Thread by @MarkHertling

Over the last few days I’ve received a few messages suggesting I’ve “hesitated” in supporting Ukraine getting more US equipment.

Let me say that has NEVER been the case.

I’ve been a proponent of supporting UAF in modernizing since 2012. 1/13

What I did suggest is that it’s difficult deluging a partner army w/ equipment because it’s hard for them to integrate technologically advanced weapons, maintenance, logistics support & training….all while fighting a war.

And, it’s hard to get political & financial support 2/

As the war in Ukraine has evolved, I believe western partners - to include the US - have weighed considerations of what they can pull out of their force & supply. But that must be matched by UAF being able to accept & integrate that equipment.

It’s harder than people think. 3/

Ukraine’s military is good & they’re capable of learning and using ANY western piece of equipment on the battlefield…quickly.

But it is the lines of support & maintenance of that advanced kit that is challenging. Especially in the offensive. This is new to them. 4/

Those on Twitter can contest that, and demand MORE!

Ammo, supplies, support capabilities, etc often take priority over “sexy stuff” when putting a force together.

That’s what Reznikov, Austin & all the NATO countries have been coordinating.

In my opinion, masterfully. 4/

To respond to critics, I’ve always emphatically supported Ukraine getting tanks (the easiest to maintain), Bradley’s, Strykers, precision artillery (HIMARs over MLRS), additional fighter aircraft, air defense, anti-ship weapons, etc that can be integrated in the force. 5/

But the devil is always in the details:
-what’s the operation
-can it be immediately put to use & be effective
-how much training & maintenance does it require
-what effect will it have
-what’s the cost

And several others that commanders must consider. 6/

In my view & experience, there’s no one - no one - in NATO or the US administration that is attempting to limit Ukraines capability or success.

That’s just uninformed opinion.

There are pragmatic people trying to provide the best bang for the buck. 7/

As Ukraine is about to enter a next phase with newly supplied combined arms equipment, it is now time to consider additional “stuff” that will add to Ukraines transformation.

Modern aircraft (all types), additions to the navy, more armored vehicles, engineer stuff…8/

…exponentially increased training slots in US & NATO schools, EW & cyber capabilities, etc, etc, etc.

Why wasn’t all this provided in Feb 22? Ukraine could not have accepted & applied it at the time. Plus, we have improved our ability to find, contribute, fund & supply it. 9/

While the ground forces continue to modernize, there will likely be a needed shift to modern aircraft and some naval equipment.

There will be movement on fighter aircraft (yes, some limited F16s, too).

That requires training for pilots AND maintainers…and other things. 10/

Air-ground integration, AWACS & EW aircraft, JTAC training, targeting & air-battle planning, etc.

All pointed toward a potential next phase that, as I said in this article, will also require de-mining, humanitarian assistance & civil support. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/… 11/

Some have said there is a likelihood of a new “frozen conflict” on the horizon.

I hope that won’t be the case. There’s too many of those in Europe now due to Russian attempts at subversion & interference. 12/

The west must continue to support Ukraine and it’s political & military objectives.

We need to demand that our government keeps up support, and Europe does the same. 13/13 end