Ukraine War, February 14, 2023: America’s latest excuse for not supplying long-range ATACMS artillery rockets

1) Joe Barnes, “US warns Ukraine it may not be able to continue ‘same level’ of support; Washington says it cannot supply long-range Atacms missiles, as it would harm its own readiness for war,” The Telegraph, February 14, 2023 2:52 pm);

In a stunning if inadvertent admission, the U.S. has stated it cannot supply thelong-range (300 km) artillery rockets for use with the HIMARS units because, U.S. officials have reportedly told the Ukrainians, to do so would harm U.S. readiness to fight its own war. Joe Barnes of The Telegraph reports:

In a recent meeting at the Pentagon, US officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that sending army tactical missile systems, which have a range of nearly 200 miles, would harm the US military’s readiness to fight its own war.

The White House has repeatedly denied Kyiv’s requests for the surface-to-surface missiles as the Ukrainians seek to ramp up their ability to strike Russian positions deep behind enemy lines.

If Ukraine and the West lose this war, it will in no small part be due to the strategic myopia and stupidity of the U.S. military and their civikian bosses.

Didn’t they anticipate various scenarios under which ATACMS artillery rockets ,ight be transferred to Ukraine for use with HIMARS uartillery units the U.S. is sending to Ukraine?

Did it not occur to anyone that there might be aneed to ramp up war production of munitions like the ARACMS artllery rockets?

At this late phase in the game, it seems disingenous to tell Ukraine The U.S. can’t transfer the ATACMS rocket to Ukraine because we don’t have enough of them?

The lack of strategic foresight in the Biden administration has been an endemic feature of tge Biden administration’s decision making since long before the Russian invasion on February 24, 2022.

It seems that military planners are afraid to get out in front of the schlerotic decision making that is characteristic of Joe Biden and his administration. Biden decides we won’t supply ATACMS to Ukraine because he is afraid that might “provoke” Putin to…to…to…detonate a nuclear device?. The Pentagon concludes there is no need for contingency planning in case Biden’s policy changes.

There doesn’t seem to be anyone of high intelligence coordinating all elements of U.S. policy towards Ukraine.Consider the follow, reported by Je Barnes:

It comes as US officials privately warned representatives from Kyiv that they face losing Western support unless they make significant gains on the battlefield.

Is it the policy of tge Biden administration that future support depends on Ukeainian success of the battlefield?

That is not what Joe Biden has been saying.

Who were these clown who were telling the Ukrainians that future level of miltary aid would be dependent of Ukrainian success on the battlefield.?

The last thing we want is for these clowns ro be influencing Ukraian strategy and battlefield decisions.

During the last year we have seen numerous examples of officials going off message. Biden does not run a tight ship.

About the Author

James Rowles
"The Trenchant Observer" is edited and published by James Rowles (aka "The Observer"), an author and international lawyer who has taught International Law, Human Rights, and Comparative Law at major U.S. universities, including Harvard, Brandeis, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Kansas. Dr. Rowles is a former staff attorney at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of American States OAS), in Wasington, D.C., , where he was in charge of Brazil, Haiti, Mexico and the United States, and also worked on complaints from and reports on other countries including Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. As an international development expert, he has worked on Rule of Law, Human Rights, and Judicial Reform in a number of countries in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and the Russian Federation. In the private sector, Dr. Rowles has worked as an international attorney for a leading national law firm and major global companies, on joint ventures and other matters in a number of countries in Europe (including Russia and the Ukraine), throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, and in Australia, Indonesia, Vietnam, China and Japan. The Trenchant Observer blog provides an unfiltered international perspective for news and opinion on current events, in their historical context, drawing on a daily review of leading German, French, Spanish and English newspapers as well as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and other American newspapers, and on sources in other countries relevant to issues being analyzed. Dr. Rowles speaks fluent English, French, German, Portuguese and Spanish, and also knows other languages. He holds an S.J.D. or Doctor of Juridical Science in International Law from Harvard University, and a Doctor of Law (J.D.) and a Master of the Science of Law (J.S.M.=LL.M.), from Stanford University. As an undergraduate, he received a Bachelor of Arts degree, also from Stanford, where he graduated “With Great Distinction” (summa cum laude) and received the James Birdsall Weter Prize for the best Senior Honors Thesis in History. In addition to having taught as a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School, Dr. Rowles has been a Visiting Scholar at Harvard University's Center for International Affairs (CFIA). His fellowships include a Stanford Postdoctoral Fellowship in Law and Development, the Rómulo Gallegos Fellowship in International Human Rights awarded by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and a Harvard MacArthur Fellowship in International Peace and Security. Beyond his articles in The Trenchant Observer, he is the author of two books and numerous scholarly articles on subjects of international and comparative law. Currently he is working on a manuscript drawing on some the best articles that have appeared in the blog.