Artillery
As I wrote last week, Russia continues to concentrate its resources on capturing the Luhansk Oblast while Ukrainians suffer serious losses. This battlefield reality prompted the US Department of Defense’s announcement on June 1, 2022 to transfer four M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) to Ukraine.
Colin H. Kahl, undersecretary of defense for policy, described the effect of sending Ukraine this artillery system.
What the HIMARS will allow them to do is to get greater standoff. Right now, the Howitzers we provided them have about a 30 km range; the HIMARS have more than twice that
The 60 km range mentioned by Undersecretary Kahl involves the standard warhead for the HIMARS. This system can also fire the MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), a Short Range Ballistic Missile (SRBM) capable of hitting targets 300 km away with a warhead up to 560 kg. Russian President Vladimir Putin stated how he would respond to the sale of missiles like ATACMS to Ukraine.
If they are supplied, we will draw appropriate conclusions from this and use our own weapons, of which we have enough, in order to strike at those facilities we are not targeting yet
This ATACMS features a similar profile to Israel’s LORA SRBM, 280 km range with a 600 kg warhead. Why bring up the LORA? Azerbaijan used the LORA to take out a bridge during its brief war with Armenia in 2020. The ATACMS could play a similar role by striking the Kerch Strait Bridge, a vital supply line between Russia and Crimea. I understand why Putin considers this missile a threat.
Strategic AMBIGUITY
The US currently employs a policy called strategic ambiguity regarding relations with Taiwan. As the phrase implies, The US refuses to clarify whether or not they will come to Taiwan’s aid given a Chinese military attack. As the calls to end strategic ambiguity grow louder, we must examine President Biden’s statements regarding Taiwan. President Biden referenced a US commitment to Taiwan three times since August 2021.
First Occurrence: An interview with ABC on August 19, 2021
STEPHANOPOULOS: You talked about our adversaries, China and Russia. You already see China telling Taiwan, "See? You can't count on the Americans."
BIDEN: We made a sacred commitment to Article Five that if in fact anyone were to invade or take action against our NATO allies, we would respond. Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with-- Taiwan.
Second Occurrence: CNN Town Hall on October 21, 2021
Anderson Cooper: So are you saying that the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense if China attacked?
President Biden: Yes, we have a commitment to do that.
Third Occurrence: White House Press Conference on May 23, 2022
Q: You didn’t want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons. Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?
BIDEN: Yes.
Q: You are?
BIDEN: That’s the commitment we made. ... The idea that [Taiwan] can be taken by force, just taken by force, is not just appropriate.
This is a strange string of statements given Joe Biden’s past remarks. In 2001, a reporter asked former president George W Bush if the US will defend Taiwan if they are attacked. former president Bush said
Yes, we do . . . and the Chinese must understand that. Yes, I would
Biden, who served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time wrote an op-ed in disagreement. He stated
The United States has not been obligated to defend Taiwan since we abrogated the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty signed by President Eisenhower and ratified by the Senate.
One can clearly state that this administration’s policy on Taiwan is definitely ambiguous.
America F—K Yeah!!!
American foreign policy came unmoored after the end of the Cold War. The 1990’s represented the high point of America’s unipolar power. The invasion of Panama, kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, and the Yugoslav wars ended as decisive American victories.
Then came 9/11 and failures in the Islamic world dominated American foreign policy. Afghanistan failed to become a democracy, fears of ISIS and Iran may keep America permanently in Iraq, removing Qaddafi plunged Libya into a still ongoing civil war, and Assad remains as Syria’s dictator after America’s refusal to oust him. This seemed to highlight the impotence of American power.
As of recently, peer competitors (China & Russia) replaced US foreign policy’s fixation on the Islamic world. While Taiwan remains top of mind for many defense analyst, US foreign policy remains fixated in Ukraine ever since the beginning of Russia’s invasion.
Whether or not one supports or opposes America’s involvement in the defending Ukraine, one cannot deny the effectiveness of US policy in this instance. A German organization called the Kiel Institute for the World Economy gathered data on Western countries assistance to Ukraine. According to the raw data, 72% of all military assistance given to Ukraine came from the US.
One also needs to examine the timing of the US aid. From February 24 to April 23 the EU lead the pro-Ukraine coalition, after April 24 America took the reins. As the American Congress discusses the FY2023 defense budget, we will see if they choose to remain at the helm of the pro-Ukraine coalition.
This concludes our debrief