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.
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).
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
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.
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
Who are we going to need to fight against right now that would require significant ammunition stocks?
Clearly Russia can’t do jack shit to anyone else right now, they’re far too busy even just trying to hold the small chunk of Ukraine they invaded.
Do we think China is going to take this opportunity to invade a NATO ally?
Do we think China is going to take this opportunity to invade a NATO ally?
Possibly Taiwan, especially if they think the US is overextended and unwilling to invest in another conflict.
Taiwan is not a NATO ally, only the US has said they are going to get involved. Also the US clearly isn’t overextended given that they have no troops at all in Ukraine. It wouldn’t be a war of bullets and artillery either, it’s going to be ships and aircraft and missiles. None of which are committed to Ukraine.
Why would they do that when they’re strategy of peaceful economic integration has been working so well?
Removed by mod
People always harp about Chinese airplanes flying in (as the US has established) international airspace. Prior to American FONOPs in the region, China stayed on their “side” of the strait and Taiwan stayed on their “side,” and they would request entry as expected of sovereign airspace. After American FONOPs (which make the strait international waters and thus the air above it international airspace), China no longer requests entry because there’s no requirement to announce entry of international airspace. Really makes you think, doesn’t it?
The status quo circa 2016 was going to lead to a peaceful balance. Not necessarily reunification, but definitely economic and cultural co-dependence. Since then, relations have deteriorated significantly.
This is intentionally provocative and aggressive. All of these actions occurred in the span of 1 year, Mar 2022-Mar 2023. This is what military aggression looks like. To deny that is disingenuous.
Three supposed incursions into territorial waters by unmanned aircraft (supposed, because judging by how they plotted it looks like they discretized movements and just linearly interpolated).
Flying in international airspace is neither provocative nor aggressive. Flying in sovereign airspace is. That’s literally been the American position justifying their incursions into the SCS. Frankly, they’re not wrong. If the area is international, they are entirely within their rights to sail through it or fly through it. Whether that area is international is up to debate, but under the claim that it is (which Taiwan has not challenged), these operations are entirely legal and entirely justified, just like American FONOPs through the strait are entirely legal and entirely justified and neither provocative nor aggressive.
Oh god… theyre getting ready for the PLA to swim to Taiwan… oh fuck
^^^ the seriousness which those links deserve
Ah yes, simply dismiss any sources that say things that you don’t like. Brilliant strategy, not transparent at all.
And where are your sources which support your point of view?
Your sources are great, if you wanted to support the claim that western media is saber rattling around China. They do a great job of framing stuff like “China flies jets in Chinese airspace” as aggressive moves on China’s part.
And where are your sources which support your point of view?
Same reason Russia did it. The allmighty leader gets older and wants to see it happen before he dies as some stupid form of legacy.
Except China has a vibrant democracy with a 95 percent approval rating, Xi isn’t that old, and Russia is a nakedly corrupt bourgeois “democracy”, sure
Or literally any historical analysis as opposed to marvel movie understandings of politics
“Approval ratings” are rather nebulous. By the divisive and partisan nature of American politics, approval ratings in America are naturally going to be low because both parties exist solely to shit on each other. In China, “approval ratings” get measured from the perspective of “is my life improving?” rather than “would my life be improving more under someone else?”
Honestly? I think asking if someone’s life has improved is a more fair polling question to ask, but it’s one that’s difficult to differentiate in the US because of how radicalized everyone is.
Basically, what I’m saying is that the US would have a higher effective approval rating in the Chinese context than it does today, because many American lives ARE improving under the American government. People just think (often incorrectly) that it would improve more if the other party had power.
In China, “approval ratings” get measured from the perspective of “is my life improving?” rather than “would my life be improving more under someone else?”
Wow, an actual useful metric for whether the government is responsive to the populations needs.
Basically, what I’m saying is that the US would have a higher effective approval rating in the Chinese context than it does today, because many American lives ARE improving under the American government.
Except for life expectancy reductions, child malnutrition, literacy rate reductions, etc
Except China has a vibrant democracy with a 95 percent approval rating
Fucking LOL
It’s been less than a week and I’m here to let you know that this comment has aged poorly. The counter-offensive is over. Ukraine has made no significant progress, meanwhile Russia has gained ground.
“Guys, we’re out of stock. It’s been going on long enough now anyway and we earned enough selling it to you, so can we stop the war please?”
😅
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The news of possible ammunition shortfalls comes after money to buy weapons for Ukraine was not included in a stopgap spending bill the US Congress passed at the weekend to avoid a federal government shutdown.
Fresh uncertainty over the future of US aid arose Tuesday when US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who advocated for support of Ukraine, was ousted from his leadership position by Republican colleagues.
James Heappey, minister of state for the armed forces of the United Kingdom, speaking at the same panel as Bauer, said even though stockpiles may be thin, aid for Kyiv must continue and Western countries need to increase their capacity to make more ammo.
“The United States and its allies are sending to Ukraine a wide range of munitions, but they are not being produced or delivered as quickly as needed,” Atlantic Council nonresident senior fellow Thomas Warrick wrote last week.
Warrick wrote that as Ukraine delayed the start of summer offensive to get more ammo and equipment to the front lines, Russia was able to build up defenses that have significantly blunted Ukrainian advances.
“An inability to ensure timely procurement and deliveries could undermine essential Ukrainian operations to retake additional territory or defend against potential future Russian offensives,” US Undersecretary of Defense Michael McCord wrote in a letter to congressional leadership on Friday as the spending bill that ultimately eliminated aid for Ukraine was being negotiated.
The original article contains 791 words, the summary contains 233 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
