Thoughts on Ukraine after briefing from @DOD_Policy: Arms supplied by latest $3bn US aid package may take up to 3 years to arrive. Not much help now, but US says it's in for a long war. There are limits: new aircraft "under discussion". No ATACMS (300km-range missiles). 🧵 1/7
"It's our assessment that they don't currently require ATACMS," he says. US priority is "what is most useful and efficient for what the Ukrainians need for their current purposes, which are: hold in the east; and generate momentum elsewhere in the country" 2/7
GMLRS missiles (range of 84km), says @DOD_Policy, have had "an extraordinary effect" and have slowed down Russia. Yet it is notable the current package does not include more launchers or more GMLRS munitions. 3/7
"Putin seems to believe that Russia can win the long game outlasting the Ukrainians in their will to fight and the international community's will to continue to support Ukraine. This package is a tangible demonstration that this is yet another Russian miscalculation." 4/7
US does not spell out endgame. Package is "agnostic" says @DOD_Policy. "It's important to us that that Russia pays a cost in excess of the benefits they gain from aggression so that they don't do it again, and so that other aggressors, take that lesson. " 5/7
In sum, US continues to measure out its aid. US no longer speaks of helping Ukraine "win"; instead its aim is something less, to help it "defend itself. Deliberately or not, consequence is likely to be stalemate, as my recent piece explains 6/7 economist.com/europe/2022/08…
Trouble with America saying it's ready for a long war: 1) Will European allies hold the line when energy shortages bite this winter? 2) Will the new Congress, likely to have lots more America-first types after mid-terms, keep giving tens of billions for Ukraine? 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
