NATO sends weapons to target Crimea that could leave Putin's offensive in crisis | Sean Bell

"Threatening Crimea would be a very, very useful way to force Russia to rethink its strategy...if it thought it was going to lose Crimea, that would be a strategic failure "

US aid has come at a crucial time for Ukraine while a smaller British aid package could be used for attacks on Crimea, retired Air Vice-Marshal Sean Bell tells Frontline on #timesradio.

[kokomo]

The gentleman who said that the $60 billion was cash was completely mistaken. There is very little cash involved. It almost all weapons. He was also mistaken when he called the Crimea an island. It is not an island. It is a peninsula.

[kaiying]

The whole "Dont drive up the price of oil" argument is BS. They are fighting for their survival for goodness sake.

[roberts]

Don't blame Ukraine for the counter offensive, blame yourselves for not providing F16s and long range missiles

[timtrewyn]

My understanding is that the US has been manufacturing 155mm artillery shells continuously. The recent funding includes increasing 155mm shell production capacity. I don't think there is much wait for deliveries to resume. There are other authorizations that have been available to move shells to Europe all this time.

[josephslawson]

I wish yall would speak with somebody who understands how United States logistics works. This bill will have an almost immediate effect on the front lines.

[pentapox]

This guy doesn't know what's up. The munitions are ready to go, they have been for some time. Our munitions factories never stopped producing when the bill was stalled. They've been pumping 'em out and now that they are paid for, they are ready to ship. They'll have munitions within days.

[jim]

Four mile miss average? There was a far greater concern. The British Bomber Command crews suffered an extremely high casualty rate: 55, 573 killed out of a total of 125, 000 aircrew (a 44.4 per cent death rate), a further 8, 403 were wounded in action and 9, 838 became prisoners of war.

[pauleverest]

Why can't NATO and the west just organize a strategy where Ukraine gets what's needed for a fast win. Rather than a drip drip protracted failure. Surely with careful thinking and logistics the war could turn out to be more economical with a speedier outcome.

[NathanDean]

There was already a massive amount of weapons sitting in Poland for Ukraine so they would get there quickly once the Congress approved the funds. So all they had to do was drive the stuff across the border or load it in trains and send it over. So Ukraine will get an almost immediate relief.

[American-In-Mykolaiv]

James Hansen has the best guests for interviews - this is another good one! Thanks from Ukraine! Slava Ukraini!

[arnejorgensen]

They weren't successful in last year's offensive because they were forced to wait for minesweeping vehicles as they didn't have in sufficient numbers at the time.

[ShadowPhoenixMaximus]

The issue with the Ukrainian counter offensive was that they weren't getting the equipment at the scale they were asking for. A fact I suspect that was driven out of fear by Western leaders over what might happen if it was successful and how Putin (with his habitual nuclear threats) would respond.

[loudtim]

It’s not cash, much of it is a fairly specific list of hardware. At least that’s what we’re seeing here in the US. 155 artillery, Patriot missiles, 7.56 ammo, Bradleys, Abrams, etc. I’ll try to find it.

[darrelldog]

Man, he nailed it at the end. Don't Let the bully threaten you. Then, the bully wins..

[vinceneuwirth]

We don't need war. We need diplomacy.

[Piden-lb]

The Senate passed the bill today. Tomorrow supplies will roll from Poland and US bases in Germany. Stay strong Ukraine. Help is on the way !

[CollectiveWest]

I do not want to be negative but I do not understand why Sean Bell keeps appearing on news channels. He goes out of his swim lane (air warfare), and talks about the US aid package (inaccurately), overall war strategy as being about territory (very simplistic), economic warfare and the oil market (not his area), naval strategy and boat capabilities (not his area) and then declines to talk about a topic on which he might be expected to have special expertise i.e. UK missile system capabilities (to be fair, he might have been avoiding giving out useful info). I do not need someone to summarise the history of Western aid but his criticism of 'feast and famine' inconsistency and lack of sustainment is very valid. His comment on Second World War bombing is simplistic but was just trying to show how accuracy can beat quantity. If he focused on technology, industrial strategy and the air war, he'd be a much more relevant commentator. Others have noted that he did not mention drones, which are transforming warfare.

[TAWD]

Here is a high ranking officer moaning about the Ukranian counteroffensive not working out.
But the Ukranians had to do it in a way NO NATO COUNTRY would even consider an attack: no air superiority, not even air support.

All in all... Britain gave 10 tanks. About 80 Leopard II's of various updates (or lack thereoff) and only by september 34 M1A1 Abrams arrived.
So a hundred and some tanks were going to dislodge Russians dug in trenches armed with drones and an air force?

...
🙄

[benjaminwadda]

The people need to know why ! . Finish the topic. Putin won't stop, unless he's stopped. It's less cost now, than later.

[MrTampaB]

You are truly dredging from the bottom of the barrel if this is your military expert. This former fighter pilot is clueless. That $60B is not in cash. It’s almost all in military equipment. The very important ammunition will arrive quickly (geographically, it’s probably closer to Ukraine than you think). The increased ammo alone means the effects will be seen quickly.