Ukraine has warned it is already being forced to downsize some military operations because of a drop-off in foreign aid.
Top general Oleksandr Tarnavskyi said troops faced ammunition shortages along the “entire front line”, creating a “big problem” for Kyiv.
It comes as billions of dollars of US and EU aid have been held up amid political wrangles.
Ukraine said it hoped to boost its own ammunition industry with western help.
But it relies heavily on western supplies, particularly on deliveries of long-range missiles and air defence systems, to fight occupying Russian forces.
Fucking Republicans.
There’s more than just the US that are able to help.
The US is the world’s armoury. Sure, there are other nations that could help, but everyone knows it’s the US that Kyiv is hoping for
It’s actually split almost 50/50 as far as money spent between the US and EU. But, yeah… it is the US weapons they want.
Right but people kinda expect the guy with the most stuff to do the most in a situation like this. Decades of US arming Europe and when it comes time to do something not much is happening. Sitting on the sidelines while a population is getting attacked with the means to stop it.
Perhaps now folks can see why we were judging European nations so hard for failing to keep up with their NATO obligations. It’s a lot more expensive in the end and less effective to be trying to stand up production now.
It’s the worst type of I told you so because it involves something that really needs to happen for everyone. I just hope that production picks up and Israel cools down for the spring.
We need sustained and modern shell production moving into the future, not only to replenish current stocks and supply Ukraine now, but to ensure scalable production in future conflicts.
Yeah that isn’t the reason why. People screaming about NATO obligations have done a lot of work in weakening it since they are backed by Russia.
And? We’re the largest economy in the world. We can and should be helping them.
This. Stop begging the US for money and guns with one side of your mouths while telling us how terrible we are for everything with the other. We are facing some pretty significant issues of our own, and I know that when shit gets bad here, there won’t be a single country anywhere that will help us.
You think the US has been sending weapons and money to Ukraine for the last 2yrs out of the kindness of its heart? Fuck no. The US has benefited immensely from the status quo and stands to lose a lot if Russian imperialism is not checked here and now. The only reason the US can even contemplate giving less is because Russia is so fucked from the last 2yrs.
What you see as “begging for money and guns” is just an observation of reality - a small country like Ukraine cannot stand up to a huge one like Russia without support, and it benefits the west greatly to give that support.
US foreign policy is not charitable and never has been.
Also lest we not forget that this is exactly what good relations and alliances are for - to give aid to the one in need because we’re stronger together. It stands to reason that those with the most, should also give the most.
Oh and BTW, the EU has given more to Ukraine than the US has.
Huh I didn’t know EU gave more. Link please as my searching has not turned up such a link. Best I’ve seen is 50/50.
Here’s one link: https://www.statista.com/chart/28489/ukrainian-military-humanitarian-and-financial-aid-donors/
I just googled “ukraine aid eu vs us”.
Thank you. I use duck duck go and the results do not give me that appreciate it.
I think I speak for a lot of Canadians that when your civil war breaks out, we’ll be sending arms and support to whoever is opposing the Trumpists. It may be under the table.
I’ll also point out that there was an explicit understanding with the west. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons (the USSR had a good number based there). In return, the west agreed to back them if Russia tried to annex them. Russia is currently doing exactly that, it’s not unreasonable for Ukraine to expect some help.
I’ll also point out that there was an explicit understanding with the west.
Is “The West” the US only?
I dont see any problem in saying those with the most give the most. And I don’t see any problem in saying even if someone is super generous they can still be criticized.
If I donate my paycheck to the animal shelter and then murder a bunch of people I can’t say “it cancels out, you can’t criticise me any more!”
Removed by mod
This situation somewhat does. Yes there’s also been Orban being a fuck about EU help, but armament wise the US has been the primary supplier, and if US aid wasn’t running out, Ukraine wouldn’t be facing these issues, regardless of whether the EU or even other actors also could’ve prevented this.
EU needs to boot Hungary
I agree but not for this. Hungary had to be kicked years ago. Human Rights are toilet paper to Orban.
Removed by mod
Oof, that’s toxic. I mean it is partly about America. Not an American before you try to bash me with that bullshit.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
You live up to your username so hard
Removed by mod
Well, we wouldn’t if not everyone wasn’t coming to us for help. Y’all like talking shit until it’s time to put up.
This article is about foreign aid drying up, like the aid Republicans blocked, smart guy.
Fuck the republican traitor filth.
You’ve got to give Putin this, he gets what he pays for.
No surprise.
1st year of most wars RUS is in. They’re crap in but afterwards they become a force to be reckoned with.
US-EU should have given UKR all the military equipment that UKR requested in the beginning instead of it being slowly given.
They probably can’t become a major force like that without full mobilization, and Putin has shown he’s unwilling to do that. For good reason–it’d probably end with him committing suicide by three bullets to the back of the head. They’re not going to be able to mount any kind of new offensive without that.
At the same time, Ukraine can’t mount any kind of counter-offensive without material support. The scenario here is either Ukraine puts up with losing territory in a negotiated peace, or things quiet down into border skirmishes for the next year with Russia sending missiles into Kyiv every few months.
Despite the headlines, there isn’t much chance of Ukraine outright losing. Russia can’t mobilize enough to do that.
I just donated to United 24 again. If some governments are having internal issues, one can help Ukraine defend from Russian invaders directly.
Thanks for the link!
I’m surprised the military industrial complex isn’t just loaning them the ordinance they were buying. Ukraine is slated to win easily if they can keep supplied. Most likely financial aid will resume from the US and EU. So those loans won’t take long to pay off. And then the industry has another nation to buy their bombs.
Me too. I never thought I would say this, but I’m surprised the Military Industrial Complex doesn’t hold more pull with Reps.
Either Russia pays better or they’re just holding out hope that being contrarian to Democrats, regardless of the issue, will win them another term.
R’s are beholden to the dumbest, meanest people in the US. The MIC knows thus and knows they will get their money one way or another.
If Ukraine falls, Putin won’t stop there, for example.
Getting their paid for politicians reelected is more important.
I think the MIC holds less pull than people think. Lobbying also doesn’t work like most people think. It’s more like targeted PR.
“slated to win easily”
Almost sounds like a sports cliche. Easy to talk about war like that when you have little to no stake in the game and can think of both sides as good guys and bad guys.
I agree with most of your points. Fortunately unlike most wars, this one does actually have a clear good and bad guy.
I had to watch John Kirby cry about Russians hitting Ukrainian hospitals and then smirk as he’s talking about Israelis doing the same thing. There are no good guys when the US is involved in war.
Sure, the US hardly ever deserve the title of good guys, but surely we can agree Ukraine is the penultimate good guy
(for now, it’ll be interesting to see then switch back out of wartime emergency powers if things ever settle down enough for them to have the chance)
Uh…sorry to sidetrack here, but do you know what penultimate means? Because in this context it would mean that Ukraine is the second to last good guy. Which doesn’t make much sense.
Thanks, that’s hilarious! I thought it meant quintessential.
All always, it’s good to be humble…
Glad I could help! Learn something new every day!
Meh the US at the helm typically keeps everyone else chilled the fuck out so I would say net-net they’re good.
Lol okay, good for who? Vietnam? Iraq? Korea? Cambodia? Panama? Nicaragua?
The US has been “at the helm” for so long now it’s impossible to think it any other way. US foreign policy is “good” for one country, the US. The global police bullshit is exactly that, bullshit.
Who would you have preferred instead of the major powers?
I mean the Soviets helped beat the Nazis and they were hardly the good guys. Helping Ukraine makes US the good guys in the Ukraine war. Each action should stand on its own.
There is no such thing as a transitive character for the property of being a good guy, otherwise any arms dealer would be a “good guy” by selling weapons to Ukraine.
Its the actual reason for helping the good guys in this war - Ukraine - that makes a 3rd party helping then good guys or not (hence, for example selling weapons to Ukraine is just business, not being a good guy) and if there is one thing US actions in Israel show is that it’s not a high moral standpoint or even basic humanity that shapes US help, even if their propaganda relentlessly proclaims their actions are driven by the purest of motivations.
John Kirby is an asshat. That has nothing to do with who should be supported in Ukraine.
What a weird name for a Ukrainian, who does he work for again?
can think of both sides as good guys and bad guys.
One country invaded another country without (real) cause. That seems pretty clear-cut.
This was stated before the offensive began. Here’s an article from Febuary:
Russia will struggle to adapt to the increased capability Western tanks will bring to Ukraine. But the tanks currently on offer—thirty-one US Abrams, fourteen UK Challengers, and fourteen German Leopards—will not turn the tide of the war. There are reports that France, Poland, and Canada will also provide tanks to Ukraine, although how many and when is unknown. For Western assistance to enable a Ukrainian military victory, four things must happen. First, Western countries would need to provide enough tanks to give Ukraine a devastating offensive punch. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has put this number at 300–500 tanks, far more than the fifty-eight currently on offer. Tanks are most effective when formed into battalions (thirty to forty tanks as Ukraine structures them) and brigades (ninety to 120 tanks). Zelensky’s number, which he certainly got from his military commanders, seems designed to allow Ukraine to form four new brigades of Western tanks, each composed of three battalions. Used properly, four new tank brigades would represent a ground offensive capability that could be decisive.
Ukraine never got those increased numbers. The outcome was predicted accurately beforehand.
It’s almost like it’s not that ridiculously simplistic.
Do you like, have any information that would show why this isn’t happening due to more complicated details? Or did you just post in order to talk down to someone without making any salient points whatsoever?
basically, the government has to approve sales.
Do I need specific info to recognize that “the military industrial complex” is not a single homogenous entity that goes around loaning and selling to whomever independent of any oversight, national security concerns, or contractual obligations?
Are you referring to some “the CEO” of the MIC? Keyword here is “complex” as in various uncoordinated entities… not a single block selling weapons the gov contracted for manufacture to anyone on the side.
Just think a little… You do realize congress purchased those weapons, it’s up to the US gov to decide what to do with them. Lockheed doesn’t just walk over and double deal a stealth fighter to the highest bidder like a car salesman with a quota…
It’s shit like this that gets people discouraged and missing the reality of our support for Ukrainian independence. It’s not a MIC thing as much as some people would like to simplistically align our support for Ukraine with Bush’s war in Iraq. It’s misguided and potentially dangerous to misconstrue this shit like that.
You describe a scenario divorced from reality, ignorant of national security, ignorant of who owns what yet you’re asking me for specifics?
Maybe because Ukraine isn’t going to “win” any time soon or easily as you believe?
deleted by creator
I would think much of their supply chain involves the use of US military logistics infrastructure. If the US military is prevented from funding these pipelines, they may find it cost prohibitive to even get the supplies there.
That’s not extremely profitable though. It’s only “very” profitable. The US doesn’t move for “very”.
Let’s first slow down, instead use these tax payer funds to add middle men, like US corporations and fund them instead to help Ukraine. Much more money for the chums from the club.
At best UKR will be able to maintain a stalemate with RUS.
RUS is tapping into alternatives to get what they need and want. Which for the most part is currently working out.
UKR relies heavily on the US-EU for funding and support. That support is inconsistent and will fluctuate but will mostly remain relatively standard or low unless something media worthy happens.
When and how much they’re are funded depends on public opinion and the media, whose interest changes.
eg. Afghanistan with the Afghan women and girls, and how support is significantly being redirected to Israel-Palestine conflict.
You can’t transfer large weapons without the government signing off in some way. They could maybe do small arms but it’s not a guarantee. The laws around arms trafficking can get pretty draconian.
Ukraine is slated to win easily if they can keep supplied.
This is where you’re wrong and a victim of propaganda.
Russia has been getting bounced back reliably for years. But it’ll be hard for any army to fight without munitions.
This is a great tactic if you support Russia.
Yeah, but the GOP will be getting a lot of money from Russian cutouts for this betrayal of freedom & democracy.
Removed by mod
Bruh.
deleted by creator
I said this about Trump. Sadly, nothing happened
Removed by mod
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Top general Oleksandr Tarnavskyi said troops faced ammunition shortages along the “entire front line”, creating a “big problem” for Kyiv.
But it relies heavily on western supplies, particularly on deliveries of long-range missiles and air defence systems, to fight occupying Russian forces.
A report by the Estonian defence ministry said Kyiv needed a minimum of 200,000 artillery shells a month to retain an edge against Russia.
Speaking to the BBC, Ukraine’s Deputy Defence Minister Ivan Havryliuk said the country was ramping up production of kamikaze drones “to compensate [for] the lack of artillery shells”.
However, the situation has signalled to Russia that international support for Ukraine is weakening - and there are concerns that by switching its economy onto a war footing, Moscow can outlast the West in this battle of attrition.
Kalle Kirss, Estonia’s defence adviser to Nato, told the BBC that Europe needed to commit funding to support Ukraine.
The original article contains 668 words, the summary contains 151 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Oof, that’s sad to hear.
Removed by mod
Removed under rule 6, 3 day ban for multiple rule 6 violations.
Take the time to read the sidebar.
“Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.”
Removed by mod
One more billion should do it.
