No Time to Go Wobbly

Biden is making the right moves in sending Ukraine rocket systems. And he’s at least given a strong statement about what he’ll do to help.

By
36

Newsflash: Joe Biden has loose lips.

We’ve known this for decades, but now the “sinking ships” part of the equation looms, both in East Asia—where Biden for the third time has explicitly declared the United States would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack—and in Eastern Europe, where Biden repeatedly blurts out what he will not do to defend Ukraine and the larger post-Soviet peace from Russian attack. The Deputy National Security Adviser for Walking Things Back has been busy lately.

At least Biden’s most recent gaffe—“We are not going to send to Ukraine rocket systems that can strike into Russia!”—got walked back within 24 hours, and by the president himself. The upcoming $700 million package of military aid to Kyiv, which will draw from the $40 billion in aid voted on by Congress and signed by Biden, will include many things, but among them will be a “small number of high-tech, medium-range rocket systems,” most probably the U.S. Army’s M142 High Mobility Artillery Rockets System, or HIMARS. 

To understand how Biden has split the baby—and what he probably meant to say originally—a brief artillery tutorial is needed. The HIMARS is a wheeled, half-sized version of the larger tracked M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System, yet another legacy of the Reagan defense investments of the 1980s. The MLRS was developed specifically to offset Soviet advantages in artillery; it was mounted on a tracked vehicle to keep up with the speedy armored formations built around the M1 tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle and to be able to work in tandem with Army aviation. The HIMARs version came along in the 1990s to supplement the capabilities of airborne and light infantry units.

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
36
By
Comments (36)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Andy Napoli

    Check it out -- Ukraine using their new HIMARS systems to strike Russian ammunition stores in....Nova Kakhovka.... In a town/bridge crossing that I said was extremely strategic back in June.

    "The Ukrainian military’s southern command said a rocket strike targeted the depot in Russian-held Nova Kakhovka, about 35 miles (55 kilometers) east of the Black Sea port city of Kherson, which is also occupied by Russian forces."

    https://www.aol.com/news/ukrainian-rocket-strike-targets-russian-084610077-131453485.html

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Mulecanter

    Ukraine seems to be faltering. It's time to take US support up a notch.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    “This was also a shot across the bow of both outright Russophiles and “realists” domestically.”

    Good.

    “However, as is so often the case, the geopolitical sphere-of-influence crowd often lacks a sense of the technological, tactical, and operational flows of war—as well as the importance of moral versus material power”

    You mean the realists aren’t… realistic? You don’t say!

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    Maybe he wasn't ready to announce what his plan was Ukraine. Is that so unusual?

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    I'm going to give high praise to you Giselle for your support of President Biden's worthy and deliberative actions to support Ukraine.

    Says Liberal me to a Conservative. Thanks

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Wobblerocket

    Perhaps it's just a short hand, but I'm still confused by the phrasing that I keep seeing from the administration and in reporting on the rockets we are sending to Ukraine. The idea of "not sending Ukraine rockets that can fire into/hit Russian territory" seems meaningless to me without clarification. Russia is very large and has a 1,200 mile land border with Ukraine. A brief glance at Wikipedia says a howitzer can fire at least 14 miles. Heck, a slingshot can fire into/hit Russian territory if it's close enough to it.

    If we don't want to send the Ukrainians rockets that can go 120 miles because we don't want them to escalate the war by hitting X target in Russia then I can see the argument for that, though I don't necessarily agree with it. But as this article mentions, the rockets we are sending them can obviously hit targets in Russia.

    So my question that I would want clarified from the administration and the reporting on this topic is this: what is the actual range that the administration wants to limit the rockets to and what is the justification for that range?

    Collapse
    1. Duane Truitt

      Listen, a hand held grenade launcher, if it is sitting right on the border, can "fire into Russia". In fact one can hand toss a grenade over the border and hit in Russia.

      What this is about, that a lot of people including the author of this post, don't comprehend is that Ukraine cannot just drive their MLRS systems up to the border and fire into Russia and hit some mythical target like a small Russian city. If the Ukrainians did that, it would cause a massive escalation in the war - i.e. Russia would certainly start using tactical nukes with some justification ... and having their launchers right on the border would make it easy peasy for Russia to simply take them out, because their location would be determined as, well, right on the border.

      Having rockets with a theoretical max range of 48 miles, as is reported of this first batch of missiles, means that the Ukrainians can station themselves such that they are well dispersed in not-necessarily predictable battery locations, and defend their entire land border with Russia.

      Few missiles are ever fired right at their maximum effective range anyway in real warfare. At max effective range it means you have a significant chance of actually not reaching your target (that's what "max effective range" means), and the longer the range of the shot the more chance that it will miss its target, especially for unguided missiles which are reported to constitute the vast majority of these missiles being supplied to Ukraine.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Wobblerocket

        Right, so for several reasons, it appears unlikely that Ukrainians would use rockets of any range to "escalate" by launching an attack into Russian territory, whether those rockets are shot from 10 miles away, 40, or 100. However, if the Ukrainians were sufficiently determined to do so, they're already capable of hitting Russian territory and the rockets we are supplying them are also capable of doing so.

        If having rockets that have a range of 48 miles allows for a good dispersement of batteries as you mention, wouldn't having even longer range be even better? Are the Russians fine with getting blown up by American made rockets from 40 miles away but not from 100?

        Maybe there are a bunch of little reasons (expense, not necessarily that helpful, small potential for war escalation) for not supplying the longer range rockets that add up to a big enough reason not to do it. But I just haven't seen that argument made by the administration or by the reporting on this topic.

        (Just realized my username is coincidentally weirdly specific to the headline and topic of this article.)

        Collapse
        1. Duane Truitt

          Well, Biden said he didn't want to give Ukraine rockets that would strike into Russia, and that's for obvious reasons. So he did give the bottom line .. it's not his job to deliver a detailed military analysis of all the possible options and alternatives. So to claim that he's not being very clear in his rationale is disingenuous. Indeed, in a situation like this there is a fine line between being honest and forthcoming and abandoning the necessary degree of ambiguity.

          Look there is no such thing as any rocket, or rifle bullet, or even a hand grenade that "cannot reach into Russia". Stand on the border line and toss a grenade to the east and voila, you've reached into Russia. But obviously that's ridiculous.

          The medium range rockets supplied, 48 mile range, are a reasonable limitation on offensive use within Russian territory, without presenting an existential threat to a fairly large number of Russian cities and military facilities, while enabling Ukraine to reasonably disperse their rocket launching batteries to avoid counterstrikes. For the ultimate purpose of driving Russian forces all the way out of Ukraine. To dive deeper into the weeds than that that would sound like something a hopeless policy wonk would say.

          There is never any kind of hard and fast line when it comes to decisions like this.

          Collapse
          1. Rob K

            I am starting to wonder if the US has a limited supply of the longer range rockets. Only 3700 ATACMS (190 mile range) were ever built, according to wikipedia. ATACMS production was terminated 15 years ago. It's replacement, the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), will reportedly have a range over 310 miles (the limitation set by the now expired INF treaty), but these are not in production yet. Without a currently producible long-range precision artillery missile/rocket, the US may be hesitant to ship the large numbers required by Ukraine. They would almost assuredly be used to hit actual military targets inside Ukraine, not Russia. But this is not the excuse given by the Biden administration. I grow tired of using protestations of non-escalation to cover up what appear to be otherwise valid technical and logistical concerns. The US has neglected its defense investment so badly that giving a small portion of our inventory to Ukraine over just four months runs dangerous risk of depletion. Fess up to that mistake, develop and propose a budgeted plan to fix it, and stop making ridiculous excuses.

            Collapse
    2. Egal.Fabrice

      I don't know how the administration sets the limit, but a sensible criterion would be "just enough range to cover the territory occupied since February". If Ukraine doesn't intend to strike into Russia, Ukraine doesn't need missiles with a 300 km range, because it can cover the occupied territory with less. It can be seen as evidence that the West is not planning to escalate the war against Russia: we are sending precisely what Ukraine needs to defend its territory. No more, no less.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Wobblerocket

        I suppose that kind of makes sense. But the distance of the occupied territory is variable and will change with time. And again, the Ukrainians could use any of the weapons they already have to strike something in Russian territory if they were really so inclined. To me, that argument just doesnt quite justify not sending them the best weapons possible. As I said above, maybe there are just a bunch of small reasons for this decision. The administration certainly doesn't have the obligation to explain all of those in detail to me.

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Andy Napoli

    "But in the last week they have begun to mount larger counterattacks in the south, aimed at Kherson. This is not only a critical Black Sea port but a key to the Russian “land bridge” running from Crimea to the southern Donbas and Russia proper. The Russians are doing their best to create more fortified defenses around Kherson, but it is not clear they have the resources to do so; Ukrainian forces have advanced along the Dnipro River, and appear to have positions on the east side."

    If this is true, it is a VERY BIG DEAL. I spent entirely too much time yesterday at work, looking closely at terrain maps and Google Maps around Kherson. The Dnipro River is much wider than most realize. And there aren't very many bridges that cross it. There appear to be just two major crossings over the Dnipro River (along which the city of Kherson sits). There's a bridge along E97 which is northeast of Kherson, and there is the P47 which is much further northeast in Nova Khakovka. Beyond that point, the river widens to a degree that it’s basically a very large lake.

    Crossing a fixed bridge with a large body of heavy vehicles when that bridge is within range of enemy artillery and/or rocket systems, is near-certain suicide (as the Russians have found out for themselves). Crossing a river under fire is one of the most complex things any Army is asked to do. And even if you cross the river alive, you have to keep your supply lines open or you will run out of food, water, fuel, ammunition, spare parts, and medical supplies in short order. A fixed bridge is a juicy target.

    Setting up a pontoon bridge is possible but you need to not only control both sides of the river – you have to push the enemy beyond artillery/rocket range so that they can’t sustain accurate fires while you’re constructing and then operating the pontoon bridge. To do THAT, you need to have positions established on the other side of the river that can keep those enemy artillery pieces away.

    Which is why I think this news above is big, if true.

    If you zoom out of the map in this region of Ukraine, what you notice is that there is basically a swathe of coastal plain that runs from the mouth of the east bank of the Dnipro River, all the way to the coast of the Sea of Azov and the isthmus of Crimea, that is pretty wide open. If the Ukrainians can get a sizeable force established on the east side of the Dnipro River, they could roll east along the M14 and roll back Russian positions all the way to the isthmus of Crimea. They might even be able to liberate Melitopol.

    What matters is that the Ukrainians need to threaten the “land bridge” to Crimea. They need to seize control of the E105 and control the coast of the Sea of Azov where it meets with Crimea. That would be a major strategic setback for Putin and his dream of re-establishing “Novorossiya.”

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David Chen

      So surreal this is the first war where a random commentator online may actually have good analysis using open source information. The books and documentaries they will one day produce about this would be so interesting to me.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Matt J

      Ukraine did make a major river crossing recently, with little to no casualties. It seems the Russians don't have the recon capability to punish them in a major way.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Andy Napoli

        I suspect it might be near here....

        https://news.yahoo.com/russians-blow-bridges-over-inhulets-023718149.html?guccounter=1

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    Russia’s remaining advantage is their artillery. They have more of it, and they can use it to grind cities and armies into the submission. Giving Ukraine longer-range, more accurate, more mobile systems will allow them to degrade and destroy that Russian advantage. Russian forces haven’t exactly shown much operational competence in their invasion, and it may be the same with artillery: instead of “shooting and scooting” where they unleash a volley and then relocate to avoid counterbattery fire, I’ll bet they stay static for extended periods to keep up their fire and compensate for their lousy logistical capability. The experience of MLRS counterbattery fire is going to make that very costly at first, and could seriously disrupt the capacity of Russian artillery by making them move all the time (with their lousy logistics.).

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David Chen

      The numbers we send sound so small. But I guess if each one can knock out a dozen Russian vehicles, thats what counts.

      Collapse
      1. Rob K

        The 90 howitzers we already sent represent a sizable force. In a US Army brigade, the artillery battalion normally deploys 18 howitzers to support 3000-5000 troops. Combined with other M777 howitzers from Canada and elsewhere, that gives Ukraine the ability to support 4-7 brigades, or 15-35000 troops with highly accurate, rapid firepower. M777 155mm howitzers can reach out to 25 miles.

        MLRS and HIMARS are much more effective, but their ammunition is far more expensive. Even the best GPS guided, precision 155mm artillery shells fired by M777 are much cheaper than most MLRS munitions. However, even the unguided rockets can deal substantial blows to Russian forces, by striking supply depots, command centers and conducting counter-battery fire against Russian artillery.

        My thought is, send whatever we can.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          David Chen

          Do you know any good youtube videos that explains how artillery is used on the battlefield today? I didn't think they'd have so much value in the age of cruise missiles, but clearly they play a major role in total war.

          Collapse
          1. Rob K

            Sorry for the delay. I’m still trying to find some videos that give a comprehensive look at modern artillery, rather than just individual weapons. Here’s a start: https://youtu.be/P-EY-6YHG_0
            Anything by Battle Order is good content for beginners or even people with above average interest. I’ll try to get back to you soon with a more detailed answer to your main question.

            Collapse
  9. Duane Truitt

    The Russians are indeed hanging on by their fingernails trying to avoid outright defeat and destruction of their forces. They've left the rest of the world's largest country (in area and border length) essentially undefended this spring, throwing everything they have into eastern Ukraine. But they cannot sustain this push in the Donbas. And the Ukrainians have all they staying power they'll ever need - it's their nation, after all, and they aren't giving up one inch of it now that the battle is on and there are no more little green men and pretenses of Russian "defense".

    Biden did the right thing in providing the MLRS and HIMARS but rockets with reasonably long range but not long enough to threaten Russia's territorial integrity. The authors point about being able to situate these launchers right on the border and hit one minor Russian city misses the point. The Ukrainians are not out to conquer Russia, and besides, stationing these launchers right on the border of Russia makes them sitting ducks for Russian counterstrikes on the missile batteries. To protect your own batteries you have to have them be mobile - which these are, especially HIMARs, and you have to disperse them so that counterstrikes cannot easily wipe them out.

    So no, this difference is not merely a distinction of little relevance. Biden has provided the Ukrainians with the weapons they need to continue pushing the Russians out of their nation, as is entirely appropriate. And no, there will be no "land for peace" which in all history never worked for anybody - Kissinger of all people should understand that (see Hitler, 1938).

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David Chen

      F* Kissinger.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Todd T

        What he said. I know we are a much more capable opponent, but how many states would the US be willing to cede for peace against an aggressor after 4 months?

        Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    MatthewRobin

    If Dispatchers want more news on the war in Ukraine, check out my latest weekly recap.

    https://infraredline.substack.com/p/warzone-ukraine-week-13-update

    Collapse
Load More