SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Fantastic. Thank you. Glad to be with you today. I thought I would make a few framework remarks about our approach to Ukrainian security assistance before I talk about the details that are important for today.
The United States first launched a training program for Ukraine in 2015 – yes, 2015 – to help Ukraine with its capacity to man, train, equip, deploy and maintain combat units. It is this background that is important for understanding how Ukraine early in the war was able to face a larger, more capable Russian force, able to remain nimble, strengthen subordinates, achieve commendable successes, already be trained in certain capacities that the United States as well as other countries had provided – especially spears, but not only spears – and therefore Russia went into a fight back in February with a far more capable military than expected, and as it – it had honestly faced back in 2014.
And so early in the war, that wave of aid from the United States and allies and partners ended up proving crucial to complementing the training and capacity Ukraine had built over the seven years to thwart Russia’s multi-access offensive, which aimed at overthrowing Ukraine’s legitimate government, as evidenced by the fact that Kiev was one of the main priority axes of attack.
And what we saw in Ukraine’s successful fight against the initial attack was that the years of training, equipment and advice, combined with the increase in key capabilities such as 11,000 anti-tank and almost 1,500 anti-aircraft weapons in the very first weeks, along with critical intelligence sharing enabled the Ukrainian armed forces to defend Kyiv and force the Russians to withdraw and reassess their targets on the battlefield and their approach.
And part of this – a major element of this, which we somewhat forget, I think, as the months go by, is that Russia’s large-scale invasion was also thwarted by Ukraine’s highly skilled use of air defense capabilities, both those that Ukraine owned in the beginning of The battle – inherited Soviet capabilities – and the wave of aid that the United States and its allies immediately turned to to provide Ukraine with additional Soviet-era-inherited air defense systems, spare parts, repairs, more missiles.
And as a result, Ukraine refused Russia from achieving air superiority. And Russia – and Ukraine continues to this day to maintain this capacity and deny Russia air superiority, which has forced Russia to limit its operations to the struggle we see today.
When we now come to the struggle today, where Russia’s focus shifted to the offensive in eastern Ukraine, our assistance also changed because it is a different kind of struggle, it is a different kind of demand.
Initially, Ukraine relied again on its Soviet legacy hobbits, artillery, and armored capabilities, but the United States immediately stepped up to rise above 100 NATO standard 155 millimeter howitzers and over 260,000 155 millimeter rounds of artillery from DoD warehouses to support what was clear. that our military leaders should primarily be an artillery battle, and that’s what you see unfolding.
Then, in the next few weeks, in the next phase that you will see in this package today, which is the focus on higher capacity, precision, longer range weapons, and in the case of the United States, it is the delivery of the HIMARS system , and more missile systems and ammunition to enable Ukraine not only to perform defenses with artillery that is effective and important, but not precision attack capabilities with insufficient range to be able to reach Russian C2 nodes, logistics nodes.
And what we have seen now, as the United States accelerated HIMARS systems and the missiles to those systems, that Ukraine has now successfully hit Russian locations in Ukraine, deeper behind the front lines, and disrupted Russia’s ability to carry out this artillery operation.
SENIOR DEFENSE: So the President – The White House will announce that the President has decided to give a new round of the President’s withdrawal authority the following capabilities: four high mobility artillery missile systems, HIMARS and additional ammunition for these HIMARS. This is the capacity I just mentioned as being particularly important and effective in helping Ukraine and cope with the Russian artillery battle in the Donbas.
Three tactical vehicles to recover equipment, to support Ukrainian efforts to repair, refuel while this fight continues. 1,000 cartridges 155 millimeters of artillery ammunition. This is a new type of 155 millimeter artillery ammunition. It has greater precision. It gives Ukraine precise capacity for specific objectives. It will save ammunition. It will be more effective because of the precision, so it is a further development in our support for Ukraine in this fight in the Donbass.
In addition, the package will include demolition ammunition, double battery systems and more importantly spare parts and other equipment, because not only are the new weapon systems, but it is Ukraine’s ability to repair, maintain and maintain the effectiveness of the systems we and allies and partners have provided. over the last few months. So that’s what you’re going to hear from the White House later this afternoon.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Okay, everyone. I will open up for questions. I start with Lita Baldor from the Associated Press.
Question: Thank you very much. Just a quick thing. What is the total financing value of this package? And so on HIMARS, are we about 12 that the US has sent to Ukraine? Do you know them, are these replacements for any of them that may have been destroyed? Is there any way to give us some sort of assessment of whether they still have all the others and whether they are all working in combat right now in Ukraine.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Fantastic. Yes please. Thanks. It did not work – and so thank you for asking. I failed to state that this PDA package is assistance worth up to $ 400 million, so I hope the first question is an answer. As for the second question, yes. This will bring to a total of 12 HIMARS launchers that the US has delivered to Ukraine and those that have already been delivered are fully accounted for, the Ukrainians are still using them in the fight. I know there have been some Russian reports that they have destroyed Ukrainian HIMARS systems. That is not correct. Ukrainians have these systems and make use of them. And yes, with this package they will have 12.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Okay. Idrees from Reuters.
Question: Hey, thanks for – thanks for this. Two quick questions. You mentioned the 155 ammunition and they are a little more advanced. Can you give a little more detail on what it is? And just more generally, do you see that Russia now has momentum in the war, or do you still see the battle in terms of momentum?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Yes, I can not – other than to describe – this new set of 155 ammunition, I can not go into detail for, you know, operational reasons – but only to confirm that these are precision systems that are compatible with the 155 howitzers, so that’s what I can share about it.
On momentum, I think the Russians are making very, very gradual, limited, hard-fought, very costly progress in certain, select, small areas of the Donbas. They are far behind on their timelines. They are far behind with their goals. The Ukrainians are launching effective offensives in local places. And now increasingly in the last week, what we have seen is the ability of the Ukrainians to use these HIMAR systems to markedly disrupt the Russians’ ability to move forward, even where they are making the abrasive, slow offensive.
So we do not see it at all as, you know, Russia wins this match. They certainly do not win relevant – related to their original goals. They have been very thwarted, but the fighting is fierce, and the Ukrainians have to fight hard to prevent the Russians from reaching their goal, but they are doing it effectively, and we are seeing it in the Russians’ slowdown.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Barbara Starr, CNN.
Question: I would just return to the matter and then ask you a follow-up question if I may. It’s only on the ammunition, the precision ammunition. You describe it – maybe you could – maybe you can just clarify this one point. You describe it as a new set of ammunition. Is it even new to the United States? In other words, is it something newly developed, or is it new to deliver it to Ukraine? Can you tell us that?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Well. Absolutely. That is a very good question. It is for the opportunity to clarify. No, it is – it is a capacity the United States has. New refers to the fact that it is a new package – a new element of our security assistance to Ukraine.
Q: OK. And if I could, you could say – you just mentioned that there are places where the Ukrainians are – I think the words you used significantly disturb Russia. Where does it happen?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: I can not give you specific locations – as other of my colleagues have said, we do not want to help the Russians perform their combat damage assessment or anything like that, but it is – these are locations behind the front lines of where the Russians Forces are concentrated where you see the battle take place every day. These are the lines behind C2 logistics nodes, so in Donbas certainly and in the battle room just further back behind the front lines.
Question: And very quickly, is any kind of oversight or monitoring mechanism being considered for the huge amount of weapons and the value of the weapons that you are transferring to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands? Is there anything you either do to monitor it or are considering monitoring it?
SENIOR DEFENSE: Yes. We are definitely tracking – from the moment we send the capabilities to Ukraine, deliver them to Ukraine, they move them to the battlefield. Our military leaders and experts and professionals are in communication with the Ukrainians to understand how they use these capabilities, what their usage rate is, what their – I think it is a really important element in deciding what to include in our the next assistance package is to understand how they use these capabilities, what their consumption rate is, what their – I think it’s a really important element in deciding what is included in our next assistance package is to understand how they use them, at what rate they employ them and battlefield conditions they employ them.
So we are tracking it very carefully and we are very aware of our duties and obligations to maintain awareness of the opportunities we provide to Ukraine.
STAFF: Thank you, Barb. Jen Griffin, Fox News.
Question: Thank you, can you tell us – you mentioned at the beginning that you – that the training carried out in 2013 was a real change when the Russians invaded. What are you currently doing in terms of training in Taiwan? Is training underway? Can you outline it for us?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Can you clarify, I do not understand training in Taiwan.
Question: Yes, is there any US military training taking place or any effort to – again, while the lessons from Ukraine are shining, is there any taking place right now?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: That is to say – it’s an interesting question. It’s beyond my responsibility and ready to talk to you today. My area of responsibility in DoD focuses on – does not focus on that part of the world.
Question: Excuse me, I thought it was international security assistance.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: No, that’s fine.
Question: So I just want to follow up by asking what is the next type of weapon you are considering sending that you think would be – the kind that you think they will need? And there has been criticism that four or 12 HIMARS that the United States could have done this faster and more sooner.
What is the reason for a kind of four at a time going in?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Yes, on the question of – let me do the second first, as it is directly related to what we have already talked about. The HIMARS system is a very advanced system, and so there was a – I would say weeks long training process where Ukrainian crews had to be trained in these systems. They were new to them because it is not a Soviet inheritance system and it is a higher end capacity.
And so that kind of limiting factor was to have trained crews and we have trained successive sets of crews to be ready for, I would say the manned is not manned for obvious reasons, manning the use of the sets with four HIMARS systems at a time when the crews were ready to use them effectively.
In terms of the kind of weapon systems we are considering sending, we have already looked at and discussed with Allies and partners systems for coastal defense capabilities, and that is the key to moving away from Soviet older air defense capabilities. But much of the focus needs to be now.
The Ukrainians have a lot of equipment, the challenge for them is that they use it at such an intense pace given the struggle that they need a lot of training and resources for maintenance, repair, logistics. So a big element of what we are looking at now is the list that is crucial for the Ukrainians to continue the fight.
And most importantly, I want to say that the Russians need to know that the Ukrainians will be able to continue the fight. Because if the Russians think they can survive the Ukrainians, they have to reconsider it, because this effort – we are already turning to think about what the Ukrainians will need in the coming months and years.
STAFF: Thank you, Jen. Tom Bowman, NPR.
Question: Yes, do you understand when these extra HIMARS will arrive? Are we talking for weeks? And you talked a little bit about training on the HIMARS system. Do you want to continue training Ukrainians in the system? And ball parking the numbers.
And then finally, as they mention in the magazine “Economist” by an unnamed military official, who said he expects the top of Western military aid will arrive in Ukraine sometime in October, which will allow them to launch a counter-offensive .
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: So I can not get into – again, this is operational safety information about the time when HIMARS will get there. But I want to tell you that we have – we have foreseen that this new set of HIMARS would be part of a presidential downsizing authority and are already working to ensure that they can get theirs – the battlefront quickly. But I will not give you a timeline.
On the comment from an unnamed defender that I had suggested, we are ready and thinking about Ukraine’s needs over months and years. So I would not put a top on it. You’ll talk about operational details later, so I’ll leave that conversation there.
But I would say, from a security assistance perspective, this is a steady drumming now, and it is a long-term commitment to Ukraine. So we will be ready for everything the experts tell us is required for the battlefield. And if there’s a peak or an ebb or flow, I’m sure we’ll work on it. But I can not talk to it right now.
Question: And the additional training of Ukrainians?
SENIOR DEFENSE: Sorry, yeah, what was that – I’m very sorry, what was that question?
Question: Do you want – will more Ukrainians be trained in HIMARS, or do you have a sufficient number, they just need to use the systems?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: We continue to train them because we again see this as an ongoing battle and the crews will have to rest. I think there are all sorts of reasons why you want to continue training sets of – units of Ukrainians in order to operate the systems.
Question: Okay, how many have been trained at HIMARS so far?
SENIOR DEFENSE: It is also a reliability issue. I can not give you numbers. But it is sufficient, as we see, because you see the effects of the HIMARS strike on staff, what we have provided.
STAFF: Thank you, Tom. OK, so I have both Joseph and Nadia from Al Arabiya. I’ll let you decide who should ask the question.
Question: OK, I can start very quickly, and maybe Joe has another question. But thank you so much for giving us the opportunity. I just wanted to see if you can give us an assessment of where the Russian intention is militarily? In the beginning, there was talk that they could extend and go to a Baltic state. Today, the Russian Foreign Minister has warned Lithuania and the EU that it could adapt harsh measures, as they call it, against them if they try to do something good to and from the Russian exclave, as you know.
Do you see this as a serious military threat to the Baltic states? And just give us what you think in terms of the assessment that it can actually go beyond just Ukraine? Thank you.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Well. I think it has been very clear in President Putin’s statements what his goals are in Ukraine. Which is the subjugation of Ukraine militarily and politically, so that Ukraine is not an independent, sovereign country. The specific military objectives were – as I said at the beginning – to move to Kiev, to overthrow the government and control it.
They have had to – I think the goal remains the same, which is to prevent the existence of a sovereign, independent Ukraine. It’s just the specific military objectives that have changed as they failed in the initial perception of it, and you know, I do not think the political objectives have changed, it is the military means or operations.
With regard to Russia’s broader intentions, – I will respond in broader terms that we take the threats that Russia poses to NATO allies and the NATO alliance very seriously, and that is why the United States at the Madrid Summit last week announced this set of significant additions to our position and capacity in Europe to contribute to an effective defense and deterrence against Russian threats against NATO allies, of which Lithuania is one.
So it is precisely for this reason that President Biden made these decisions and the United States has committed itself to our NATO allies.
STAFF: Thank you, Nadia. Courtney Kube, NBC?
Q: Hi. Thanks. A quick question – you specifically mentioned that there – the reports that the Russians have hit one of HIMARS are not true. Do you have any indications that the Russians have hit other American equipment? Since you have some visibility in HIMARS, I hope there will be visibility in some of the other systems.
And then I’m also curious about one of your answers to Tom Bowman’s question about not being able to say how many Ukrainians are trained at HIMARS for operational security reasons. It’s just curious because we’ve had very specific information about other systems in the past, and specifically how many Ukrainians are being trained. So I’m just wondering why it’s a reliability issue when other systems have not been there before?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: I can not talk to these numbers, but the reason it’s an operational security issue on that issue is because training is underway, right? So maybe – I mean, I can not wonder why there were some numbers before, but I can not give you these numbers because they are running.
As for Russian damage to others – Russian damage to other US-supplied capabilities, the same – we will not do – Russia’s combat damage assessment for them. I can clarify and deny that they have not damaged HIMARS. I will not go into, you know, anything else you know, speculation or evidence – which would help the Russians find out what is going on on the battlefield, except …
Question: Thank you. I appreciate that. I just have to say – we have received, on the same backgrounds, specific information about the number of Ukrainians being trained, training that is underway, for other systems in the past. Honestly, the same with, you know, that – you are willing to say that they have not hit any HIMARS, but will not talk about other systems.
It really feels like you’re selecting information to give us here and saying that other things are operational security issues, and I do not understand that – I really, honestly do not understand the justification for that. Is it possible to take both of these questions and see if there is more visibility that can be given? I would appreciate it. Thank you.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: I can take the question of the number of interns at HIMARS and get back to you. My guidance right now is not to give it up due to operational security issues. So you know, please understand.
In terms of cherry picking, I simply answered a specific question about how many systems there are, and do Ukrainians have these systems. So I do not think it’s cherry picking, I think it’s being responsive.
STAFF: Thank you, Courtney. John, New York Times?
Q: Yes, hey. I was thinking – can you be more specific about the 155 projectiles? We are – we’re talking about Excalibur rounds here, right?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: I can not go into details here.
Question: Wait – so if – if they are not Excaliburs, then is there any plan to supply the precision-guided kit fuses for standard, high-explosive 155 shots that would provide 10 meters of CEP?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: I can not get into that at this time either.
STAFF: Thank you, John. Let’s see here. Luis, are you there from ABC?
Q: Yes, I’m here. I had a question about – the Harpoon systems. The Russian Ministry of Defense claimed that they had beaten Harpoons – I think that could be the point that Courtney tried to make earlier.
And then as for the insurance, I mean, you discussed that the Russian systems – excuse me, the HIMARS systems are hitting the battlefield. Do you still keep getting assurances from the Ukrainians that they will not strike in the real Russia? Thank you.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: On the Harpoons, I have nothing to do with you about specific Russian allegations about the strikes. I’m not aware of that. We can take that, but no, okay?
And Russian allegations of using HIMARS to strike out – outside Ukrainian territory, these allegations are false. Ukraine is using these capabilities to fight the battle that its forces are facing, and they are using them effectively in that battle.
STAFF: Branch, Luis. Lara? Politics?
Question: Thank you very much for doing this. Two questions.
One, you have said that this package will provide 1,000 cartridges of ammunition, and I – and I just wanted to ask – I know it does not go very far. Ukraine has said it fires 5 to 6,000 shots a day, and Russia fires twice as much as that. So are there any problems with amassing enough ammunition for Ukraine to keep up with this fight?
And then secondly – my second question is, could you just give us an update on what you see on the ground in Kherson and the Ukrainian resistance there, please? Thank you.
STAFF: Hey, just – just fast, I want to make sure I was – I may not have been ready before – for that kind of operational question – the things about what’s going on on earth, – whatever it involves, you know, what we call operations work – we will reserve it for the senior military official, who will inform about the background at. 1330 today, which coincides with the lifting of this embargo.
SENIOR DEFENSE: First, the Ukrainians still have significant stores – or you know, equipment stores of standard 155 millimeters – they use every day, and that’s the usage rate you quoted – you know, 3,000 per. day they spend. So they have stores with it. They are not out of it.
We have delivered it, other countries have delivered it. We are – in response to a previous question, I made it clear, you know, we know what their usage rate is, we know what their store price is, and we monitor it as we continue to deliver those capabilities. So that was one of the reasons why it was not a feature that was required in this package.
The reason for providing this capacity in this package was because the Ukrainians have asked for it, they have asked for more precision capabilities and HIMARS is not the limit of what the US is able to provide them for precision capabilities.
So it’s absolute – this kind of ammunition will not be used at a rate of 3,000 a day. It’s a different kind of ammunition with a different set of purposes, which is not quite HIMARS, but it is related in the sense of more precise targeting.
STAFF: Thank you, Laura. Let’s see here. Howard?
Question: Can you say if there are any obstacles for HIMARS within the territory of occupied Ukraine? And is Kerch Bridge a fair game for that system?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: I can not tell you specifically – anything about specific targets, but the capabilities and logistics hubs of Russian forces in Ukraine are absolutely reasonable targets.
Question: But can you talk about any exclusions? Would – would not the Kerch bridge be ruled out as a potential target?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: As I said, there are no obstacles that I am aware of about the Ukrainians fighting on their sovereign territory against Russia.
STAFF: Thank you, Howard. Hi, Mike, are you from the Washington Times?
Q: Yes, I’m here. Thank you. Just a quick question – I was wondering if you can comment on some concerns I’ve heard up the hill about the sustainability of this after you know it’s been going on for months and years and if it is too by diving or not – too much in the US military’s own supplies, if they are – if you all did something about it?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Fantastic – that’s a good question. And part of the process of deciding which systems and the number of systems are absolutely validated to ensure that these are sustainable capabilities that we can donate to Ukraine and have no negative impact on US preparedness.
STAFF: Thank you, Mike. Tara Copp, Defense One?
Question: Hey, thanks for doing this. Just really fast – how many HIMARS have been delivered to date?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Well. Eight have been delivered to date. With the package being announced today by four, it will be 12, but eight have been delivered to date.
Q: OK. And then there is some consideration, I am aware that you just talked about, you know, give the Ukrainians longer range and be able to shoot – have this counter-offensive against Russia and be better protected?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Then again, our security assistance is shaped by clear Ukrainian requests, and the clear Ukrainian request is capabilities that enable them to counter and counter Russian operations right now in the Donbas. These are the opportunities we give them.
Question: But they have not asked for ATACMS?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: They have asked for the capacity to help them prosecute – the current battle in the Donbas, and that’s what we provide with HIMARS and GMLRS.
Question: Can you tell if it has been considered or not on the table?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: I just want to repeat – the focus is on helping Ukraine defend its territory and fight the Russians on Ukrainian territory, and that is, I think, welcomed by and – and working actively with the Ukrainian military and political leadership.
STAFF: Thank you, Tara. Jared, AI monitor?
Question: Hi, thanks for doing this. A quick question – actually two, if I may. Let’s see if this can be covered.
It is clear that the consequences of Russia’s war on Ukraine extend far beyond Europe. This is something that – you know, the President is likely to embark on on his forthcoming trip to the Middle East. In terms of tangible bilateral security assistance to countries in the Middle East, is the administration still working on, you know, options there, what may be on the table during this journey, or has it been resolved?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: The United States has robust bilateral security ties with countries around the world, including in the Middle East, and strong ties with countries in the Middle East, so it is the fact that Russia is waging a war against Ukraine and that Europe is in no way take away from the strong defensive conditions, so …
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: … I do not have anything specific to announce for the trip, but you know what that means – it’s solid. We are – we are working – continue to work with partners and close allies around the world, even though we support Ukraine.
Question: Understood, thanks. And if I may just ask quickly. We have seen a report or two claiming that the Russians have used recycled civilian ships on the Black Sea to supply their forces. Have you seen any evidence to suggest this?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: I can not – I can not talk to it. Sorry, I can not answer that question, and I can not talk to it. I have nothing to give you on that.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thank you, Jared. Jeff, Task and Purpose.
Question: Okay, I just wanted to try again on the 155 microphones. Is there a reason you can not tell if these are Excalibur rounds? That was the first thing I assumed, and I’m honestly not very smart. The Russians are much smarter than I am, so they have probably found out too. So given that, can you tell if it’s Excalibur rounds?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: I have given – I have explained this. I think the important aspect of the security assistance is that these are accurate, that we expect them to be used by the Ukrainians with great effect given their success so far in HIMARS, and we are really focused on effective use of battlefield on what these weapons requirements are.
Question: But if you can say that you give Ukrainians HIMARS, you give them Stingers, you give them spears. Is the Army asking you not to say it’s Excaliburs?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Jeff, let – she has the question. Each time this question is asked, she will answer it in the same way. It’s a clever recombination of words, so points, but I will – I think I’m going to the next person. Abraham, are you there from Air Force Magazine?
Question: Yes, it’s me. Thank you for calling me. Two questions. One, I was wondering if you can give us at NASAMS? Okay, they – is the contract signed? When do you expect them to reach the front line? And secondly, there is some legislation in Congress. Ukraine keeps asking. Does DoD do any advanced pilot training planning for Ukrainians to fly F-16s or advanced planning or discussion regarding the transfer of F-16s or the facilitation of this transfer? Thank you.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: So with regard to the NASAMS issue, it’s moving forward, you know, now that it’s decided by the President. I can not give you details on where it is in the contract process, but you know we see no challenges. That – as your question suggests, and you are right, the use of USAI is another authority. And then it has a different timeline, but you know it was expected. But we do not anticipate any specific challenges, and I can not give you a specific timeline at this time. But no problems with it at all. It’s been – you know, it’s well underway.
In terms of pilot training, there are no current plans to train Ukraine on any other air platform than the ones they use daily effectively in combat right now, and the pilots already trained on these platforms.
Question: And just a follow up on that. Is there at all a number of months away that you think it would be on the battlefield? Thank you.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: I can not give you a number, but it certainly is – and again, that’s a good question. That is a reasonable question. I would say it’s several months.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thank you, Abraham. Mike Brest, Washington examiner.
Q: Hi. I think my question is actually better suited for the afternoon briefing. Thank you.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Okay, thank you. And we have time for one more question. Heather, USNI?
Q: Yes. Thank you. I noticed in the last few packages that there has not been as much maritime equipment as there was in the past. And I was just wondering what it says about the shift in the Ukrainian strategy?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: No, that’s a great question. Our eyes are still on the ball of coastal defense capabilities and the Russian threat to the Ukrainian coast, but / and because of the intensity and urgency of the fight, and because these are the capabilities that Ukraine is prioritizing right now, that’s why you have seen more focus in the last few packages on the possibilities of that match.
Who is the only 6 star general?
So yes, there is an equivalent to a six-star general rank in the books of the U.S. military, but it has only been given to two people in history: John J. Pershing and George Washington, generals from the armies of the United States of America.
Who is the only 5-star general? Five men have held the rank of Army General (five-star), George C. Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Read also : 4 Hi-Tech Cybercriminals With Chinese Links Arrested: Delhi Police. Eisenhower, Omar Bradley and Henry H. Arnold, who later became the only five-star general in the Air Force.
Who is the 6 star general in the Army?
The rank of General of the Armies corresponds to a six-star general status, although no insignia has ever been created. Pershing was president and first captain of the West Point class in 1886. He served in the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War. In 1897, Pershing returned to West Point as an instructor.
Who is the only 7 star general?
8.0 Introduction. No person has ever been assigned or promoted to a seven-star rank, although some commentators may argue that General George Washington posthumously became a seven-star general in 1976 (see Part Seven). On the same subject : The United States should send more diplomats to Ukraine, not weapons.
WHO WAS LAST 5 star general?
The last 5-star general, however, was Omar Bradley, who retired in 1962, and since the U. To see also : FACT SHEET: The US and G7 will take more steps to support Ukraine and hold the Russian Federation accountable.S. military has only used 5-star generals in wartime, there would have been no 5-star general at the time.
Who is the official DoD representative to host nations for military to military issues beyond security cooperation?
The SDO or DATT is the mission’s primary military adviser on defense and national security issues, the senior diplomatically accredited DoD military officer assigned to a diplomatic mission, and the sole point of contact for all DoD cases involving the embassy or DoD elements assigned. to or working from …
What is the difference between UNU and OTAN? The United Nations represents the driving force behind a system of relations between States based on the notion of collective security. The OTAN, created two years after the UN, in the wake of the Cold War, rests on the more pragmatic notion of collective defense.
Quel sont les pays du NATO ?
- Belgium (1949)
- Canada (1949)
- Denmark (1949)
- United States (1949)
- France (1949)
- Iceland (1949)
- Italy (1949)
- Luxembourg (1949)
Pourquoi NATO ?
The Organization of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (OTAN), founded in 1949 and composed of 30 countries of Europe and America of the North, was created to protect the population and territory of its member countries.
Quel est le but de l’OTAN ?
The essential and immovable objective of the OTAN is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members through political and military means. The collective defense mission, which is part of the Alliance, creates a spirit of solidarity and cohesion between its members.
Who is the current 5 star general?
Shape of Water Movie Goof However, the last 5-star general was Omar Bradley, who retired in 1962, and since the U.S. military has only used 5-star generals in wartime, there would have been no 5-star general at the time. .
Who was the only 7-star general? 8.0 Introduction. No person has ever been assigned or promoted to a seven-star rank, although some commentators may argue that General George Washington posthumously became a seven-star general in 1976 (see Part Seven).
Are there any current 5-star generals?
In September 1950, Omar N. Bradley became the fifth Army General to be promoted to the five-star rank. The five-star rank still exists, though no U.S. officer has held it since General Bradley’s death in 1981. The president may at any time promote a general or admiral to the five-star rank with Senate approval.
