1y ago

Ukraine war: Kyiv forced to cut military operations as foreign aid dries up

www.bbc.com Ukraine war: Kyiv forced to cut military operations as foreign aid dries up

A top general says diminishing foreign military aid is already having an impact on the battlefield.

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.

You're viewing a single thread.

73 comments

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 would have preferred the US foreign policy to be closer to what our founding fathers wanted, to stay the fuck out of everyone's business. Unfortunately, people in Washington starting realizing that wars are GOOD business and have basically kept us involved in some sort of active conflict for decades now
  
  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.
  https://www.state.gov/u-s-arms-sales-and-defense-trade/
  
  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?
- 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.
- Maybe because Ukraine isn't going to "win" any time soon or easily as you believe?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.

73 comments