Make no mistake, the Russian attack on the Kremenchuk shopping mail was both barbaric and criminal, as it was not a military target but a strike on civilians.
But those calling for Patriots or Iron Domes do not understand how those systems work. Here's a short explainer. 1/8
Both those systems are long range air defense, but they provide POINT not AREA DEFENSE capabilities.
What's that mean?
These extremely expensive systems are made of of 4 large components systmes. They identify & intercept aircraft or missiles INBOUND to a SPECIFIC TARGET. 2/
In other words, a commander places these systems around something they want to defend...a city, a specific important facility, a troop formation.
These systems ARE NOT lined up along a border to provide a protective shield.
That's because these systems track...3/
...incoming enemy missiles, determine where they might strike, and then calculate a firing formula to either counter the missile or allow it to land harmlessly in an unpopulated or unimportant area.
These systems DO NOT intercept every enemy launched missile. 4/
The Patriots - which are EXTREMELY LIMITED because of their expense and complexity - are placed at port locations, cities, or to guard against missiles hitting where troops are located.
In Israel, the Iron Dome is mostly paced near major population centers, like Tel Aviv. 5/
Russia is attacking cities. Many - like Kremenchuk - are civilian population centers. The attack there was so barbaric because it was so unexpected.
To "cover" all the locations that RU has struck with missiles in UKR would likely take more Patriots & Iron Domes than exist. 6/
The NASAM - a mid to high range missile - is what is being shipped, primarily because it is easier to use, less complicated in equipment, and capable of shooting down SOME (not all) incoming missiles.
It's small, and can get into UKR with less training and difficulties. 7/
My advice: be wary of anyone suggesting the shipment of Patriots & Iron Domes to UKR, because they are POINT DEFENSE weapons systems, expensive, difficult to deploy, and very, very large.
In other words those recommending this system don't know anything about it. 8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
He'll be hosted from 26-28 June at the G7 summit by Chancellor Scholz of Germany (they'll be at Schloss Elmau, photo below)
A beautiful location in the Bavarian forest, between Garmisch-Partenkirchen & Mittenwald (and a great biking route). 1/8
This is Biden's 4th trip to Europe in 18 months, showing his priority of revitalizing allied & partner cooperation.
Since taking office, several recent surveys & polls from all the EU nations have shown an increased trust & confidence in US leadership. pewresearch.org/global/2021/06… 2/
There are several big ticket items associated with this G7 conference:
-EU and Global security
-Economic issues linked to COVID recovery; food & energy security
-Climate
-Cyber
-Migration & immigration
-Countering transnational threat effects on economies
3/
I've been hesitant to write a 🧵on the current tactical situation & what might happen next. But @DAlperovitch's view of potential outcomes (RT below) cause me to weigh in.
His view is plausible, but I don't believe it accurately portrays the current situation. 1/
In both the Donbas & Kherson, it appears the RU are following their playbook.
1. Russian Massive Arty barrages 2. Russian Attempts Recon in Force (RIF) 3. Russian targets civilians 4. RU focus on logistics build/regeneration 5. RU lacks Combined Arms Operation action 2/
At the same time, UKR is required to slightly adapt their tactics & operational design
1. UA conducts close counterfire fight vs RU arty 2. UA thwarts RU RIF 3. UA incorporating arms & logistics from West 4. UA employs limited Combined Arms capability. 3/
In the coming days, Americans may here about Lithuania's blockade of the RU enclave of Kalinigrad.
Few Americans know about this Russian enclave WEST of several NATO nations. I introduced the importance of its strategic importance to @CNN in December.
During an interview, the terrific @MarquardtA asked me why the US wasn't delivering the weapons "some" in UKR said they had requested (1000 artillery, 500 tanks, etc).
I cited @SecDef press conference from Madrid yesterday, where Austin rebuked the same question. 1/9
The @SecDef noted he was specifically coordinating equipment transfer and weapons priorities with Ukraine's Defense Minister Reznikov.
Reznikov's top priorities are:
-Long Range fires
-Armor vehicles
-Mid-range ADA systems
-Howitzers
Then Austin provided some numbers...2/
-Reznikov asked for 10 battalions of artillery, the west has provided 12.
-R asked for 200 tanks, UKR has received 270
-Ukraine received 97,000 anti-tank missiles, more than they requested, which is also more than the number of tanks in the entire world. 3/
Due to the 1/6 report, 2A legislation & economic issues, details of Donbas battles & the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine are not at the forefront.
UA isn't "losing" & the action isn't stalled. It remains a slugfest in the east.
Here's a new 🧵on equipping UA. 1/21
As I said in past threads, the "new phase" of the fight (which started in early April), brought change.
-RU focus is on massing artillery, attempts at breakthrough.
-UA focus is logistics, active defense & maintaining will.
I've used this slide to describe the major shifts. 2/
In the last few days, the @nytimes, @washingtonpost, @WSJ & others have reported Ukraine's demand for more combat equipment.
UA needs support, lots of it. It's important to understand the scope of their "asks," the art of the possible & the associated logistics requirements. 3/