weight version, the HIMARS, can launch as far as 300km, or 186 miles, depending on the type of munition. They are fired from a mobile vehicle at land-based targets, which would allow the Ukrainians to more easily strike targets inside Russia.
Ukraine is already believed to have carried out numerous cross-border strikes inside Russia, which Ukrainian officials neither confirm nor deny. Russian officials have said publicly that any threat to their homeland would constitute a major escalation and have said that western countries are making themselves a legitimate target in the war by continuing to arm the Ukrainians.
Another major concern inside the Biden administration had been whether the US could afford to give away so many high-end weapons drawn from the military's stockpiles, the sources said.
Asked on Monday whether the US would provide the systems, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin demurred. "I don't want to get ahead of where we are in the process of resourcing requirements," he told reporters.
The administration had similar concerns about providing Ukraine with additional MiG-29 fighter jets, which some worried could allow the Ukrainians to take the fight into Russia. Ultimately, the US decided against backfilling Poland with new jets, which would have allowed the Poles to equip Ukraine with the soviet-era MiGs.
The debate about the MLRS is also similar to one that played out before the US decided to begin sending heavier, long-range Howitzers, to Ukraine last month. Weapons packages focused on anti-tank Javelin and short-range Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, as well as small arms and ammunition. At the time, the M777 Howitzers marked a significant increase in range and power over previous systems, but even those top out at around 25 kilometers or 18 miles in range. The MLRS can fire much further still than any of the artillery the US has sent to date.
One workaround could be to provide Ukraine with shorter-range rocket systems, officials said, which is also under consideration. It would not take too long to train the Ukrainians on any of the rocket launcher systems, officials told CNN — likely about two weeks, they said.
Every drawdown from existing inventories involves a review of its potential effect on US military readiness. With the previous drawdowns, the risk has been "relatively low," said Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley on Monday. The military is watching "very, very carefully" to make sure the stockpiles don't drop below levels that create a greater risk, he added.
The concern grows significantly with more capable, more expensive systems of which the US does not have as large a supply, the sources said.
Pentagon officials met with the CEO of Lockheed Martin last week to discuss supply and ramping up production of the MLRS, one source familiar with the meeting told CNN. The meeting was led by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Bill LaPlante.
The UK is also still deciding whether to send the systems, two officials told CNN, and would like to do so in conjunction with the US.
Children walk among buildings destroyed during fighting in Mariupol, in territory under the government of the Donetsk People's Republic, eastern Ukraine, Wednesday, May 25, 2022. AP
Frustration has grown on the Ukrainian side with the US' indecisiveness in recent weeks, because they believe that once the US sends the systems then other countries will quickly follow suit.
As recently as this week, the Pentagon had told Ukraine "we are working on it," said one irritated Ukrainian official, who added that Ukraine is asking for an update on the decision "every hour."
"We are in great need of weapons that will make it possible to engage the enemy over a long distance," Ukraine's top military commander, General Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, said Thursday. "And this cannot be delayed, because the price of delay is measured by the lives of people who have protected the world from [Russian fascism]."
When Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba was asked Thursday what his country's most urgent needs are, he responded: "If you really care for Ukraine, weapons, weapons and weapons again."
"My least favorite phrase is 'We are working on it'; I hate it. I want to hear either 'We got it' or 'It's not going to happen,'" he added.
Democratic Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, who was part of a congressional delegation trip to Kyiv earlier this month, told CNN he believes the systems could help Ukraine gain significant momentum against Russia.
"I think it could be a gamechanger, to be honest with you," Crow said, not only for offensive attacks but also for defense. He explained that Russian conventional artillery, which has a range of about 50km, "would not get close" to Ukrainian urban centers if MLRS systems were positioned there. "So it would take away their siege tactics," he said of the Russians.
Tags
Who is online
85 visitors
Biden needs to change the game in Ukraine. So Biden's needs to send bigger guns.
If guns are evil then what does that say about the foreign policy of the United States? We can't allow people to have guns because they might kill someone. Only Presidents are allowed that political expedience. For God's sake, send in more guns, bigger guns, wonder guns.
When killing more people is the objective then more guns and more powerful guns is a good thing. It's a no-brainer.
Seems someone is a tad confused about who is the aggressor in this war
Isn't that a synopsis of the American gun culture? We just deliberately ignore where that gun culture came from.
Seems Biden really, really, really wants a nuclear war with Russia.
He is not presenting any alternatives. It is obvious he is going to provide the Ukrainians with whatever weapons they need to at least fight the Russians to a stalemate. It is also obvious he wants Putin gone. He has given no conditions for stopping sanctions against Russia.
Putin has Russian nuclear forces at the ready. He has more than a large enough nuclear arsenal to destroy the world several times over. It is now just a matter of how many pokes the Russian Bear is willing to take before going on a worldwide rampage?
Nah, Putin is too much of a pussy assed coward. If he could figure a way to pull out of Ukraine without losing face, Russia would be running with their tails between their legs right now.
In your opinion. Which fortunately is no where near any type of authority to make any decisions.
Bad enough having the human fuck up machine in the Oval Office. His demented cheer leaders can stay on the sidelines where they belong.
I never offered a decision, did you forget to read what I wrote?
Just can't stop rooting for Russia can you?
Apparently Biden really, really wants a war. Any war. Any where.
Isn't that what we were told somebody else would seek out? Odd how that turned out.
Odd but not unexpected. Joe Biden is a real gun culture President. The new normal is the old Cold War.
I think it's that he's still suck there.
YAY!!!!! WASTING MORE TAX PAYER MONEY!!!!!!! All the while our country's turning to shit.
You can always get off your arse and clean up some of it.
I do. I don't vote "blue".
How can anyone characterize what Ukraine is doing as “vengeance?” They are being invaded and trying to defend themselves.
A peaceful resolution? Like what, for example? Let Russia have Ukraine?
You’re right. Let’s get rid of all guns and stop all war. We’ll just let Russia do as it pleases and we can use our new free time to start learning to speak Russian.
You can call them Kremlin-backed separatists. You can point out they are Russian immigrants and decendents of Russian immigrants. You can point out that they speak Russian as a first language. But they are still Ukrainians with their homes and families in Ukraine. The Ukrainians in the Donbas did not invade Ukraine.
Ukrainians forced the surrender of the holdouts at the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol. Those Ukrainians may be backed by the Kremlin but they are still Ukrainians. And those Ukrainians won't be driven out of Ukraine.
So, yes, vengeance weapons. The Kyiv government is demanding more guns, bigger guns, and wonder guns to fight Ukrainians that won't be driven out of Ukraine. Those Ukrainians are fighting for their homes and families in Ukraine. The Kyiv government is seeking retribution, reprisal, and retaliation against those Ukrainians. The Kyiv government is demanding vengeance.
Russia was already in Ukraine before the Kyiv government adopted a belligerent political policy towards Russia. Russia has engaged in peaceful trade with Ukrainians in the Donbas region. Ignoring the last eight years doesn't change that history.
The war in Ukraine has proven that Russia has not been a military threat to Europe or the United States. The United States has only used Russia as an excuse to expend large amounts of public money on a conventional military. The United States has claimed it's large conventional military is necessary to confront the Russian threat but refuses to fight.
Who knew that they were so inept? They did still have that nuclear capability however.
Then they are Ukrainians and in Ukraine. It’s an internal Ukrainian matter. Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Just for argument’s sake, let’s Russia is free to care about what goes on there (although I don’t believe they care about anyone living in Ukraine). What right does Russia have to send its military into Ukraine? If they want to liberate Russians, they can offer them homes in Russia. If they want to liberate ethnic Russians, why attack Kiev? For that matter, why attack anywhere in central, north, or west Ukraine? Ukraine is mostly ethnic Ukrainian. There is not a need to attack the whole country.
Of course not. No one said they did. No one is going to say they did. Don’t make debates where none exist. The problem is actual Russian military inside the border of Ukraine. Russian military is firing missiles and dropping bombs on Ukraine. There is no defending that. You may not like that ethnic Russians live in Ukraine, but you don’t get to invade Ukraine to fix it.
And again, I don’t believe Putin actually gives a shit about anyone living in Ukraine, no matter what their ethnicity is.
So it’s your position that the government in Kyiv is trying to drive Ukrainians out of Ukraine?
So, no. Not vengeance. Sovereignty. Ukraine is a sovereign nation managing its own internal affairs and defending against foreign invasion. They’re not taking vengeance on anyone, particularly Russia.
No, they are fighting the Russian military.
Yes, they were already there. And Kyiv was not happy about it, but there wasn’t much they could do.
It hasn’t proven anything like that. Russia has tried to dictate to Ukraine, Finland, Sweden, and other countries whether or not they can be part of NATO.