Retired general details all of the equipment going to Ukraine from the US
Earlier this week, Eric Trump, son to former President Donald Trump, attacked President Joe Biden for allegedly doing nothing but sending blankets to Ukraine at a time when they need help.
"By the way, my father had a great relationship with Putin," said Eric in an interview with the Fox network. "All the while, he was sending thousands of javelin missiles to Ukraine. Isn't that really amazing? I mean, Biden has no relationship with Putin and he's literally sending blankets to Ukraine."
Trump actually withheld the javelin missiles from Ukraine, saying he would send them but needed a "favor" first. It was the reason that he was ultimately impeached.
As retired Gen. Mark Hertling explained, aid can be confusing for some people to understand, so he made a list to clarify how the $800 million would help.
First, "the Javelin is a phenomenal shoulder-fired weapon," he explained. "It's expensive, but it's designed to destroy a multi-million dollar tank or personnel carrier (BMP, BTR, etc) It has both a side attack & top-down attack mode, and tankers fear this kinds of weapons. It can accurately hit and destroy enemy armor at ranges up to 3000+ meters. But...it also has an 'arming requirement,' and can't be used against close-in targets during ambushes."
For an ambush, he cited a LAW (light antitank weapon) also sometimes referred to as an RPG. He explained they're great for ambushing tanks as they roll by and they have the added benefit of being cheap. The ATGM (anti-tank guided missiles) can be more difficult to carry and are more expensive.
He also explained that the Javelin is not a Stinger.
"Stinger is the man-portable air-defense system (MANPAD)," the general said. "It's shoulder-fired by one person, requires the soldier to SEE the aircraft and track it until he gets a 'tone' that there is lock. No radar or other equipment is required, and it's relatively easy to train to use."
But Stingers too are expensive. They're great for taking out low aircraft like helicopters and planes 3500 meters away. Higher flying air defense would require the Medium Altitude Air Defense and then a High Altitude Air Defense (HIMAD) system, the Chaparall and Nike. Those have been replaced by the Patriot PAC-3 missile, but those too are expensive and it's difficult to help fighters how to use them.
He also thinks that the Department of Defense is working on is how to help "give" Ukraine old Russian systems because they're more familiar with them.
"Both are tough to get into the country, both have a radar signature and both require a crew," Hertling explained. "They also require vehicle and radar maintenance — and resupply of missiles. But Ukraine's military commanders believe this may be a better solution for 'clearing the skies.'"
Some have advocated a no-fly zone, and Zelensky delivered a message to Congress begging for it. While political leaders have said that it would be a dramatic escalation, Hertling also explained that it would require a lot of equipment.
Members of Congress saying to simply give them fighter jets isn't making any sense either. Those fighting Russia are everyday citizens, they're not fighter pilots who've trained for years. The average person can't jump into an F-16 and know how to make it work. Then there's a whole team in the Air Force who works on the maintenance for such jets.
He also noted that Putin has argued that the west is the one escalating the situation not Russia. So, handing the idea of a no-fly zone and sending in jets would give Putin the talking points to escalate his attacks.
"In my view, this - and much, much more - is what the US and NATO have been providing," he concluded. "Plus years of training of Ukrainian Army, Special Operations, Air Force, and senior leaders. There's a lot going on under the radar, too, that most Americans have no idea about. The civilian casualties - especially the wanton disregard for women and children - and the other criminal attacks by Putin are horrific, and it's hard to stop a mad killer like him. But NATO and the US are doing more than most people realize."
A striking 31 Republicans voted against the aid going to Ukraine while they fight the invasion, and some, like Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) are already taking credit for the weapons delivery.
NOW WATCH: Whoopi unleashes profanity on GOP complaining about Ukraine after votes against funding
Leave a Comment
Related Post