Western militaries are running out of ammunition to give to Ukraine, NATO and British officials warned Tuesday, as they urged the bloc’s nations to ramp up production to “keep Ukraine in the fight against Russian invaders.”
Pretty sure the US is sending old surplus stock, and I’m sure the military industrial complex is salivating at the chance to resupply. Maybe if they send slightly newer stuff it might be over quicker.
At any rate, US support for exactly this type of situation was agreed on in the Budapest memorandum as part of Ukrainian nuclear disarmament. Russia broke their end of the bargain and started a war under false pretenses. It is up to them to end it, exactly like it is up to the US to do so when doing the same thing.
If the world can not unite to stand up to countries starting such conflicts, we shall never know peace.
Currently the issue is not tanks and IFVs, but bullets and shells. The US indeed sends older surplus, but the picture is different in Europe. The German army for example had an estimated 20B€ deficit in ammo even before the war started. Production increased, but it’s nowhere near replenishing.
And regarding tanks: the German Leopard 1 tanks currently in Ukraine are partially the second line of defense for the Bundeswehr.
Maybe if they send slightly newer stuff it might be over quicker.
Possibly, but some of the new technologies would be considered extremely provocative by Russia if we supplied them to Ukraine. We are already treading a very fine line with involvement in this conflict, and being accused of using Ukraine to fight a proxy war (though mostly by people who have a vested interest in Russia/Putin winning the war).
It’s important that we not send them equipment that they can’t operate, supply or maintain. For instance we didn’t send them any modern US-built fighter jets because they don’t have pilots trained to fly them, a supply chain for spare parts, or mechanics trained to fix them. Ultimately, logistics matters more than having the latest and greatest tech (logistics has been absolutely wrecking Russia’s battlefield effectiveness).
Putin won’t use nuclear weapons and he can’t realistically escalate the war.
That’s a huge bet to make. The whole point of nuclear deterrence is so nuclear powers don’t think to directly engage each other in any serious way. No one is anxious to call a nuclear bluff, especially since this is basically win or die for Putin.
I actually mostly agree and was being a bit sarcastic. Training on newer systems is prohibitive anyway as you mentioned. Sending personell is clearly provocative and should be avoided. I just find the argument that the military industrial complex ran out of the bullets to help is laughable.
Obviously, production increases with demand and lags it causing stockpiles to decrease until output increases. Hopefully the quoted assessment is talking about that dip and not a more serious problem.
Really though, Russia knows the US is obligated to help. They signed the memorandum too, after all. It’s hard to argue with someone that does so in bad faith, but continuing aid is hardly a provocative act.
Everyone points to appeasement failing to stop Nazi Germany, but people are missing the reasons it failed.
Prior to the start of WW2, the USSR tried desperately to build military alliances with France and Britain to encircle the Nazi threat. They were rebuffed at every turn because Germany’s development was far too profitable for French and British interests. The French and British might have took on a policy of appeasement, but they also overwhelmingly failed to recognize the Nazis as a threat (instead, they were more concerned about the threat of communism and allying themselves with a communist country).
That’s not a failure of appeasement, that’s France and Britain perceiving themselves as far more powerful than they really were.
People clearly don’t like to hear this part of the story. But I mean, yes, the capitalist powers failed the USSR and the world immensely by not allying with USSR earlier, but appeasement also failed.
Fascism is militaristic and war-driven by nature. I doubt that the war would be completely avoided if the Western countries had allied with USSR earlier and gave Hitler the Sudetenland. The Nazis may just have waited a bit longer or played it differently but no doubt they would have inevitably went to war. Appeasement doesn’t stop fascists, only armed defense or prevention.
Hogwash. Why was Victoria Nuland handing out cookies in Maidan Square the day before the protests turned violent and the democratically elected president of Ukraine fled for his life when Right Sector militants stormed the government building and took over the election proceedings for the new government? Why did the US spend 3Bn training neo-Nazis before 2014, groups they’ve had long connections with ever since Operation Aerodynamic? Why did those neo-Nazis start shelling the Donbass when they decided to secede from the new pro-West government installed by the right-wing under the direction of the US and specifically Nuland?
You can pretend to be the reasonable one all day long with your empty words. Your position cannot stand up against actual historical facts. The war started long before Russia invaded in 2022.
Pretty sure the US is sending old surplus stock, and I’m sure the military industrial complex is salivating at the chance to resupply. Maybe if they send slightly newer stuff it might be over quicker.
At any rate, US support for exactly this type of situation was agreed on in the Budapest memorandum as part of Ukrainian nuclear disarmament. Russia broke their end of the bargain and started a war under false pretenses. It is up to them to end it, exactly like it is up to the US to do so when doing the same thing.
If the world can not unite to stand up to countries starting such conflicts, we shall never know peace.
Currently the issue is not tanks and IFVs, but bullets and shells. The US indeed sends older surplus, but the picture is different in Europe. The German army for example had an estimated 20B€ deficit in ammo even before the war started. Production increased, but it’s nowhere near replenishing.
And regarding tanks: the German Leopard 1 tanks currently in Ukraine are partially the second line of defense for the Bundeswehr.
Idk nearly every video I see the Ukrainian fighters have aks and idk how much 7.62x39 ammo the US even has to give.
Possibly, but some of the new technologies would be considered extremely provocative by Russia if we supplied them to Ukraine. We are already treading a very fine line with involvement in this conflict, and being accused of using Ukraine to fight a proxy war (though mostly by people who have a vested interest in Russia/Putin winning the war).
We have been supplying the Javelin antitank system in large quantities, to great effect. This is relatively easy because it’s quick to train a soldier to use and it can just be disposed of if broken or out of ammo.
It’s important that we not send them equipment that they can’t operate, supply or maintain. For instance we didn’t send them any modern US-built fighter jets because they don’t have pilots trained to fly them, a supply chain for spare parts, or mechanics trained to fix them. Ultimately, logistics matters more than having the latest and greatest tech (logistics has been absolutely wrecking Russia’s battlefield effectiveness).
Removed by mod
That’s a huge bet to make. The whole point of nuclear deterrence is so nuclear powers don’t think to directly engage each other in any serious way. No one is anxious to call a nuclear bluff, especially since this is basically win or die for Putin.
Removed by mod
I actually mostly agree and was being a bit sarcastic. Training on newer systems is prohibitive anyway as you mentioned. Sending personell is clearly provocative and should be avoided. I just find the argument that the military industrial complex ran out of the bullets to help is laughable.
Obviously, production increases with demand and lags it causing stockpiles to decrease until output increases. Hopefully the quoted assessment is talking about that dip and not a more serious problem.
Really though, Russia knows the US is obligated to help. They signed the memorandum too, after all. It’s hard to argue with someone that does so in bad faith, but continuing aid is hardly a provocative act.
When was the last effective Javelin strike? I thought that people have shifted towards using FPV drones to target armoured vehicles instead.
The world didn’t start in 2022 lol
Sounds like you’re looking for someone to blame so that you don’t have to think hard about solutions
Removed by mod
Everyone points to appeasement failing to stop Nazi Germany, but people are missing the reasons it failed.
Prior to the start of WW2, the USSR tried desperately to build military alliances with France and Britain to encircle the Nazi threat. They were rebuffed at every turn because Germany’s development was far too profitable for French and British interests. The French and British might have took on a policy of appeasement, but they also overwhelmingly failed to recognize the Nazis as a threat (instead, they were more concerned about the threat of communism and allying themselves with a communist country).
That’s not a failure of appeasement, that’s France and Britain perceiving themselves as far more powerful than they really were.
People clearly don’t like to hear this part of the story. But I mean, yes, the capitalist powers failed the USSR and the world immensely by not allying with USSR earlier, but appeasement also failed.
Fascism is militaristic and war-driven by nature. I doubt that the war would be completely avoided if the Western countries had allied with USSR earlier and gave Hitler the Sudetenland. The Nazis may just have waited a bit longer or played it differently but no doubt they would have inevitably went to war. Appeasement doesn’t stop fascists, only armed defense or prevention.
Hogwash. Why was Victoria Nuland handing out cookies in Maidan Square the day before the protests turned violent and the democratically elected president of Ukraine fled for his life when Right Sector militants stormed the government building and took over the election proceedings for the new government? Why did the US spend 3Bn training neo-Nazis before 2014, groups they’ve had long connections with ever since Operation Aerodynamic? Why did those neo-Nazis start shelling the Donbass when they decided to secede from the new pro-West government installed by the right-wing under the direction of the US and specifically Nuland?
You can pretend to be the reasonable one all day long with your empty words. Your position cannot stand up against actual historical facts. The war started long before Russia invaded in 2022.
Yeah, it started when Russia invaded in 2014