US lacks missile weapons? The Biden administration has given its Ukrainian counterparts another reason for not sending them much-wanted long-range missiles: The U.S. is concerned it wouldn’t have enough for itself. POLITICO talks about it with surprise.
Of course, war, as the Chinese say, is ‘the way of deception’. Nevertheless in recent meetings at the Pentagon, U.S. officials told Kyiv’s representatives that it doesn’t have any Army Tactical Missile Systems to spare, according to four people with knowledge of the talks.
Transferring ATACMS to the battlefield in Eastern Europe would dwindle America’s stockpiles and harm the U.S. military’s readiness for a future fight, the people said.
That worry, along with the administration’s existing concern that Ukraine would use the 190-mile range missiles to attack deep inside Russian territory and cross what the Kremlin has said is a red line, is why the U.S. isn’t shipping ATACMS to the frontlines any time soon.
One of the reasons the military is hesitant to send the ATACMS is due to a desire to maintain a certain level of munitions in U.S. stockpiles, said one U.S. official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military calculations.
“With any package, we always consider our readiness and our own stocks while providing Ukraine what it needs on the battlefield,” said a senior Pentagon official.
One workaround being considered by Kyiv is to ask for Washington’s approval to buy ATACMS from an allied country that operates the weapon, using military financing from the United States, according to one of the people familiar with the discussions. The list of ATACMS users includes South Korea, Poland, Romania, Greece, Turkey, Qatar and Bahrain.
The U.S. and allies have long maintained some element of mystery over some capabilities sent to Ukraine, cloaking some military aid under vague catchall categories such as rocket artillery or drones that could mean any number of things.
Others, such as Finland, Sweden, Spain and Canada, are more vague, and generally decline to list most of the specific equipment, weapons and munitions they provide.
The desire for more secrecy can be seen as a difficult request for some countries that are eager to show how deep their support for Ukraine goes, especially when that support can also mean American military financing to replace stocks in later years.
…NATO countries want to fight helping Ukraine?! But, as it turns out, they do not have enough weapons for this fight? They don't seem to be lying, but telling the truth.
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs