'..The Biden Administration has some internal tensions over this issue, even after the U.K. and France provided the cruise missiles. The Department of Defense (DoD) is the main source of resistance to this supply, and its senior analysts, in their best tradition, have convinced the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) to oppose the supply. Even when the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or the National Security Council (NSC) are in favor of it.
The arguments presented are apparently 3 that need to be dismantled.''But what is the relevance of ATACMS to the Ukrainian war effort, when they already have the Storm Shadow/SCALP cruise missiles with similar ranges?
Well, first of all, the more systems that allow deep strikes on high value targets, the better. Then, ATACMS being a ballistic system is more easily detected, but on the other hand it allows Operational commanders to shorten the targeting process.
That is, if a Ukrainian unit detects in depth a high value target, even if it’s mobile (e.g. S400), the operational commander does not need to request from Kyiv a cruise missile attack that has to be carried out by a Ukrainian Air Force aircraft and that may, in the strategic context, not be a priority. Simply order one of the artillery brigades to use one or more ATACMS to destroy the target. It greatly shortens the targeting process and makes the "find", to "fix" and to "finish" (F3) much more streamlined.
At the strategic level, it allows you to plan multi-vector and multi-directional attacks on highly defended and high-value targets. Coordinating drones, cruise missiles and ATACMS. Sevastopol and some of the air bases in Crimea or even Berdyansk could be attacked with significant damage and heavy casualties inflicted on Air Defense, Electronic Warfare and Aviation systems.
But what is certain is that it has not yet been provided by the US. The Biden Administration has some internal tensions over this issue, even after the U.K. and France provided the cruise missiles. The Department of Defense (DoD) is the main source of resistance to this supply, and its senior analysts, in their best tradition, have convinced the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) to oppose the supply. Even when the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or the National Security Council (NSC) are in favor of it.
The arguments presented are apparently 3 that need to be dismantled.
The first is the fear of escalation. If Ukraine uses ATACMS against targets in Russia we may face a circumstance of direct involvement and a conflict between the US/NATO and the Russian Federation. Clearly, Ukraine has been scrupulous in not using SCALPs against targets in Russia and there is nothing to suggest that it would not be so with ATACMS.
The second is stocks. The U.S. would be compromising the readiness and ability to fight a conflict in another theater because it has no substitute. An argument probably reinforced by the Indo Pacific Combatant Command (INDOPACOM) because they will have much of the stock for a contingency with North Korea. As I said there are 2500 in stock and no one, with a minimum of common sense dares to suggest supplying even 1000 to Ukraine. A few hundred and the impact is huge, if used well. The argument doesn't stick.
Finally, many could not work because they have been in stock for a long time and may have problems. This argument makes no sense because, there may be some that do not work properly, it will not be relevant.
The political issue is that neither the NSC nor the President wants to be seen undermining and bypassing SECDEF, which would lead to the DoD bureaucracy reacting and creating problems with their contacts in the media and Congress. This issue, if Lloyd Austin does not change his mind, will have to be arbitrated by President Biden. But it was preferable that in a election cycle one more problem was avoided, so it all comes down to a policy choice with costs, or not, of President Biden.'
- Nuno Felix,
The Army Tactical Missile (ATACMS), August 6, 2023
Context(Ukraine needs ATACMs) - '..making the judgments that could help Ukraine defeat Russia, regain its territory, and win this war.'(Ukraine needs ATACMs) - '..some countries in the West .. failing to grasp the nature of Putin’s threat to Europe..'(Ukraine needs ATACMs) - '..Moscow can’t be trusted..'