2y ago

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

www.bbc.com

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.

73 comments

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
  
  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.
  
  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.
- Imagine a situation where an American assumes the universe revolves around the USA—now that's the real surprise party!
  
  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.
- Oof, that's toxic. I mean it is partly about America. Not an American before you try to bash me with that bullshit.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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?
- Maybe because Ukraine isn't going to "win" any time soon or easily as you believe?
- 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.
- Bruh.
Winter came. Maneuvering is very hard.
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 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.”
One more billion should do it.

73 comments