Well before I got a time-out, some people were arguing with me saying that PDA has a spending cap. This is true, although it’s arbitrary and can be changed.
There’s still around $4 billion of PDA funding still available — billions of dollars, not millions. That would pay for a lot of ATACMS missiles (and other weapons besides).
Biden could send Ukraine hundreds of ATACMS tomorrow if he wanted to. (And 300km ATACMS missiles, in large numbers, are by far the most important weapon that the US could send Ukraine at present, along with more Patriot & NASAMS systems, and gun-based air defence systems.)
The question is, why doesn’t he?
He could send a mix of:
a) 165km & 300km cluster munition ATACMS missiles
b) 300km unitary warhead ATACMS missiles
ATACMS (of either variant, or both depending on the target) would be ideal to hit:
- The Kerch bridge and other vital logistics bridges
- The larger concentrations of troops and equipment
- Planes and helicopters on the ground anywhere in Ukraine, including all of Crimea (as well as destroy air base infrastructure)
- Subs and ships in port (as well as destroy port infrastructure)
- The larger fuel & ammo dumps
- Railheads
- Train marshalling yards
- Locations where logistics trucks are stored, and the warehouses they load up from
- SAM systems (SAM radars, SAM launchers, SAM command trucks)
- EW systems
Hit all the targets above and that will cripple Russian logistics and its overall warfighting capability in general.
This article covers the PDA situation: www.defensenews.com/...
The article states: “While the administration has declared it’s “out of money” for Ukraine aid, it retains the authority to give Kyiv over $4 billion worth of materiel from U.S. stocks. The administration has declined to tap this authority because it’s out of funding to replace the donated equipment.”
Biden still has $4 billion in drawdown authority, but the administration is out of funding??? That’s an utterly nonsensical statement.
Firstly, the Biden administration is not out of money, unless it considers approx $4 billion chump change.
Secondly, considering that ATACMS (of any variant) would be totally useless in a war against China (because it lacks range and can’t hit ships at sea), being able to replenish ATACMS (if donated to Ukraine in large numbers) is neither here nor there when it comes to a war with China. (For that scenario, US Marines on islands in the first island chain need NSM anti-ship missiles, the new PrSM missile, and ground-launched Tomahawks, whereas ATACMS was designed precisely for the sort of war that Ukraine is currently fighting. Why build weapons for a certain type of conflict if you’re not going to use them when such a conflict arises? That’s utterly insane.)
AIUI cluster munition variants of ATACMS (whether the 165km or 300km variant) are no longer manufactured.
As for the 300km unitary warhead variant of ATACMS, that’s still manufactured. The US with its massive defence budget of over $800 billion every year could build plenty of new 300km ATACMS missiles (as well as the new PrSM missile), so how on earth is the PDA budget remotely relevant in this context? I fail to see how it is.
In fact, why is there even a PDA budget or a (arbitrary) PDA budget cap in the first place? Neither makes any sense when it comes to sending stuff that’s already been bought and paid for to Ukraine (or anywhere else for that matter).
Scholz, Taurus & one lame excuse after another
Scholz has come out with several lame excuses and ludicrous ”reasons” why Ukraine can’t be given the Taurus cruise missile:
- Taurus could be fired into Russia. Firstly he’s saying that like it’s a bad thing (Russian military targets in Russia are legitimate targets, especially the Novorossiysk naval base and air bases in Russia), and secondly Ukraine has repeatedly told him that if Taurus is provided on the condition that it musn’t be fired into Russia, they’ll abide by that agreement (as they have done with UK Storm Shadow and French SCALP-EG cruise missiles). So every time Scholz says this, he’s effectively calling the Ukrainians liars.
- Scholz floated the idea of geofencing Taurus missiles, making it technologically impossible to fire them into Russia. Again, this is extremely insulting to Ukrainians. He clearly doesn’t take them at their word. And in any case, I don’t see any issue at all with hitting Russian military targets in Russia. (And for anyone who claims this would result in a nuclear response from Russia, (a) the west has already said that if Russia uses tactical nukes in Ukraine, then the response will be conventional but devastating and (b) as for strategic nukes, the MAD principle still applies, although it seems many westerners have forgotten that.)
- He’s claimed that German technical advisors would need to be on Ukrainian soil to help program targets for Taurus missiles. Firstly is that even true? And secondly he says that like it’s an insurmountable obstacle. Such advisors wouldn’t be operating in a frontline combat role, so what’s the issue?
- He says that giving Ukraine Taurus missiles would make Germany party to the war. He may be unaware, but Germany already is party to the war. It’s knee-deep in the war.
- Scholz proposed shortening the range of Taurus, which totally defeats the purpose of having it in the first place to hit targets anywhere in Crimea, starting with the Kerch bridge.
The UK and France: air-launched Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG cruise missiles
The UK and France worked together on a project that resulted in the UK getting Storm Shadow and France getting SCALP-EG. They’re essentially the same missile.
So far Ukraine has been given export variants of these missiles with a range of approx 250km. This isn’t enough range to hit the Kerch bridge or targets in most of Crimea.
But there’s a standard, non-export variant of these missiles with a range of 500+ km. These would be incredibly useful to Ukraine.
Why are the UK and France refusing to supply these longer ranged variants to Ukraine?
Other options that would be very useful to Ukraine:
- The land-launched land-attack variant of the NSM (Naval Strike Missile)
- The land-launched variant of ALTIUS- 600: I read months back that Ukraine was meant to be getting this, but it’s gone quiet recently. What happened? Will Ukraine be getting land-launched ALTIUS-600 or not? And the air-launched variant of ALTIUS-600 would also be very useful, assuming it can be fitted to Ukrainian Sukhois and MiGs (and F-16s in a few months), since they have an air-launched range of 440km that outranges the Russian S-300 and S-400 SAM systems, meaning that ALTIUS-600 could be launched from safe stand-off ranges.
Speaker Mike Johnson
As for Johnson not bringing supplementary funding to a vote in the House, how is that even legal? It’s utterly undemocratic. How did a system evolve where one person can block a vote on legislation that would almost certainly pass if brought to a vote in the House?
I read there’s talk of a discharge petition.
Also change the law so that the Speaker can’t prevent bills being brought to the House for a vote, this is utterly insane. Bills should be presented for a vote in date order.