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.
The production also increased much more than in the whole US. Basically Europe's goal was at least a million shells until the end of the year. And even when they might fall a bit short on that goal, the US -by it's own account- is still in the we can probably produce 20k per month from 2024 and onward stage of ramping up production.
the German Leopard 1 tanks currently in Ukraine are partially the second line of defense for the Bundeswehr
Yeah, that's bullshit. They had to find people (most of them many decades past their jobs in military) to even do the training because Leopard-1s were simply not a thing for a long time. The ones they are sending to Ukraine are refurbished trash sitting in some yard for decades, mostly out of Germany even.
The only still existing Leopard-1s in operation are found in Greece. Then there are engineering vehicles because they were still sufficient for their job. And when they weren't anymore (because tanks they would need to tow got too heavy) that's when Wisent1 were invented. Which is a commercially developed upgrade for Leopard-1-based engineering vehicles to improve their power to a level where they can handle modern Leopard-2s again. And before the Ukraine war there was only a single buyer: the danish army.
Yeah, that’s bullshit. They had to find people (most of them many decades past their jobs in military) to even do the training because Leopard-1s were simply not a thing for a long time. The ones they are sending to Ukraine are refurbished trash sitting in some yard for decades, mostly out of Germany even.
And why do you think these tanks still exist? Nobody would buy those thinks, but if shit hits the fan, a Leopard 1 is still better than no tank at all - this is exactly what it's used for in Ukraine.
Germany also provided thousands of old Strela MANPADS, that were still NVA/East German stock. These were not stored because they are great, but as a kind of emergency-reserve.
The fact that all of this is stored in bad conditions is simply due to Germany's rather weird Bundeswehr politics.
These were not stored because they are great, but as a kind of emergency-reserve because proper disposal costs more than letting them rot on some shelf.
Not talking artillery here. Talking small arms ammo. I'm pretty sure Russia doesnt come close to producing 2m artillery rounds per year. Saw an article the other day about them running out of artillary barrels. If they couldn't manufacture enough barrels to keep up with shooting, I doubt their general manufacturing capacity.
Outside of that, that's two million non-NATO small arms rounds being donated by the private sector. Pretty sure the government would send M4s and SAWs with 5.56.
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).
What is there to "provoke"? This is an extremely clear cut case of a violation of international law. They started a war, annexed a significant portion of the country, committed countless atrocities. Why should we act like this is somehow not a reason to wipe the current leadership off the political map?
Putin won't use nuclear weapons and he can't realistically escalate the war. Every minute we let this war drag on, kills people. Not sending the most useful weapons is just inhumane at this point.
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.
That's the thing - you don't attack him at all, just his invasion. He himself may be suicidal, but do you think all his kronies will sacrifice literally everything for him? For what? Some Sunflower fields? There's a reason hardly anyone from the Moscow/St. Petersburg region got drafted - that's where his power base lives. As long as they are not threatened by his invasion, they will play along. But if his games cause them serious damage (which is decidedly not the case currently!), they will not play along anymore.
I'm absolutely willing to call Putins bluff. He's ultimately a coward and not that stupid. He won't do it.
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.
2022? Russia and the US have been starting or supporting wars of aggression for decades. Opposing crimes against humanity, by force if necessary, should not be controversial even for a pacifist. History shows clearly what happens when such aggression is met with appeasement.
What solution am I too stupid to think of?
Providing military aid is a last resort and a terrible solution. The only worse solution is to give up and hand over a sovereign nation we promised to protect to a tyrant.
Would I prefer the world get their act together and sanction them until they can't function, obviously yes. I don't think that's very likely though, same as most other proposals for ending the conflict as fundamentally only Putin can end it.
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.
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.
The production also increased much more than in the whole US. Basically Europe's goal was at least a million shells until the end of the year. And even when they might fall a bit short on that goal, the US -by it's own account- is still in the we can probably produce 20k per month from 2024 and onward stage of ramping up production.
Yeah, that's bullshit. They had to find people (most of them many decades past their jobs in military) to even do the training because Leopard-1s were simply not a thing for a long time. The ones they are sending to Ukraine are refurbished trash sitting in some yard for decades, mostly out of Germany even.
The only still existing Leopard-1s in operation are found in Greece. Then there are engineering vehicles because they were still sufficient for their job. And when they weren't anymore (because tanks they would need to tow got too heavy) that's when Wisent1 were invented. Which is a commercially developed upgrade for Leopard-1-based engineering vehicles to improve their power to a level where they can handle modern Leopard-2s again. And before the Ukraine war there was only a single buyer: the danish army.
And why do you think these tanks still exist? Nobody would buy those thinks, but if shit hits the fan, a Leopard 1 is still better than no tank at all - this is exactly what it's used for in Ukraine.
Germany also provided thousands of old Strela MANPADS, that were still NVA/East German stock. These were not stored because they are great, but as a kind of emergency-reserve.
The fact that all of this is stored in bad conditions is simply due to Germany's rather weird Bundeswehr politics.
These were not stored because they are great, but
as a kind of emergency-reservebecause proper disposal costs more than letting them rot on some shelf.Idk nearly every video I see the Ukrainian fighters have aks and idk how much 7.62x39 ammo the US even has to give.
Two million rounds of 7.62x39, as of last year, from ammo manufacturers
not sure how much of it was in this latest US military donation
Isn't that… Literally miniscule? Russia is churning out more than two million 152mm ARTILLERY shells every year.
What the fuck? I'm pretty sure the state of Texas has way more than two million rounds of ammunition stashed under people's floorboards.
Not talking artillery here. Talking small arms ammo. I'm pretty sure Russia doesnt come close to producing 2m artillery rounds per year. Saw an article the other day about them running out of artillary barrels. If they couldn't manufacture enough barrels to keep up with shooting, I doubt their general manufacturing capacity.
Outside of that, that's two million non-NATO small arms rounds being donated by the private sector. Pretty sure the government would send M4s and SAWs with 5.56.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/18/europe-weapons-military-industrial-base/?isMobile=1
I'm sure they say they are. I'll still doubt their capability
Dr Jack Watling is Senior Research Fellow for Land Warfare at the Royal United Services Institute
But is the correct type? .22 does not really help Ukraine.
There are probably enough guns in Texas to give every Ukrainian both a primary weapon and a sidearm lol
Wow that's surprising.
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).
What is there to "provoke"? This is an extremely clear cut case of a violation of international law. They started a war, annexed a significant portion of the country, committed countless atrocities. Why should we act like this is somehow not a reason to wipe the current leadership off the political map?
Putin won't use nuclear weapons and he can't realistically escalate the war. Every minute we let this war drag on, kills people. Not sending the most useful weapons is just inhumane at this point.
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.
That's the thing - you don't attack him at all, just his invasion. He himself may be suicidal, but do you think all his kronies will sacrifice literally everything for him? For what? Some Sunflower fields? There's a reason hardly anyone from the Moscow/St. Petersburg region got drafted - that's where his power base lives. As long as they are not threatened by his invasion, they will play along. But if his games cause them serious damage (which is decidedly not the case currently!), they will not play along anymore.
I'm absolutely willing to call Putins bluff. He's ultimately a coward and not that stupid. He won't do it.
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
2022? Russia and the US have been starting or supporting wars of aggression for decades. Opposing crimes against humanity, by force if necessary, should not be controversial even for a pacifist. History shows clearly what happens when such aggression is met with appeasement.
What solution am I too stupid to think of?
Providing military aid is a last resort and a terrible solution. The only worse solution is to give up and hand over a sovereign nation we promised to protect to a tyrant.
Would I prefer the world get their act together and sanction them until they can't function, obviously yes. I don't think that's very likely though, same as most other proposals for ending the conflict as fundamentally only Putin can end it.
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.