THEY SENT THE ATACMS!!!!!!!!!
Full transcript from yesterday’s press conference below, it’s near the end of the page.https://t.co/eVtWlkemw9
— CJ (@CasualArtyFan) November 10, 2022
From the transcript: (emphasis mine)
Q So, will aid to Ukraine continue uninterrupted?
THE PRESIDENT: That is my expectation. And, by the way, we’ve not given Ukraine a blank check. There’s a lot of things that Ukraine wants we didn’t — we didn’t do.
For example, I was asked very much whether we prefe- — we’d provide American aircraft to guarantee the skies over Ukraine. I said, “No, we’re not going to do that. We’re not going to get into a third world war, taking on Russian aircraft and directly engage.” But would we provide them with all — the rational ability to defend themselves? Yes.
We provide those HIMARS. Well, the HIMARS — there’s two kinds of, in the average person’s parlance, rockets you can drop in those: one that goes over 600 miles and one that goes about 160 miles. We didn’t give them any ones that go to 600 miles, because I’m not looking for them to start bombing Russian territory.
And so, we want to make sure that there’s a relationship that they’re able to defend themselves and take on what is purely a — a — the ugliest aggression that’s occurred since World War Two on a massive scale, on the part of Putin, within Ukraine. And there’s so much at stake.
And now we know that the image above was art soon to be imitated by life. What hit the Kerch Strait bridge were the ATACMS!
Now send more!!!! And send the PrSMs too!!!!
Here is President Zelenskyy’s remarks from earlier today. Video below, English transcript after the jump:
Good health to you, fellow Ukrainians!
Today we have good news from the south.
The number of Ukrainian flags returning to their rightful place in the framework of the ongoing defense operation is already dozens. 41 settlements were liberated.
I thank all our heroes who make this advance possible. Armed Forces, intelligence, special services… Everyone.
And I will especially mention the warriors of the 28th separate mechanized brigade, the 46th airborne assault brigade, the 60th separate infantry brigade and the 128th separate mountain assault brigade. Those who implement offensive actions. Thank you guys!
Now we are all happy to see how the Ukrainians who remained in the occupied villages and cities meet our warriors.
Many are now checking almost every hour where our units have reached and where else our national flag was raised.
But, rejoicing, we should all remember now and always what this movement means, we should remember that every step of our defense forces is the lives of our warriors. Lives given for freedom for Ukrainians. Everything that is happening now has been achieved by months of fierce struggle. It was achieved through courage, pain, and loss. It’s not the enemy leaving. It is the Ukrainians who drive the occupiers out at a heavy cost. Just as in the east of our country, in the Kharkiv region. Just as before, in the north – Kyiv region, Sumy region, Chernihiv region. Now – Mykolaiv region, Kherson region.
We have to go all the way – on the battlefield and in diplomacy – for our flags, Ukrainian flags, and never again enemy tricolors, to be hoisted on our entire land, along our entire internationally recognized border. It will be so.
Our warriors are virtually immediately followed to the liberated areas by those who restore all conditions for normal life.
The first and basic one is demining. The occupiers leave behind thousands of unexploded mines and munitions. I have often heard estimates that clearing Ukraine of Russian mines will take decades. We can’t wait that long.
We have to do in years what elsewhere in the world could have taken decades after hostilities.
First of all, houses, social facilities, communications, roads – the entire space of people’s lives – are being demined.
But the occupiers mine everything: power lines, enterprise buildings, fields, forests.
At the peak of mine contamination in Ukraine, we had 300,000 square kilometers of dangerous territory.
Today, thanks to the true heroism of Ukrainian sappers and pyrotechnicians, our rescuers and everyone who helps them, the area of land contaminated by mines and munitions has been reduced.
Now about 170,000 square kilometers remain for demining. In particular, this is also the case in the most difficult areas – where hostilities are still ongoing, where the enemy will add mines before his retreat, as it is now in Kherson… Plus forests, plus a huge area of fields.
I am grateful to our partners who are already implementing mine clearance assistance projects. These are the US, Canada and Great Britain, as well as Denmark, Norway, Estonia, Austria, Poland, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Slovakia, UN structures.
Any person on earth – everyone who supports Ukraine – can make a personal contribution through our United24 charity platform.
In particular, thanks to such aid, we have already purchased the first most effective demining machine – Armtrac 400 which is currently operating in the Kharkiv region.
It covers 1.5 hectares in an hour, fully guaranteeing the disposal of mines. And first of all, it clears the territory along the power lines so that energy workers can fulfill their duties and restore power supply.
We will add more such equipment and speed up demining wherever we return our flag, our normal Ukrainian life.
The forces of the National Police immediately follow the warriors to the liberated areas.
Today, the police entered Kalynivske, Bobrovyi Kut, Yevhenivka, Kotsyubynske and Snihurivka. Stabilization measures began there.
I had two important phone calls today.
Together with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom we discussed further defense support for our country and exchanged views of the ongoing frontline operations.
We are preparing for important international events next week, in particular for the G20 summit, we are coordinating positions with partners.
Together with the Prime Minister of Canada we also discussed the G20, our initiatives within the UN – we have important draft resolutions that we propose the General Assembly to support.
Separately, we touched upon the areas of defense and security cooperation that already exist with Canada. We are planning to expand our cooperation.
There are still important negotiations scheduled for tomorrow.
Today I also want to thank the Netherlands for another step to strengthen our defense. 100 million euros will go to the fund to support our defense.
These funds, as well as funds from other partners, will be used to purchase equipment directly from manufacturers and will work for the future. For Ukraine to become stronger.
And one more thing.
Today we have the announcement of a new military assistance package from the United States of America. Important means of air defense. Just what we needed, what we asked for.
Glory to all who fight and work for our country and our people!
Gratitude to everyone who helps!
Eternal glory to all those who give their lives for Ukraine and who gave their lives.
Glory to Ukraine!
Here is former NAVDEVGRU Squadron Leader’s latest assessment of the situation in Kherson:
NOTE: The 2350 map is believed to be highly ‘conservative’. In the last 60 mins, reports have emerged that UKR forces continue to press forward on all axes toward Kherson. UKR artillery is said to have targeted RU crossing points, causing mass casualties.
— Chuck Pfarrer | Indications & Warnings | (@ChuckPfarrer) November 11, 2022
SLAUGHTER ON THE RIVER: Local sources have reported that RU troop concentrations on the banks of the Dnipro have come under sustained UKR artillery fire. Heavy casualties are reported, and said to be mounting. https://t.co/8sJnUk3rks
— Chuck Pfarrer | Indications & Warnings | (@ChuckPfarrer) November 10, 2022
Here’s Oleksiy Arestovich, one of President Zelenskyy’s advisors, assessment of the situation in Kherson:
– Уважаемые херсонцев. Вот мы и возвращаемся.
Вот вы и возвращаетесь.
Добро пожаловать домой.
——-
Бои на правом берегу ещё будут продолжаться некоторое время.
А после ещё будет непростой период стабилизационных мероприятий.
— Arestovych (@arestovych) November 9, 2022
Here is the translation of his two tweets:
Let’s do it right: – The Russian army does not leave Kherson. She was KNOCKED out of Kherson by the Defense Forces of Ukraine. It was knocked out with heavy battles, with losses, methodically gnawed through the enemy’s defenses, work on crossings, hard and bloody military labor.
– Dear Kherson residents. Here we are returning. Here you are returning. Welcome home. ——- Fighting on the right bank will continue for some time. And after that there will be a difficult period of stabilization measures.
And here’s Mikhailo Podylak’s assessment:
Actions speak louder than words. We see no signs that Russia is leaving Kherson without a fight. A part of the ru-group is preserved in the city, and additional reserves are charged to the region. 🇺🇦 is liberating territories based on intelligence data, not staged TV statements.
— Михайло Подоляк (@Podolyak_M) November 9, 2022
Sabrina Singh, the Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary, held a briefing with Q&A today. Here is the transcript: (emphasis mine)
DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY SABRINA SINGH: Good afternoon, everyone. Happy Thursday. I just have a few items to pass along at the top and then I can jump in and take your questions.
So today, as you probably have already seen, the Department of Defense is announcing the authorization of a presidential drawdown of security assistance valued at up to $400 million to meet Ukraine’s critical security and defense needs. This authorization is the Biden administration’s 25th drawdown of equipment from DOD inventories for Ukraine since August 2021.
Capabilities in this package include missiles for HAWK air defense systems, four Avenger air defense systems and Stinger missiles, additional ammunition for the HIMARS, which are the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, 21,000 155 millimeter artillery rounds, 500 precision-guided 155 millimeter artillery rounds, 10,000 120 millimeter mortar rounds, 100 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, the Humvees, 400 grenade launchers, small arms and more than 20 million rounds of small arms ammunition, and demolition equipment for obstacle clearing, optics, and cold weather gear.
With Russia’s unrelenting and brutal air attacks on Ukrainian civilian and critical infrastructure, additional air defense capabilities are critical.
The HAWK missiles, which will be refurbished using Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds, will compliment Spain’s recent commitment of HAWK launchers to help Ukraine meet this threat. The Avenger short range air defense systems will also provide Ukraine with capability to protect Ukrainian troops and critical infrastructure against unmanned aerial systems and helicopters. You should have the release in your inbox but it will also be found on defense.gov.
Just a few more items here. Looking ahead, tomorrow, Secretary Austin will provide remarks at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial at 1 p.m. to commemorate and pay honor to our veterans. Their service and commitment make up the strong fabric of our nation and we will never forget their sacrifices.
Also, looking a little further ahead, next week, the Secretary will host the seventh meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. This meeting will be hosted virtually here at the Pentagon and will allow for the Secretary and ministers of defense from nearly 50 countries to discuss efforts to supply Ukraine with the means to defend its sovereignty from further Russian aggression. And additional information will be forthcoming.
And finally, with great admiration, the department would like to take a moment to acknowledge the 247th birthday of our United States Marine Corps. As the department continues to adapt to the complex challenges of the 21st century, the Marine Corps stands ready to bring invaluable experience to the battlefield. Their work on how we will operate in a contested maritime domain reflects their steadfast commitment and value to our Joint Force. We wish them a heartfelt happy birthday and Semper Fi, Marine Corps.
And with that, I will take your questions. Yes, Tara Copp? Sorry.
Q: Hi, thanks for doing this. Can you talk a little bit more about the difference that the Avenger air defense system can make in the battle now, particularly with Russian troops withdrawing from Kherson? Did the Pentagon decide to make these available now because it’s winter and they can be put on high vehicle trucks? What was the thinking there?
MS. SINGH: So again, this is one additional air defense system that we have provided, along with our partners and allies, that I think compliments some of the air defense systems that we’ve provided. In particular, with the four Avenger air defense systems, these are mobile, short range air defense systems that can — they can protect against cruise missiles, helicopters, unmanned aerial systems.
They’re shorter in range, but with some of the additional capabilities that we and Spain and others have provided, like the HAWK missiles, this is something that will, I think, fit in well with some of the capabilities that they’re already using on the battlefield.
Q: And just a quick follow up.
MS. SINGH: Yeah.
Q: Since this system also uses Stingers, are there any concerns that this is another pressure on the Stinger stockpile?
MS. SINGH: You know, again, we continue to assess our readiness. And the short answer to your question is no, we are committed to providing Ukraine with what it needs on the battlefield and what they need day-to-day and we are constantly assessing our readiness but we wouldn’t have provided these Stinger missiles if we didn’t feel like — that we could.
I’ll stay in the room, Laura?
Q: Thanks. Just to follow up on Tara’s question, can you say how many Avenger systems we’re sending and what’s the timeline for …
MS. SINGH: We’re sending four Avenger air defense systems. I can’t say the timeline, but as you know with these PDAs, we have been getting equipment and systems to Ukraine pretty quickly. And, you know, we’re, again, in constant communication with our Ukrainian partners and allies on the ground. So I don’t have an exact date for you and we’d let Ukraine announce when they arrive in country.
Q: … require training for the Ukrainians? And how extensive is that training?
MS. SINGH: There will be some training required for these — these Avengers but I don’t have much more on how long or what the requirement will be. But like with most of the capabilities that we’ve provided, we have given some training when they have gone in country. And so — or before they go in country — and so these air defense systems would require some of that.
Great. Yeah? Hi.
Q: I have a follow up on the Avengers and then sort of a broader question …
MS. SINGH: Sure.
Q: … for you. I believe the Avengers are automated short range systems, so — so tech first, and I have read that they’ve started being produced, I think, in the early 2000s. So I was wondering if you’re sending older or newer Avenger capabilities, if you could speak to that? And then I’ll have a follow up.
MS. SINGH: Yeah, no problem. In terms of when and what type or what year or make we’re providing, I would just say that we’re just providing the four Avenger defense systems. I’m not going to get into specifics on that.
And then your first question was — I’m sorry, I’m blanking on your first one.
Q: My second question, actually.
MS. SINGH: Or second question.
Q: … it’s two parts for you. Would it be fair to report that this package is part of broader plans from the administration to accelerate support for Ukraine as a result of the midterms and — and maybe concerns that Republicans in Congress could possibly block future assistance down the line?
MS. SINGH: Well, I think you’ve seen a pretty steady cadence of security assistance packages that we’ve rolled out. We just announced another tranche of security assistance just last week, which is what I had mentioned with the HAWK missiles being refurbished.
So I think on top of that, support for Ukraine has had pretty broad bipartisan support, which we welcome and we thank Congress for their support. I think there is in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, a commitment to Ukraine that we’re in this for the long haul. So even with the midterms and the outcomes, I think that Ukraine will still see security assistance and support from the United States in their fight.
I’m going to go to the phones and then I can come back into the room. Howard Altman.
Q: Thank you for doing this. I’ve got some operational questions. First, does the Pentagon see a withdrawal of Russian troops from the town of (inaudible) and Mykolaiv Oblast? And then I have some other questions.
MS. SINGH: Further Russian movements? I mean, I’ve seen the open source reporting there but nothing further to add. We’ve seen the Russians reinforcing their defensive lines and we’re seeing the Ukrainians continue with their counter-offensive but I don’t really have more to add other than that.
Q: Can you elaborate a little bit more on the Russians are all saying they’re withdrawing from Mykolaiv Oblast as well as Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. Are you seeing any additional Russian withdrawals across or heading towards the Dnipro River?
MS. SINGH: So we have seen — I will say — and I think — I think this was spoken to earlier this morning — we have seen some indications of movement within Kherson City, it’s a bit too early to make an assessment just yet on the full movement of Russian troops.
I’m going to go to the next question here. Jeff Schogol, Task & Purpose?
Q: Thank you. You had mentioned you’ve seen some indications of movement in Kherson City. Can you elaborate a little bit on that? You know, is this movement since the announcement that the Russians are withdrawing from the city? And, you know, how many Russian forces are withdrawing?
MS. SINGH: So I wouldn’t be able to count — to characterize the number of Russians that we’re seeing. I mean, all I can really say is we’re seeing some indications of movement. And as I think you know and we all saw, the Russians announcing that they were going to withdraw troops from Kherson City but we’re only just seeing some indications of that. I would say it’s still, at least on our side, too early to make an assessment there.
I’m going to take one more from the phone and then I will come back into the room. Phil Stewart, Reuters?
Q: Hey there, thanks. Real quick, General Milley made some comments yesterday, not just about the casualty count but also about the need to take opportunities for peace when they come along. I’m wondering if you could articulate the Secretary’s view on both the casualty numbers, whether they’re sustainable for the Ukrainians, on what they say about Russian tactics, and then also his views on, you know, whether or not opportunities for peace need to be seized with some urgency? Thank you.
MS. SINGH: Well, thanks, Phil, for the question. I think it’s important to remember — just taking a step back — that this war could end today or tomorrow. Vladimir Putin has the opportunity to end this war and to come to the table and I mean and frankly, withdraw his troops from Ukraine. We don’t see that happening.
The President has said, the Secretary has said that the way we see the end to this war is through diplomatic conversations, but again, we’re not seeing that the Russians are willing to let up, and frankly, continue to see their aggression on the battlefield and in cities all across Ukraine.
In terms of your other question on Chairman Milley’s comments, I think I’d let those comments speak to themselves. I don’t have anything further to add to that.
I’m going to come back into the room here — yeah, Mike. Hi.
Q: Semper Fi.
MS. SINGH: Semper Fi. I know. As I said it, I was like I’m going to get dragged for this. I’m so sorry. And I know this, so thank you. Yeah.
Q: Anyway …
MS. SINGH: I was just nervous.
Q: I can imagine. It’s a big day for those — for the Marines.
MS. SINGH: Oh, yeah, and I wanted to make sure I got the birthday right and then I just messed up the last line. So thank you, Mike.
Q: The HAWK was never used in combat when it was part of a U.S. inventory, and it’s been 20 years since the Marines have had it as a part of their — has the — Ukraine used it at all yet or are they still in the sort of refurbishment — have they gotten any to use so far?
MS. SINGH: So we announced the refurbishment of the HAWK missiles just last week, so those will be going out for a contract to get refurbished. So in terms of what we have in our stocks, no, those have not gone over there.
Now, you have seen that Spain and other countries have provided other air defense systems. So in terms of …
Q: But specifically the HAWK, I mean, so none of them have been used — Ukraine has never used …
MS. SINGH: Not ours, but remember Spain did provide their HAWK system. So I would direct you to the Ukrainians for further comment on how effective they’ve been or how they’ve been using that but I wouldn’t be able to comment on that from here.
And did you have a second question? I’m sorry.
Q: Nope, that’s it.
MS. SINGH: OK, great. Anyone else? Yeah, Barbara?
Q: Without recounting necessarily all the public turmoil surrounding Twitter right now — it’s all out there, open source — what’s the Pentagon’s view right now for official accounts of senior leaders, starting with the Secretary, of commands, of military organizations? Not individual troops personal accounts, all the official accounts. How confident are you in the security of Twitter, given the concerns about accounts being diverted? And what is your Department of Defense policy on paying money to Twitter for the blue verification check?
MS. SINGH: Yeah, thank you for the question. So we’re seeing Twitter change its policies day by day. So therefore, I don’t really have an answer for you yet on what is going to happen to the personal accounts or the accounts of senior leaders, such as the Department of Defense or the Secretary. It’s something that we’re working through.
In terms of paying for the verification blue checkmark, again, it’s something that we’re trying to figure out what makes the most sense for this department but I don’t really have any further updates, as Twitter keeps changing its policies.
Q: Can you expand at all? When you say you’re working your way through it, what are the — and again, I want to be clear, I’m only asking you about official accounts, not the personal accounts of individuals — you’re working your way through it. What are the issues on the table for you that you’re trying to address? What are the concerns that you’re beginning to identify that you have? And how could you even potentially pay without — do you anticipate you would have to organize some kind of DOD-wide government contract to Twitter to be a vehicle to pay? So what are the issues that — can you expand on that?
MS. SINGH: Well, I think one of the biggest issues is that Twitter keeps changing exactly what it’s going to do. I think it was just yesterday some accounts saw a gray checkmark or verification next to their name, then that went away for some accounts. So it’s hard to — some of this is just speculating because we really don’t have a good grasp of what exactly the Twitter policy is going to be just yet.
So working through those issues, part of it is thinking through — you know, we have official accounts from the Department of Defense all the way down to our services, to the Marine Corps — Semper Fi — and I just — I don’t know that we have a good sense just yet until Twitter makes a more permanent decision of what we do with all of our accounts.
Q: One quick follow up.
MS. SINGH: Sure.
Q: Do you feel at this point that it’s still stable and, if you will, secure enough to be a vehicle for official communications from the people that have — from the organizations that have official accounts? Are you OK with it still right now?
MS. SINGH: So as of right now, you know, I have an official account here at the Pentagon, I use my official account, I feel safe using my official account. Twitter is a massive platform with huge reach. It would be tough to not be on the platform and not be able to reach people where they are, where they get their news, where they communicate, but again, I understand that, you know, Twitter’s going through a lot of changes right now.
So, as Twitter adjusts and makes changes we’re going to have to adjust and adapt too. As of right now I feel fine operating on the platform and I think our accounts do as well. And if that changes I’ll certainly let you know.
Great. I’m just going to go to the phones and then I will come back into the room.
Heather, USNI.
Q: Thank you so much. I was wondering if we can get an update on the maritime situation in the Black Sea right now. And if there’s been any discussions about extending the grain deal that was brokered by the U.N. and Turkey?
MS. SINGH: So in terms of the grain deal, I would refer you back to Turkey and the U.N. I don’t have any updates from here. The maritime picture remains unchanged. We haven’t seen major updates on either side. So, when there are I’d be happy to read that out and get back to you on that.
I’m going just go to one more and then I’ll come right back into the room. Valerie with Breaking Defense.
Q: Hi. Thanks so much for taking my question. I’ve got sort of a broader question. So, as the Pentagon sort of looks forward, you know, could the Russian retreat in Kherson have any impact on the weapons and security assistance for Ukraine as the conflict continues? Is the department expecting any new requirements as a result of these latest developments or are you guys sort of just seeing the continued demand for things like HIMARS, anti-drone equipment, some of the stuff that you guys provided today?
MS. SINGH: Yes, thank you for the question, Valerie. So, in terms of what the Ukrainians need and if there will be any changes on the battlefield with the possible withdrawal of Russians from Kherson City, again, we are in touch with the Ukrainians frequently, regularly. We are accessing what they need on the battlefield.
In the very beginning of this war, you know, when you heard us talking about Javelins and Stingers, right now we’re talking about HIMARS, we’re talking about just last week when we rolled out the Hawk missiles that need to be refurbished. We’re just — we’re talking about different equipment as the battlefield changes. And as we head into different environments and weather conditions as well.
So, we’re going to continue working with our Ukrainian counterparts, but also, this is not just the United States working to arm and support Ukraine. We have our partners and allies around the world. And as I mentioned, next week, on Wednesday, the Secretary will be convening a virtual contact — a virtual Ukraine defense contact group here at the Pentagon, which is again, just another opportunity for nearly 50 countries to come together to talk about what they can do to pull their resources and capabilities and systems for Ukraine as the fight continues.
I’m going to come back in the room. Yes, Tara.
Q: I noticed on the list of new systems and ammunition being provided, 20 million rounds of small arms ammunition. That’s a huge increase. Is the Pentagon providing this ammunition now if, you know, to date there had already been 65 million rounds. Have they already gone through that?
MS. SINGH: I don’t have an update in terms of what they’ve gone through and I certainly wouldn’t want to broadcast that. I think that’s something that the Ukrainians could answer for or would choose to answer for. I mean, this is a changing war, it’s a changing battlefield. It is dynamic and, of course, these rounds are being used. I wouldn’t be able to get into how quickly, but this is something that the Ukrainians expressed to us and to the department that they need. And so, we want to fulfill that requirement.
Great. And I think — oh, sorry. Yes? And then I’ll come back to back to you (inaudible ). I think you’re — oh, you’re good. OK.
Q: One more quick follow-up —
MS. SINGH: Sure.
Q: — on the Avengers. This is the first time they’re being sent to Ukraine?
MS. SINGH: Yes, this is a new capability that we are sending.
Q: And why now? Was it requested? If — could you just sort of expand a little on that?
MS. SINGH: Yes, sure. I mean, this is, again, we are in touch with our Ukrainian partners, and so we discuss with them what they need in this fight. We access what we can provide and what makes the most sense. So, this was a request that fulfilled a need that they wanted. And so, you know, I think this is something — this is an air defense system that’s going to compliment the other air defense systems, that not just the U.S. has provided, but other countries as well.
Yes. Louie — oh, and then I’ll come to Courtney. Yes, nice to see you.
Q: Good to see you. Regardless how the election turns out there’s going to be a new Congress coming in, a new session in January. You got some — about a dozen high-profile nominations for key posts in the building, you know, Radha Plumb, (inaudible). What are you going to do to try to get those confirmations through in this session? And if it’s not possible, that you’re going to have resubmit these nominations for the coming session.
MS. SINGH: No, thank you for that question. I mean, I think next week Congress is going to be returning, following the midterm elections and we have several highly qualified DOD civilian nominees that are caught up and have not been confirmed. Just to put this in a little bit of context, I mean as you know, the U.S. is facing an array of adversaries, both the acute threat of Russia and our pacing challenge when it comes to China. And then, not to mention, Iran and North Korea continuing to develop their own weapons capabilities.
But, we’re nearly two years into this administration, and yet, the percentage of DOD nominees confirmed by the Senate is lower than it was at this same point two years ago by — into the presidencies of Clinton, Bush, Obama and even Donald Trump. And this has been data that’s been collected by a non-partisan partnership for public service. So, the department is doing everything it can right now. But, with 12 highly qualified DOD civilian nominees, we’re a bit hamstrung here.
And so, we urge Congress to — we urge the Senate to confirm these nominees because they play a critical role in just managing recruitment, our budget, our physical health of the force and just to give a quick example here, when it comes to the PDAs that we’re announcing today, you know when it comes to accessing our own fighting capabilities, our acquisition leaders are so important in maintaining our weapons stocks, but yet the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment remains vacant.
Some of our nominees were submitted in November 2021 and still haven’t been confirmed. So, while we do see this as a small group of Republicans that are holding up our nominees, we believe these nominees are fully capable and they have bipartisan support. I mean, they were voted out of the committees and we just hope and urge the Senate to confirm them.
Yes?
Q: A follow-up, you listed that the administration is in what point, you know, that progress had been made on nominations. The Trump administration actually seemed to get along pretty well just by having acting people in these offices. Is that something that you feel is appropriate? Is it something that you want to get passed, given the concerns that you just raised?
MS. SINGH: Well I will say that anyone in an acting position, when they don’t have the full authority or they’re not the actual director, there’s still ambiguity within staff. There’s still decisions that need to be made by the actual you know whether it’s a deputy undersecretary, whether it’s having an acting doesn’t necessarily set the trajectory for how that department is going to look. That is what the person that is confirmed does.
I think a good example here is we talk about recruitment. We talk about how we are going to bring in more folks into our, into the Army, Navy, whatever it might be. And we have two positions open in the Manpower and Reserve Affairs in the Army and Navy that have yet to be confirmed. And those people were nominated in January of 2022.
So you can have an acting there but that person won’t necessarily be able to set the trajectory of like how are we going to set the long-term goals. And frankly it doesn’t, I don’t think it’s helpful to just have an acting person in that role. I think you need someone that has the support of Congress, has the support of the Senate to lead the organization as well. Yeah, Courtney.
Q: And just one thought, so does that mean that President Biden or Secretary Austin or someone is going to be lobbying Congress right now to push some of these people through for a vote? Like I think, I may be wrong about this, but I think that the I.G. has already been voted, has already been approved on the committee, just hasn’t been voted on?
MS. SINGH: That’s right.
Q: So you’ve had an acting for like 10 years now?
(CROSSTALK)
Q: (inaudible) A long time, right?
MS. SINGH: Right.
Q: Like is there going to be an effort to try to push that through before Congress changes over?
MS. SINGH: Well, that’s why we have our Legislative Affairs Team. They’re certainly doing the work. They’re in touch with Congress. I mean part of the work that is done, not just at the Secretary’s level but at a staff level is working with a senator’s office to answer any questions that they may have urged for these nominees to be confirmed. I don’t have anything to read out from the Secretary’s level, what he’s doing now but he put these people forward. You know he has chosen them to lead their respective departments and as you mentioned, someone from to lead the I.G. I think was one of the, I don’t have my, sorry, my whole list here but I believe that person’s name is submitted in January 2021. I mean we’re talking about like, you made a joke, but six years of not having like a fully confirmed person I mean that’s, I think that’s devastating to a department.
Q: And the names, just to be clear, if they aren’t confirmed by the end of this Congress they go back to the White House, have to be resubmitted, right?
MS. SINGH: Yeah.
Q: And then I have just another one.
MS. SINGH: Sure.
Q: I’m sorry if I missed this when I was walking in here.
MS. SINGH: Mm-hmm.
Q: Did you say how many of the HAWK missiles is providing as far as the U.S?
MS. SINGH: We have not.
Q: Is that why —
(CROSSTALK)
MS. SINGH: That’s just for OPSEC reasons. We do not, when I announced it last week we have HAWK missiles that are going to be refurbished but we just didn’t announce the number.
Q: Can you talk at all about anything about how the Ukrainian air defenses and the ammunition for them are holding up right now? If they are, and we hear so much about the need for air defenses, but no one ever really talks to us about they, like how much the Ukrainians are expending them in the current fight.
MS. SINGH: Well I think that’s a great question. I think it’s you know it’s a tough question to answer from here. I would want the Ukrainians to be able to speak to how they feel like they’re being able to employ them on the battlefield. But we’re seeing success with some of the systems that we have given them and I mean we’re basically creating, I may be using a bad analogy here but a net of air defense systems of different ranges that allows them to whatever it’s the HAWK missiles or the IRIST that the Germans provided or what we are providing today with the four Avenger air defense systems. All of them have different ranges. All of them contribute differently on the battlefield, which makes the Ukrainians effective. I would let them speak to what they feel is most effective on and their usage when they go through them.
Q: I only ask about I understand the idea of creating this innovated air defense system like you know —
(CROSSTALK)
MS. SINGH: Yeah.
Q: — and that’s fine but I don’t understand why it’s you can say that there’s 192 Stingers but can’t say how many HAWKS there are, what the difference is, why one is an OPSEC issue and one’s not.
MS. SINGH: Well I mean we —
(CROSSTALK)
Q: (inaudible) — doesn’t click —
MS. SINGH: Yeah.
Q: — like a sense of the scope —
MS. SINGH: Yeah.
Q: — of what they have, what they, or how much they’re burning through.
MS. SINGH: Yeah, no I mean the HAWK missiles are again a longer-range missile. I think giving a number like 50 HAWK missiles and this is again just an example, you know, then you’re setting yourself up for like okay are the Russians going to count how many go and therefore they can see okay they only have 30 left, therefore we can move in. I mean that’s a very simplistic way of thinking, like of how I just gave the example but that’s why we don’t want to get into some of these numbers. It doesn’t give us or it doesn’t give the Ukrainians an advantage to necessarily talk about that publicly.
I mean we would let them talk about it, if that’s something they want to do. Then they can. But certainly we wouldn’t want to do that for them.
Great. I’m going to take just two more from the phone and then I can come back in the room. Kasim are you there?
Q: Yes. Hi. And something I have two questions actually. One, we were talking about NASAMS. What happened to NASAMS and why Avengers and not NASAMS? And my second question, Russia announced that it is withdrawing from Kherson area. How do you characterize it? How do you characterize Russian withdrawal from Kherson?
MS. SINGH: I’ll take the second question first. So, again as I mentioned, we’re seeing some indications of Russian forces withdrawing from Kherson City. But it’s too early to make a full assessment of what that looks like, what that means. In terms of your second question, I think there was earlier this week that the Ukrainians did confirm they have received the first NASAMS that we announced in July. To date we’ve committed eight NASAMS in security assistance to Ukraine. That’s something that has been announced in previous security assistance packages.
I don’t have additional details at this time on when the rest of the six NASAMS will be delivered. But we’ll be happy to keep you updated if and when I have more information.
Great. I’m going to take one more from the room and then really had one more question here. Steve, military.com. Okay. Alright, nothing heard. Back to you. Yeah?
Q: I’m just following up before you said —
MS. SINGH: Sure.
Q: You keep referring to Spain HAWK system. They’ve committed actually six systems as of today, you know two additional. When you talk about the HAWK refurbishing, are you talking about missile systems or are you talking about the missiles themselves?
MS. SINGH: The missiles themselves. That need to be refurbished so they can be used for the HAWKS.
Q: So in other words this is a way of providing the Ukrainians with the supply of missiles that can then be used for —
MS. SINGH: With the missile system that Spain provided. Does that make sense?
Q: Yes.
MS. SINGH: Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Q: Is there something that hasn’t — actually hasn’t been clarified…
MS. SINGH: Yeah.
Q: … over the last week, so…
MS. SINGH: Yeah, no problem.
Q: Did you say how long it would also take for that refurbishment? Like, when we might start seeing some of those delivered?
MS. SINGH: I don’t have a timeline on that yet. It’s something that, maybe as you know, we announced last week in the seventh security assistance package. We will — you know, they have to go out for a contract and refurbishing, but I don’t have a timeline on that yet.
Q: And that’s being paid for by USAI, right?
MS. SINGH: That’s right.
Q: Even though this is a PDA?
MS. SINGH: That’s right. So it’s being paid for by USAI for the contract to refurbish these missiles. I think Mike had mentioned, you know, we don’t use these HAWKS anymore. But they’re coming off of our shelves, so that’s why it’s being announced through the PDA, as well. But the money to refurbish them is through the USAI. I know, it’s a lot.
I’m sorry, you had one question here? Are you good? No? Anything else before we wrap up?
OK, well, happy Thursday, everyone. Thank you so much for joining me today, and I hope you have a good weekend. Thanks. All right.
$400M additional US assistance for Ukraine will be advantageous both for defense and for the liberation of Ukrainian lands.
Modern equipment + a modern #UAarmy will defeat soviet scrap metal + murderers, rapists & looters.
Thank you to @POTUS @SecDef and the American people. pic.twitter.com/pTQLXbchHd— Oleksii Reznikov (@oleksiireznikov) November 10, 2022
I’m not sure if this is included in the aid package:
We are a nation with these sorts of biotechnologies…
Friends, we are invincible! pic.twitter.com/Z5dcy2grPu— Defense of Ukraine (@DefenceU) November 9, 2022
This is an interesting piece of analysis regarding Putin:
THREAD 1/5 From the start of the invasion, there has been speculation that military failure could lead to the downfall of Vladimir Putin. https://t.co/dVeP9eAYcX
— Alexander Baunov (@baunov) November 10, 2022
3/5 In the eyes of dissatisfied Russians, any form of resistance to the west is a victory, almost regardless of the end result. https://t.co/34b6miIBjE
— Alexander Baunov (@baunov) November 10, 2022
5/5 My todays’ piece in the @FinancialTimes . Tomorrow on paper https://t.co/dVeP9eT7r5
— Alexander Baunov (@baunov) November 10, 2022
For those of you interested in how Russia goes about stealing Ukrainian grain, this is the podcast for you:
Don’t miss this week’s Behind the Money:
“This is the dictionary definition of looting.” @polinaivanovva takes us inside how she, @laurapitel & @xtophercook tracked a shipment of grain out of occupied Ukraine earlier this summer.
🎧: https://t.co/bKR87pLlqT pic.twitter.com/2DzeqIMUUM
— Michela Tindera (@mtindera07) November 9, 2022
That’s enough for tonight.
Your daily Patron!
PAWer 🐾 pic.twitter.com/jheFqgkWkz
— Patron (@PatronDsns) November 10, 2022
And a new video from Patron’s official TikTok:
@patron__dsns Майже взяв ноту)) @geenafontanella @anthony_gargiula 😄 #irememberwhen #riffchallenge #песпатрон
And here’s the machine translation of the caption:
Almost took a note)) @geenafontanella @anthony_gargiula 😄 #irememberwhen #riffchallenge #PatrontheDog
Open thread!
sanjeevs
Adam
As always thanks for your updates.
I see Biden thinks he can continue to support Ukraine uninterrupted. Do you think the Republicans will prevent it, if they win the House with a small majority?
Could the Democrats vote a large budget to support Ukraine for the next year during the lame duck session?
Anoniminous
All kinds of reports from Russian and Ukrainian sources Ukrainian Special Forces and elements of the Intelligence Directorate are in Kherson and have hooked-up with partisan groups that have been operating in the city.
Somewhat fewer reports of fighting in the outskirts, airport, and in the city.
Gin & Tonic
This is one happy Ukrainian:
Alison Rose
If I could insert a GIF, it would be that one with Kermit excitedly waving his arms around!!
I was very glad too to see the new package we’re sending. Usually I hate weapons but when we’re giving them to Ukraine to kick russian ass, I love them.
I saw a couple videos earlier of Ukrainian flags being raised with people gathered around singing the anthem, and it legit made me tear up, just like all the videos of liberators rolling past homes where everyone is cheering and running out to hug them and stuff. I pray this continues and they make more and more gains. I don’t know what would constitute defeat for putin, but seeing his loser army get pummeled back to the motherland is a good start for me.
Thank you as always, Adam.
Adam L Silverman
@sanjeevs: I expect a large package in the lame duck. If the GOP ekes out a majority it is going to be very slim. Which is a guarantee that the House will be completely dysfunctional and unstable. I’m not sure they’d actually be able to elect a speaker.
Adam L Silverman
@Anoniminous: Until I see better confirmation, it wouldn’t surprise me, but I’m not putting it in the update.
Anoniminous
@Adam L Silverman:
Yes, SOF and partisans don’t go announcing where they are what they are doing, That would be ………. silly. Previous Ukrainian Operations used Special Forces to push ahead as scouts to provide reconnaissance for the following ground forces and Forward Observation and fire correction for the indirect fire weapons.
And I owe you an apology. I was more than a little obnoxious shit before the invasion. So – I apologize. You were right and I was wrong.
Kyle Rayner
Good news just keeps snowballing this week. Need us a week like this after all that building tension.
Adam L Silverman
@Anoniminous: No worries and no need to apologize.
John Revolta
I imagine the re-entry into Kherson means that Patron and his buddies have their work cut out for them. Here’s hoping they all stay safe!
Librarian
I’ve seen reports that Russian soldiers in Kherson are being told to change into civilian clothes and get out of the city however they can.
Alison Rose
@John Revolta: When Zelenskyy was talking about all the demining to be done, I was like, Patron is on it!!! Well, not just him, of course. But I’m sure he’ll sniff out a bunch of them.
Ken
I posted this in one of the earlier threads, but I remain fascinated by this Russian TV host‘s discussion of his dilemma reporting on Kherson.
Frankensteinbeck
@sanjeevs:
There is nowhere even close to unanimity among elected Republicans on this issue. McCarthy could slow things down a lot by preventing a vote until a budget or other necessary vote comes up. When it does, Democrats will put aid to Ukraine in it and it will pass. Republicans are shitty, shitty negotiators, and have relied entirely on obstruction, on blocking votes from happening, since Obama was elected.
Tony G
On New York City radio station WBAI this evening, Chris Hedges and “Medea” Benjamin spent almost an hour pontificating about how Putin was forced into that Special Military Operation in February, and how U.S. aid to Ukraine is unnecessarily prolonging the war. Not a word, of course, about whether the Ukrainian people have a right to defend themselves from invaders. The smugness of their tone of voice matched the obsequiousness of the content of what they were saying. A disgrace.
Omnes Omnibus
@Tony G: Why listen?
MomSense
@Alison Rose:
I actually think that he is most valuable as an ambassador of sorts. I want him to not go sniffing mines. Too many people are too attached to him at this point. When he didn’t post for a day or too I was seriously worried.
Anonymous At Work
Adam,
Did Russia know about the ATACMS!!! [sic] before now, or just suspect? And what do they change about the retreat/rout in Kherson? Does it put the Kerch Bridge in that much more danger, having UA forces closer?
Also, what I’m reading is that UA is chewing down the forces by smashing the concentrations around the river crossings. Will they keep using artillery or are they planning to use mobile infantry to take prisoners and materiel before too long?
Anonymous At Work
@Frankensteinbeck: Discharge petitions are hard to pull off and would require 60 votes in the Senate to match as well. While the post-election period takes the pressure off, it also takes the pressure off.
And Manchin has shut down using the post-election period for budget reconciliation or debt ceiling, so it’s unlikely that UA aid will get passed either.
UA’s best hope is DeathSantis’s indifference. If DeathSantis and Trump go at it over any topic, I can’t imagine Republicans wanting anything to do with it. If both oppose something, neither forgives, forgets, or turns the other cheek.
Omnes Omnibus
Everyone loves talking about the HIMARS and ATACMs and all that fancy stuff. Over 21,000 rounds of 155 ammo is a shitload of devastation just waiting to happen.
Chetan Murthy
@Alison Rose: Impressive OPSEC both in UA, and in the US, eh? I mean, A FUCKING MONTH they kept that under wraps. *Impressive*! I get why UA didn’t leak. But neither did our end, and given how many people had an incentive to leak that news ….. boy howdy it’s impressive. Somebody runs a tight, tight, tight ship.
Tony G
Good question. Masochism I guess. The same reason why I listen to Sean Hannity from time to time. Find out what the latest propaganda is.
Anonymous At Work
@Omnes Omnibus: Everyone just kinda assumes that the entire first and second lines of fixed position defenses south of Kherson are toast. With HIMARS, you destroy the RU artillery that could strike back. With the 155 mm HE rounds, UA fixed position artillery is about to get a long winter of live-fire target practice (and the RU defenses get closed caskets or PTSD).
planetjanet
Okay, I don’t understand weapons systems. HIMARS I sort of understand. What makes ATACMS special?
And thanks to Adam for my daily feed of important news. You are a blessing.
Anoniminous
@Omnes Omnibus:
155’s have been know to ruin people’s day.
Frankensteinbeck
@Anonymous At Work:
I said nothing about discharge petitions. I said when a vote, like a budget, comes up that Republicans have to pass in some form, Democrats will add Ukraine funding to it and Republicans won’t have the uniform will to block it. That will certainly happen at least once next year.
I can. Easily. Republicans were ignoring what Trump demanded in legislation while he was president. DeSantis has even less power outside of Florida. If DeSantis pitches a fit about Ukraine, no one will give a shit. What’s he going to do, campaign against them in the midterms?
Seriously, I was paying attention to this during Trump’s presidency, and again and again votes would come up for stuff like budgets, Trump would say “I want this in it”, and Republicans… ignored him. They didn’t even turn him down. Everyone acted like he hadn’t spoken. DeSantis and Trump can scream their heads off and it will not affect Ukraine funding.
Martin
I didn’t think the PrSM was operational until next year.
zhena gogolia
@Gin & Tonic: It’s that time of year for Slavs. (Not me, I didn’t inherit that gene from my tatínek,)
Another Scott
@Omnes Omnibus: It seems like they’re going through it rapidly though.
BI (from September):
(Emphasis added.)
The M795 shell sounds, er, unpleasant to be under:
A hundred pound fragmentation shell falling on you at 2800 ft/sec from 14 miles away can’t be pleasant.
VVP’s people should go home.
Grr…,
Scott.
zhena gogolia
@Tony G: Vomit.
Anonymous At Work
@Frankensteinbeck: Last time Republicans held the House, their reconciliation bills never had amendments. In fact, in 2017, their attempt to overturn Obamacare had hand-written notes in the margin. They won’t give the Democrats a chance; MTG will be wearing McCarthy’s “raisins” around her neck like a trophy.
As for inserting it into “must-pass” legislation, I imagine we’ll see a government shutdown of 2-3 weeks next year if the GOP wins the House, simply because the GOP will be unable to pass anything.
David Anderson
@Adam L Silverman: We’re going to get a master class in Speaker Pelosi’s value above replacement as a Speaker with a narrow majority for the next two years….
Hell, there is a good chance that she’ll be the de facto speaker on budget and big policy bills as those are going to pass with 200 Democrats and 30 Republicans most of the time.
Amir Khalid
It’s remarkable that a fair bit of the punditry on this war has been about the need to avoid needlessly provoking Putin — Putin, who invaded and annexed Crimea without provocation; who had MH17 shot down, again without provocation, so he could try to frame Ukraine; who launched this clusterfuck of a re-invasion without provocation.
There was never any point in that. Putin will do what he means to do, regardless. He hasn’t done anything here in response to provocation. He invaded Ukraine because he wants to reconstitute the old Russian empire and be the new Tsar. But his military is not what it was in Soviet times. It has shown itself unfit for purpose against a determined and disciplined army. He has had to resort to nasty but mostly empty threats. If he does launch a nuke at Ukraine, or carries out any of his other threats, it will be part of the plan and not because he was provoked.
Gin & Tonic
@Another Scott:
On the bright side, you won’t have long to ponder the unpleasantness.
Frankensteinbeck
@Anonymous At Work:
And then a budget will pass, and same as during Obama’s administration, it will be a compromise bill because Republicans can’t negotiate or control their own caucus for shit. Democrats will care enough to demand Ukraine funding. Republicans won’t care enough to make it a point of contention.
Martin
@planetjanet: 190 mile range (maybe more) and very precise. Basically it allows Ukraine to hit important targets at some distance – ammo, rail lines, bridges, etc.
The rockets they have been getting before have a range closer to 60 miles and have a smaller warhead. Still very accurate, a long enough range to hit Russian artillery without being targeted by that artillery, but also smaller warhead. Good for taking out vehicles, ammo, etc. but not so much bridges or the really critical infrastructure that lets Russia operate.
ATACMS could maybe hit the Kerch bridge from Kherson and do serious damage. It can certainly fuck up ships at Sevastopol.
David Anderson
@planetjanet: Much longer range than HIMARS/MLRS and a bigger warhead. HIMARs can reach ~85km (50 miles) while ATACMS can reach just under 300 Km (180 miles or so). If Ukraine has ATACMS and they have them in substantial numbers, pretty much all of Crimea is targetable on a recurring basis and the entire Russian logistics system in Eastern Ukraine can be ATACMS much like the frontal logistical system in DONBAS was HIMARs over the summer.
Torrey
@Librarian:
I think I’ve seen a couple of reports to that effect as well. I’m at least a half dozen wars out of date, but don’t soldiers wearing civilian clothes get shot as spies? Or does it, in the current circumstance, mean they might stay alive long enough to be captured by the Ukrainians and have a chance at a hot meal, a call home and maybe a bit more life expectancy?
Adam L Silverman
@Anonymous At Work: I have no idea what Russia’s intel is like. In terms of what’s now in range, it depends on how many ATACMS we provided. But think about the 160 mile radius from any positions the Ukrainian military hold and can protect a HIMARS launch vehicle.
David Anderson
@Anonymous At Work: Won’t matter — any bill that advances has to get Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden’s approval. MTG can power bottom the GOP House caucus but the 218th member of the GOP caucus will be representing a seat that Biden won by 15-20 points. Their interests are very different than a representative whose seat Trump won by 40.
Chetan Murthy
@Torrey: via dKos (Mark Sumner)
Pete Mack
There is little evidence that Kerch was anything but a truck bomb. I don’t see how 500lb high explosive could do that much damage, and HIMARS hitting an ammo truck is a million to one. As for the claim that the strike had to be below the bridge: look up elastic rebound from explosions. “Rips blast doors from their hinges and locks” is a paraphrase. If the explosion HAD been under the bridge it would have reflected downwards, not immediately engulfed the truck AND set several train cars on fire.
Another Scott
@Pete Mack: I was confused by Adam’s statement there too, but I think he’s talking about a future bridge attack predicted by the grinning HIMARS picture, not about the truck bombing. An unfortunate tense choice.
Corrections welcome.
Cheers,
Scott.
planetjanet
@Martin: @David Anderson: Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. I always learn things when I come here.
Chetan Murthy
@Another Scott: awwwww, *you*. Why you gotta inject reality into my fantasy of ATACMS takin’ out the Kerch Strait bridge? *grin
Adam L Silverman
@Amir Khalid: Yep. And not just the punditry, but those advising the President too.
Anonymous At Work
@David Anderson: Love the expressions but I am thinking that the GOP wouldn’t have a stable enough caucus to elect a Speaker and whomever it was would get swept out anytime they even spoke to Biden. Unless the House changes its rule, the vote for Speaker requires a majority, not plurality.
Martin
@planetjanet: Should add the PrSM missile they are referring to is brand new (not sure any production missiles have been delivered yet) so it seems to me unlikely that Ukraine would get the first ones, but it could possibly hit the Kremlin from Ukrainian occupied territory. Lot of range on that one.
These of course assume that they can’t get shot down by defensive systems.
Adam L Silverman
@Pete Mack: @Another Scott: It was not a truck bomb.
Alison Rose
@David Anderson:
Jesus fuck, I did not need that concept in my brain.
Grumpy Old Railroader
From any distance! Young Grumpy was in the infantry when we were prancing through the woods of the Central Highlands looking for mushrooms and we crested a hill and spotted some NVA at a blue line at the base of said hill. We hunkered down and called in some arty from the nearest firebase which happened to be 155 mm and directly behind us a few klicks away. Let me just say when we heard the first 155 round whistling over our heads we were all giddy and pumped with adrenaline but then a short round came whizzing in and exploded about 50 meters in front of us and everybody started looking for a hidey hole. Yeah, you don’t wanna be around when that stuff is incoming. Oh yeah, when the bombardment let up we swept the area but didn’t find anything. We debated on whether they were destroyed or got away so called in in as confirmed body count of 3 (which was how many we spotted). Was it true? Don’t know but definitely not confirmed. The military rewarded lies and BS back then.
But my point is look for cover when you hear that 155 whistling.
cain
@Adam L Silverman: We need to show that when we were in charge we were passing bills that were very popular.
Bill Arnold
Biden:
This demonstrates a strength of Biden’s imprecise speaking style and reputation for gaffes. He could have simply dropped a “up to” in an intended “goes up to about 160 miles”. He also didn’t say that they were being supplied, just that the longer range (PRsM?) missiles were not. But Russians and others will assume the worse case for the Russians, that the US is supplying 300 km range missiles.
And the Russians will now have to plan for the increased probability that their high-military-value targets at 250 km behind the lines may suddenly start blowing in missile strikes at a time of Ukraine’s choosing.
Also, wikipedia suggests that 1000 km range PrSMs are in development; again, if missiles with that range have not been publicly deployed (have they?), Biden is dropping a deniable hint that they are in production.
Another Scott
@Adam L Silverman: Um, yes it (overwhelmingly likely) was.
But we’ve been through that.
Cheers,
Scott.
Martin
@Another Scott: Protip: If Adam says with certainty it wasn’t a truck bomb, then it wasn’t a truck bomb. Adam knows stuff that we’re not allowed to know.
Gin & Tonic
@Another Scott: Thing about that article is that the author knows zero about engineering or explosives.
Redshift
Finally! They’re sending The Avengers to Ukraine!!! 😉
Another Scott
@Martin: Adam is not an expert in explosives and is trusting Chuck’s speculations too much.
IMO.
Adam brings a lot to these discussions and I’m thankful for his efforts and willingness to engage with us. But he makes mistakes too.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Martin
@Bill Arnold: We know PrSM is in production. They’re scheduled to be deployed very soon. The unknowns are:
Another Scott
@Gin & Tonic: Hayda at NPR cites sources that are experts and gives reasons for their opinions. AFAIK, Chuck hasn’t.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Bill Arnold
@Martin:
In particular, the railway bridge. Munitions and/or fuel trains would be attractive targets, and/or the supports.
Martin
@Another Scott: I know he makes mistakes, but I don’t know him to speak overconfidently. He qualifies when he doesn’t know. In fact, my sense is he gets a lot of shit for qualifying as much as he does.
But he can answer for himself.
OverTwistWillie
Chatter that the Ukrainians have air superiority over the right bank.
Gin & Tonic
@Another Scott: IMO, reporters who quote competing experts in areas they know nothing about are not providing a valuable service. They could be getting played and don’t know it.
Bill Arnold
@Martin:
Good points.
Re the 1000 km range variant, Janes:
US Army conducts ‘static’ test with ramjet for future Precision Strike Missile (Ashley Roque, 13 MAY 2022)
ETA that means that the version being produced would not have the range to reach Moscow from Ukraine. That’s an important point for risk calculations.
Redshift
@Anonymous At Work:
We’ll see. Manchin has a history of declaring he absolutely won’t support something, holding to that right up to the point where a deal is worked out for him to support it.
Geminid
@Anonymous At Work: Manchin “shut down” further negotiations on the BBB Bill in July. In August, he and Schumer announced the “Inlation Reduction Act.” I would not rule out possible legislation until the Lame Duck session is concluded.
Adam L Silverman
@Martin: No I don’t. It wasn’t a truck bomb because I’m not stupid enough to fall for the Russian agitprop claiming it was a truck bomb heading from Russia into Crimea.
Edited to add and for clarity: Everything that goes into these updates is solely from reading open sources. That’s been the case since the first one, it’s been the case for the posts I did in the months ahead of the re-invasion stating there would be a re-invasion. And that’s also why I link to or embed every source I’m using in the post.
Cameron
@Adam L Silverman: Was that the story where it was claimed that the bomb traveled through multiple countries to wind up in Russia, headed for Crimea? That sounded pretty squirrelly to me, although I know so little about warfare that I have no idea if such a thing were likely (or even possible) or not.
Adam L Silverman
@Another Scott: You do understand what Chuck Pfarrer’s job was, right? He is an explosives expert. The BUD in BUD/S stands for basic underwater demolitions. SEALS jobs are to blow things like bridges up. Could he be wrong? Always a possibility. But he’s blown up more stuff in his life than the people NPR interviewed. Also, he actually puts his name on his analysis. Which is more than can be said of a lot of people.
Adam L Silverman
@Martin: Leave it be.
Adam L Silverman
@Cameron: That was it. Complete with video of the truck being inspected before being allowed onto the bridge. The Russians need that story out and accepted because it covers up for their air defense of the bridges which they’d spent months hyping. This way the failure is placed on a bunch of border guards and diverted from whomever was passing lies up the chain of command that they had 360 degree air defense coverage in all directions.
Geminid
@Bill Arnold: The US may also be providing technical assistance to Ukraines own shorter-range ballistic missile program. In 2018 the Ukrainians tested a missile with a 500 kilogram warhead and a possible range of 500 kilometers. Since then the status of this Hrim-2 missile has been obscure, but in 2020 the government announced that the program would proceed, with a projected delivery date in 2022.
Carlo Graziani
@Adam L Silverman: Adam, Biden misspoke. He was clearly confused. There is no missile fired from a HIMARS unit that “flies 600 miles” and that was denied to the Ukrainians. That’s what he thinks ATACMS is. He was talking about having given them the regular-strength M-31 missiles. For the last time, and for the love of reason, there was no ATACMS bank shot off the road span of the Kerch bridge. It was just a boring old truck. I’m so sorry.
Another Scott
@Adam L Silverman: Yes, I know who he is.
Officials from US Special Operations are saying the book “SEAL Target Geronimo” by former Navy SEAL Chuck Pfarrer is full of “fabrications” and that Pfarrer’s version of the attack on Osama bin Laden is untrue.
“It’s just not true,” U.S. Special Operations Command spokesman Col. Tim Nye told the Associated Press. “It’s not how it happened.”
We’ve all got our biases – none of us are there – and ways of thinking about things. I’ve laid out mine. I don’t call people “stupid” or think that disagreement means falling for “Russian agitprop” if they disagree.
Lashing out is not a good look, Adam.
Cheers,
Scott.
Dan B
@Adam L Silverman: Thanks for the clarification. The theories piqued my curiosity so it’s nice to have the loose ends and foggy theories pointed out in detail. It’s also very good to know that Uiraine can likely do more similar damage.
Geminid
@Another Scott: What does Pfarrar’s credibility have to do with this question? Do you really think people are rejecting the truck bomb thesis on his say so alone?
frosty
I’m going to pour one out for Nancy. She’s been in the game a long time, her husband has been attacked, and I bet she thought she’d retire some time. She’s given us more than we could have expected.
On the other hand she’s a Baltimore D’Allesandro. Kicking ass can be a sport.
Adam L Silverman
@Another Scott: For seven years you’ve been consistently telling me I’m wrong while hiding behind a pseudonym. And for seven years I’ve been right while using my actual name. And when I push back I’m lashing out, but when you push back it’s just good natured disagreement? Trust me, you’ve not actually seen me lash out. And I don’t need someone hiding behind a pseudonym to police my tone. If I turn out to be wrong, I’m wrong. And I think I’ve done a good job of marking that to market and noting it over the years. But I’m sure you’ll let everyone know if I haven’t.
Dan B
@Geminid: It seems to me that there are reasons to believe that the truck crossing several borders makes it much less likely to have been the source of the explosion, and the unknown of whether or not Ukraine has a powerful enough missle to do this kind of damage means that we don’t know but some hypotheticals are weaker.
Carlo Graziani
@Adam L Silverman: The missile theory is about the stupidest theory of all the stupid theories, and the fact that Pfarrer buys it is practically proof that it’s amateur-hour bullshit.
In the first place, if it was an ATACMS, they hit it with the wrong warhead, because they should have used the APAM bomblet dispersal to be sure to take down the bridge spans.
They also somehow hit the wrong bridge span, despite the 30ft CEP of the ATACMS — either that or they were deliberately going for a trick bank shot, because they like pool or something.
Also, somehow, there has been no leak of any kind to the Post by the usual suspects who like to brag about, say, knowledge of Ukrainian wet ops in Moscow, or extent of CIA’s penetration of Kremlin’s affairs, about how the most high-profile prestige weapon requested by the Ukrainians was supplied and used a month ago for the most spectacular strike of the war. Right.
And, meanwhile, the Ukrainian government has been practically weeping in public and begging openly for the US to provide ATACMS. But all along it was a clever ruse! They had it! The range is a bit off, to hear the President tell it, but no matter.
This is all horseshit. The President misspoke. Ukraine has no ATACMS. They may not get them — the US has about 280 upgraded ones in its own inventory, which is probably the real reason for the foot-dragging — there’s no supply chain to make more.
Another Scott
@Geminid: People have their reasons, and they can cite them. I’m not in the mood for mind reading tonight. Whatever VVP’s reasons for saying what it was or wasn’t has nothing to do with the reality of what happened. DarthPutinKGB’s mantra, “Don’t believe anything until the Kremlin denies it” is fine, but not necessarily applicable in the converse. ;-)
Adam has cited Chuck as someone saying that it wasn’t a truck bomb. I don’t find him (Chuck) persuasive, not just because I don’t find him credible. Adam can cite others if he wants, or not. It’s up to him.
But, really, it doesn’t matter. It was a throw-away line in his post tonight and distracted from the rest of the post.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Geminid
@frosty: Speaker Pelosi has yet to say whether she’ll stand for a leadership position in the next Congress. I won’t be surprised if she announces that she will step aside, and Hoyer and Clyburn do the same.
If they do there will be contests, but I expect the 4th, 5th and 6th ranking current leadership members will form the next leadership team.
way2blue
I wanted to share this poignant story from Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) that he sent out on Tuesday—in case people hadn’t seen it. (Read to the end):
frosty
@Alison Rose: I was today years old when I looked up Power Bottom in Urban Dictionary. The things you learn from a Full Service Blog!
Anoniminous
Anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 Russians are trapped on the west side of the Dnipro. Russian milbloggers saying their soldiers are bunched at the crossing points and receiving ever increasing artillery fire as the Ukrainian Army brings more artillery into range.
This is an absolute disaster for the Russian Army.
frosty
@Geminid: I hope she and the others do step aside, there are good leadership candidates waiting in the wings. I also hope she’ll be standing right behind them with all her experience.
Ken B
@MomSense: I think that Patron has been put on permanent PR/morale boosting duty. I think the Ukrainian government has made the same assessment that he’s more valuable in that role than sniffing out bombs.
YY_Sima Qian
@Adam L Silverman:
@Bill Arnold:
@Martin:
The PSrM is only scheduled to reach initial operational capability in 2023, & IOC means you can use it in desperation if the PLA is marching down streets of Tokyo to Honolulu, but otherwise it is not yet reliable enough to be fully operational. The GMLRS rockets & the ATACMS missile are mature products.
The 1K km range is only achieved when the ramjet version of PSrM under development, still years away. In fact, it sounds like cruise missile that should have a separate designation. Why would one put a ramjet on a ballistic missile?
Finally, not sure giving Ukraine a weapon w/ range of 1K kms is advisable or necessary. The UAF only needs to place Belgorod & Rostov-on-Don at consistent risk to defeat the Russian invasion, or at least make the logistical support of occupation untenable.
Only the US, the UK & Australia are schedule to operate the PSrM. After the war, does Ukraine give back the HIMARS & the unused munitions?
Yutsano
I’mma let y’all finish, but it looks like Mark Kelly gets six more years.
Alison Rose
@Yutsano: fuck yeah
SectionH
@YY_Sima Qian: quite seriously, Ukraine had a lot of nukes back in the day. 1/3 of the entire USSR’s nukes. And IN GOOD FAITH, as part post-Soviet (1994, cheating by googling) disarmanent talks, standing down the triggers on both sides, they let the Russians cart ALL THEIR NUKES back to Russia. They gave them up, freely.
I may not have the details all correct, but that is basically what happened. So I’m kinda seriously fine with trusting Ukrainians with whatever weapons NATO wants to give them.
GibberJack
@Alison Rose: I thought it was perfect.
Sebastian
What a great update! Thank you, Adam!
Happy Veterans Day!
A day for the history books, isn’t it?
11/11/22 The Elimination of the Russian Army
I am reading Telegram and Twitter OSINT and RUMINT about unspeakable massacres and losses.
YY_Sima Qian
@SectionH: Nukes that Ukraine could not fire because all of the launch codes were in Moscow.
GibberJack
@Bill Arnold: Ramjet…. basically a surface-to-surface Bomarc?
sab
@YY_Sima Qian: Why does no one remember this?
Kind of like Scotland in the UK.
Sebastian
@Carlo Graziani:
I’ll respectfully disagree, Carlo. The UKR Gov’s public pleas might have been a ruse to keep Russia’s guard down.
The truck story was embraced by Russia, and for me, that’s immediately suspicious. Timing the truck and the fuel train is nearly impossible, too.
As to explosives and demolition, the experts said what they said.
We will know more moderately soon, but for the time being, I am in camp ATACMS.
Sebastian
@way2blue:
Those women were Ukrainians. His experience might have been different in Surgut.
J R in WV
I noticed with interest that along with the tens of thousands of “regular” 155mm shells were several hundred “high-precision” 155mm shells — and I wondered about the specific advantages of those high-precision shells, when would an arty unit decide those were needed today for this specific mission, etc.
Thanks, Adam, for all the work you do putting these reports together for us jackals, highly useful for tracing a dynamic situation a very long way away from home. And a lot of work, I’m sure. What a hobby!
Chetan Murthy
@J R in WV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
Guidance
system
GPS, inertial navigation
Accuracy
4 m CEP
Unit cost
US$112.8k (FY2021 President’s Budget Request)
They’re a little cheaper than GMLRS rockets (shot from HIMARS) but can be shot from any 155mm artillery tube. I’d guess that the latter is the big win.
lowtechcyclist
@David Anderson:
The problem, assuming the GOP gets at least 218 Representatives, is that they’ll control what comes to the floor. If they don’t bring it there, it doesn’t happen.
So whoever the GOP chooses as Speaker, or even if they aren’t capable of choosing one, ineffectuality on their part works just as much against getting needed legislation through as their bitter opposition would.
jlowe
There is wisdom of sort in not supplying Ukraine very long range munitions, if “wisdom” can be applied to any aspect of this madness. But it denies them the ability to shape the battlefield and have military success that might convince Russia to open negotiations. Does this condemn Ukraine to be bled-out by their much larger adversary? I suspect it’s on the minds of many Ukrainians and that they’re pretty irritated at us about it.
Geminid
@lowtechcyclist: A majority party’s control of what legislation gets voted on is not absolute. If all the Democrats and the requisite niumber of Republicans sign a discharge petition a meaure can make it to the floor. In the particular instance of aid to Ukraine, the Republican leader might tolerate this kind of defection as long as the defectors toe the line on other matters.
Carlo Graziani
Mostly to Adam, but to everyone else as well:
I feel badly about the tone of what I posted yesterday. Something about the way the conversation came together last night hit some bad trigger points for everyone, including me, and I regret that I made things worse instead of making an effort to think twice before hitting “send”. The “Kerch was a missile” thing strikes me as so obviously wrong that I go into “everyone else must be stupid” mode when it comes up, which is a bad, bad mode. I could obviously be wrong. Combine it with a few other trigger elements in the soup last night, and, well, I guess I can behave just as badly as anyone else.
I apologize for the snark, it was totally out of line.
Another Scott
(via nycsouthpaw)
Cheers,
Scott.
way2blue
@Sebastian: Yes. I think that was Tom’s unspoken point. The story was embedded in a plea for people (here) to vote as if it might be the last time…
Tony G
@Yutsano: It will be interesting to see the next career move for “Blake Masters” (or whatever his real name is). He’s certainly a delightfully fascinating young man — nothing weird or creepy about Mr. “Masters” at all!
Carlo Graziani
@YY_Sima Qian: It’s difficult to get clear numbers on ATACMS inventories. I believe that the likely reason is that the numbers are unfortunately not very large. There is a summary of the program here which states that the US has about 280 of Block 1A Unitary type — HE explosive warhead, 300 km range, mostly the product of the Service Lifetime Extension Program (SLEP). There are presumably a few hundred, perhaps as many as 600 standard Block 1A (submunition) types.
The Army occasionally test-fires a few, to make sure that they still work, and so far they’ve not detected any systematic problems with engines. But there’s no supply chain to make any more. And there are, as you say, other urgent strategic contingency cases to cover for those scarce missiles that are likely making DOD planners very reluctant to cough any up for any reason.
If I had to guess, I’d say that some defense bureaucrats have been leveraging Biden’s aversion to nuclear-war risk-taking by playing up those risks, so as to protect the ATACMS stockpile. If that’s what is going on, it’s going to take a very strong case to get even a small number turned over to Ukraine for pre-agreed targets — which is apparently what the Ukrainians were proposing as of last Month. And someone is going to have to do an end-run around Austen, and possibly Sullivan, to make that case.
Another Scott
Reuters:
A couple of pictures of the damage at one end of the dam, and a couple of pictures of bridges.
Cheers,
Scott.
Bill Arnold
@Carlo Graziani:
Excellent; had missed that Ukraine has already been proposing such a workaround. Perhaps something has changed in the aggregate US position the last month+.
That appears that it would put warships and other military targets in Sevastopol in range, with some risk to the launchers.
Since some of those warships have been bombarding civilian targets in Ukraine, they are targets. Entirely legitimate military targets.
Geminid
@Bill Arnold: If we could somehow trick Russia into a war with Turkey, we could get of their Black Sea fleet and not even have to use any ATACMs!