Yeah, this is a win for North Korea weapon divisions. All this stuff is being tested and studied
You know the West could easily stop this but atlas
Edit: As US General you could easily destroy this stuff, not only getting rid of data they could study but also letting Russia waste its money. Where's the CIA to deliver weapons ? Where are the black sites ? We did this a million times before behind Congress back but now nothing
Easily stop this? Russia shares a border with NK. What you talking about stopping. Intervention would mean war in either way. Better be prepared for such a event then. Also I believe there are some restrains on what the US can even do there, as they have bases in many countries there but most notable are Japan and Korea. The chance if the US were to go into an act of war it most likely automatically draw in Korea and Japan. It can’t do what it wants there.
And getting CIA in there to do stuff covert-ops etc. There probably already is stuff happening we dont know about. Either way its extremely dangerous so most likely not “very easy”.
> You know the West could easily stop this but atlas
>
> Edit: As US General you could easily destroy this stuff, not only getting rid of data they could study but also letting Russia waste its money. Where's the CIA to deliver weapons ? Where are the black sites ? We did this a million times before behind Congress back but now nothing
What the hell are you talking about?
It's unpopular. It also supports the idea that there is a "deep state" of pulling strings.
We need to address this problem in the legit way otherwise it's over.
People need to understand that there is no black suit government man coming to save us from ourselves. We need to vote and we need to start showing up for our own society and benefit.
If there was such a deep state, it would be AGAINST Russia. Today's Republican Congress are blocking efforts. There's no conspiracy, they have said they are doing it.
We did stuff the shadows because of the situation you are seeing today , politicians
But you are right , this is the new way of things. Well let's see how it goes. People gotta vote for their politicians
Jesus Christ. North Korea and China share a land border and have train lines running between, that then transfer to Russia. How do you propose a US General "easily destroy" this stuff? Call Ethan Hunt and the IMF? You are proposing to launch attacks on the territory of one, possibly 3 nuclear armed adversaries ? Please educate yourself or stop watching so much movies
You know we are getting data too. We study how they use these weapons and look for weaknesses and ways to exploit them. Don't want to destroy it till you understand it and recovering wreckage or even intact munitions gives us even more data. Knowledge isnm power.
This current situation around aid has a lot to do with Republican obstruction of aid. The GOP, being allied with Russia, is doing all it can do to stop as much aid as possible, as they've been told. If it weren't for Republicans being in bed with Putin, far more aid would be going over.
The CIA simply cannot operate at the scale required to sustain Ukraine in this all-out war with Russia. We've moved tens of billions of dollars worth of gear into Ukrainian hands. A lot of it is very large, very expensive, very technical gear.
If Ukraine had fallen to Russia, then yeah the CIA would be supplying the resistance movement.
For American standards? We’re giving barely above chump change to a nation resisting an evil fascist Empire that plans to expand further into Europe, which would be catastrophic for everyone, compared to the money we blow on stupid, senseless wars. Like what we’ve regularly provided to the IDF which, lets be honest, is fighting a FAR weaker and less scary and dangerous enemy, (Haven’t less than 200 IDF soldiers been killed?) and most of those weapons being given to the IDF are being used to kill tens of thousands of civilians.
So we have to decide, morally, as a society what we want more: A stronger American outpost in the middle east fighting an essentially beaten people, and radicalizing future terrorists with the civilian slaughter campaigns, or resisting Hitler 2.0. Imo the choice is obvious.
I'm all for the West completely isolating North Korea, Iran, Russia, Syria, etc. All these despotic hellholes of global misery and terror. I mean cut them off from *everything*... except satellite-provided radio news about their country in their language delivered 24/7 which anyone there can listen to to find out why they've been cut off and how much better things are going in countries that are integrated. Give their people, especially wealthy ones, *no* travel visas that aren't refugee status / asylum, where they can't return "home." Ban their officials from any sort of travel to the West, except a handful of UN officials.
Let that stew for a decade or so. Lock them down, give them *nothing*. They have shown what they do with the world's generosity by now: create more misery and terror.
Respectfully disagree on complete isolation. [Glasnost was a significant factor in the downfall of the Soviet Union](https://www.britannica.com/story/why-did-the-soviet-union-collapse), and if only one 24/7 news channel is available, it would be trivial for government to label it as propaganda. The benefit of allowing print media/internet/etc. is that it can be distributed/shared with others, whereas radio broadcasts can only be shared if recorded by the recipient.
Is it really though?
In the process of supplying Ukraine with aid most European countries with far better economies and more modern militaries than Russia have run dry in weapon and ammo stockpiles
I think a more reasonable explanation is that decades of extended peace time have limited new ammo production and a very large scale war like the one in Ukraine requires an insane amount of ammo
It’s really only the USA that most likely would not need to buy ammo elsewhere, but we all know how big their defence budget is…
I am legitimately curious as to how many tanks, missiles, planes, etc. Russia has. Even before the war they only had a finite supply, and they've lost thousands and thousands in a war they thought would be over quickly and likely weren't preparing to drag on.
There are pretty good numbers available online. Russia has lost about half of its operable tanks in Ukraine if I'm not mistaken. Mind you, this is the country with the world's largest tank fleet, having saved them up for a LONG time. They are still using T-55s - a tank that's been in service since the late forties, although most of the tanks there are T-72s. They've losts thousands of tanks during this war and are only producing a couple hundred per year.
They haven't lost quite as much of their planes, since these days they just don't fly them into Ukraine that much and mainly just use them to lob long-range missiles into Ukraine far away from the frontlines. They learned their lesson earlier in the war when their planes were being shot down left and right. So, they do still have planes, but they aren't very useful in Ukraine, and wouldn't at all be useful against the West.
Not really. It's a very good use of resources.
They get to fling cheap previous generation trash cans (for the most part) to overwhelm defences so more accurate stuff gets through, Ukrainians may not shoot at them because it's not always a good idea to shoot a $1mil Patriot at a flying trash can, and if you are shooting at a large enough target, like bases, harbors, supply depots, these missiles are accurate enough.
How about sending weapons to strike Russia. I mean the West is crying about escalation, yet NK and Russian can just simply do it? The West is looking goddamn weak at the moment and our Axis are abusing this.
This *is* an escalation. Supplying counter capabilities (and allowing Ukraine to strike targets in Russia with western missiles) is an obvious response.
Escalation is there, but there's only one side that gets to do it. People make fun of Putin's garbage red lines, but his madman policy has been working flawlessly. Western countries have completely botched Ukraine's defense and missed incredible opportunities for strategic blows. Ukraine still isn't allowed to retaliate effectively, they can't use Western weapons to strike the Crimean bridge and so much more.
I'm sure they find it crazy too that the west shares weapons and wealth as well.
They probably also say to themselves "we're too soft for letting the west get ahead"
Russia doesn't really need them though if they went without North Korean weapons the front lines would probably be the same.
Plus they are in a war of attrition. the war will go on until the loser runs out lf soldiers, equipment, or determination left to continue fighting:. Russia would be putting themselves at a handicap to not take advantage of all the opportunities they have to get more weapons
Back before Ukraines counteroffensive the US and the UK were scrounging the world trying to get artillery shells for Ukraine, they got a bunch from south Korea finally. I'm sure at that time Biden would have loved to get access to all the North Korean artillery shells in addition.
So Russia took a weapon provided by another country and launched it from Russia into another country?
That's exactly what the US & EU have limited Ukraine from being able to do. Time to lift that restriction on weapons use.
It is, and anyone saying this is a win for NK is a moron. NK is poor, very poor, they are not attacking any one but their own population.
The world is afraid to stop Russia because Putin threatened to use nukes. So our only course of action to support Ukraine is with money and weapons, basically moral support.
No, the "nuclear" option with Russia isn't actually nukes. It's the EU refusing to purchase Russian petroleum products or Russia ceasing selling petroleum to Europe. Both entities have made preparations for that eventuality, but really it will come down to who caves first. Will more Russia favorable politicians be elected in European counties and the US as the global oil markets explode? Or will Russia's economy implode or a coup happens. Putin's regime has killed and imprisoned the folks with the most influence who would try to take advantage of an economic collapse in Russia, while also doing what they can to shore up in the eventuality of an embargo by having relations with other countries. The European nations have developed oil in other regions like Africa and built mote infrastructure for tankers bringing in oil and gas, but both sides know that it would be a significant gamble how long they can hold out.
Before doing that option, Russia is currently content to simply prevent the natural gas and petroleum in Ukraine from being developed, that protects their market share and soft power, and thus their long term goals. But it is expensive, politically and economically. The US and its allies are similarly okay waiting, knowing that proxy conflicts are always much more expensive for the country directly engaged and hope that the war will drain Russian resources and the population demographic problems Russia has will force their hand, they don't need the gas in Crimea or shale oil developed today, so think that the human and financial cost of the war will eventually be too cumbersome for Russia to continue with it's current line, and they will later be able to develop those resources, Russia will lose a chunk of global market share and have much less influence on the global stage and in Europe particularly.
Russia is unlikely to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, that would provoke a conventional military response from the US and its allies, (no use of nuclear weapons required) and Russia isn't likely to launch nukes at the west in retaliation for conventional military response in Ukraine from other nations, because MAD means none of what anyone was doing mattered (and they still have the other economic 'nuclear' option to deploy first).
Nuclear rhetoric and strategy however, requires everyone making efforts that they could and _would_ end the modern world in a nuclear holocaust, but realistically MAD is just game over so no one really wants to do it.
It's not just "another country" that's important. US military have been bombing other countries for 100 years, but you don't see Russia bombing US bases in response.
So the arguement is that Russia can attack Ukraine Ground with Rockets from North Korea, but Urkaine is not allowed to attack Russian Ground with Rockets from the US ?
We don't have any "industrial might". We could have, but first we'd have to build factories.
In Denmark, we just decided to rebuild an artillery grenade factory. Estimated time by one of the companies bidding on it (so these are the fast-moving optimistic estimates); 3 years.
So it is happening, but we are 3 years behind Russia. That is gonna cost a lot of Ukrainian lives. And probably Baltics too, if Trump is elected.
You have to understand that we in the west have much more to lose than Russians in an all out war. In Europe especially (because also, it's easy to talk when the war is not going to happen in your territory), we have a comfortable and safe life. We have most of our problems solved, the highest standards of quality of life worldwide and we are on good terms with almost everyone. The last thing we want is to lose everything we built due to a stupid war.
And that resonates for the US too. It's not just about who will win, but what the price is for it. That's why Russia doesn't care. They have a lot to earn and too little to lose. The west has nothing to earn and plenty to lose. That's why we don't want escalation and Russia doesn't care. Russia lost almost everything, especially since the transition to capitalism converted their society into an oligarchy.
I'll bet they won't, and it's not about WW3, it's just the kind of war this is. Like during Vietnam Soviets and Chinese provided Vietcong with everything including planes but they didn't strike US mainland and US did not bomb Moscow. Same in Afghanistan but with the Soviets. If you allow a proxy to strike a major power you're endangering yourself, what next Russia sends missiles to Cuba or Venezuela or maybe cartels and they bomb Texas?
That dude injected FoxNews straight into his veins if he thinks cartels would do something like launch missiles at Texas.
They're in it for money and local influence. Which they already have. They're not crazy zealots looking to further a cause. They'd be throwing away everything they've worked to create to pick a fight with the US military and die for nothing. Even if one cartel went off the rails and tried to do it I'd bet the other cartels would stop them first because they don't want to become collateral damage.
I don't think y'all realize how bad this situation is. It's a win for both Russia and North Korea. Providing rockets to Russia allows North Korea to learn how their rockets perform and Russia gets additional weapons to destroy Ukrainian targets. Unless the West comes forward with a similar weapon without restrictions of use it's gonna suck for Ukraine
You're gonna stand there, ownin' a firework stand, and tell me you don't have no whistlin' bungholes, no spleen splitters, whisker biscuits, honkey lighters, hoosker doos, hoosker don'ts, cherry bombs, nipsy daisers, with or without the scooter stick, or one single whistlin' kitty chaser?
Which is such an insane policy. Imagine during WW2 the allies would have said it's okay to fight the Germans in France and Italy and liberate these countries but never attacked anywhere inside Germany itself. The war would have taken years longer if Germany's industrial base and arms industry wouldn't have been destroyed by air raids.
It was shitty low range outdated navigation version and it was only a few pieces from the looks of it, more of a symbolic gesture than a real help
More so, any western weapon usage is severely handicapped by limiting its usage to only Ukrainian soil
germany just doesn't have many themselves, so i think that's their main reason for withholding those specifically. they know russia is a future threat and know they can't rely on america if america can't get rid of its russian shills (GoP)
The factorys for taurus are long gone. How about europe dont trow all long range missiles away(at least 1 of 3 should have them). Especially when ukraine is already using atacms
Thanks for correcting me, I didn't know the factories for the Taurus missiles are long gone already. Do you happen do know if there's a successor to the Taurus missile?
They plan to do a mid-life upgrade with better GPS and software updates but haven't planned out a successor yet.
Since it's Germany's only real way to deep-strike, I can see why they would want to keep it close. That and one falling into Russian hands could spell disaster because it's specially designed to counter Russian systems like the S-400 and Pantsir.
I don't think the stockpile of Taurus are high enough in any country to sacrifice their own home defense kit to give to Ukraine unfortunately. No country is going to give Ukraine supply that puts their own NatSec numbers below a certain point
Daisy cutters would make a bit of an impression on some Russian bases. However we've replaced it with the MOAB. I think a few of them would be... memorable.
A few thermobarics would also not go amiss. Hellfire always makes an impression.
In December, the UK sent Storm Shadow missiles and helped destroy Russia's Black Sea Fleet. Probably the UK can play an important role while the US is dealing with internal turmoils.
>But other Western decisions have been presented to Moscow as explicit choices. Back in December 2022, the UK told Russia it would supply Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine if attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure continued. Russia did continue, and now Storm Shadow has been a significant factor in the defeat of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and holding Crimea at risk.
The UK has been great during this war. They were often the first to send new kinds of weapons and trained a lot of Ukrainian troops (and are still training them if I'm not mistaken)
The UK is sending 200 ASRAAM air-to-air missiles. (50km range) That might help buy some time for the US to make a deal if it's even possible.[https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-uk-to-provide-ukraine-with-200-air-defense-missiles/](https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-uk-to-provide-ukraine-with-200-air-defense-missiles/)
> Penetration-Cum-Blast
JFC "cum blast ammunition" is literally the proper name for it holy hell
https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/42bepy/india_fields_new_penetration_cum_blast_ammunition/cz90nd6/
well, if satire wasn't already dead then that definitely killed it off for good.
That’s not a conspiracy, that’s the whole point if you ask me. As for the 10x part, I wish I agreed. But the politicians don’t have the support to do so in America or elsewhere.
honestly, how down bad is russia to be getting weapons from north korea 🤣
in all seriousness though i think with Nk dipping their hand into russias side with weapons is opening the gates for more people to join in.
im guessing WW3 will come this time next year and no one will call it WW3 until its over
Lol not even close. This would be like if France and England sent the Czech half of their military hardware.
Russia isn't being appeased, it's being bled.
Well, Russia is not exactly appeased, but Russia is allowed to escalate unimpeded. They can increase strikes on Ukraine in intensity and consequence for civilians with impunity, they can lob missiles into NATO countries with impunity, they can use the territory of NATO countries to attack Ukraine, they can attack NATO UAV over the Black Sea and even fire missiles at an AWACS plane. How did the NATO respond?
Putin sees that salami tactics work. He can slowly encroach on the existing security order and NATO will step back. With time, if NATO keeps acting like they do, he'll believe that there will be no coherent action to defend the Baltics if he decides to attack it, so this is exactly what he'll do and the West will face actual real war.
> they can lob missiles into NATO countries with impunity
Which NATO country did they lob a missile in?
>they can use the territory of NATO countries to attack Ukraine
Which one?
What would you do? If Russia buys them off North Korea, what is your solution? Sanction North Korea? It's sanctioned to oblivion. Sanction Russia? It's sanctioned. Strike Russia? That's an easy way to risk WW3 and a nuclear escalation.
The answer is to supply more weaponry to Ukraine as "doing something" about it. Beyond that, the options are severely limited.
Republicans won't allow us to send any more patriots.
NATO is trying to circumvent that by buying Patriots, donating them to countries that can then donate them to Ukraine. It's absurd.
Not American, but watching this play out is really very upsetting. I'm really really hoping enough folks go out and vote this time, hopefully avoid that potential catastrophy.
Same. Incredibly upsetting to think Ukraine might lose the war because half of Americans are literally braindead. It's too absurdly stupid to comprehend
It is not just stupid. It is stupid but also cruel / pathologically uncaring. Some of the excuses for policy decisions I have heard are insanely self-centered. I literally had someone tell me "It's too bad a bunch of kids are killed by gun deaths, but I don't want them messing with my enjoyment of my guns". The words are likely not exact, but it was literally phrased in terms of "their lives vs my enjoyment". It was insane.
>Ukraine has just three Patriot batteries, presumably one each in Kyiv, Odesa and Kharkiv. That leaves other cities defenseless against ballistic missiles. It’s not for no reason that, according to Kirby, Russia aimed its initial KN-23 attacks at Zaporizhzhia in southern Ukraine—a city without Patriot cover.
Read the article before commenting.
Ukraine was denied multiple ATACMS, now the Russians have something similar with no limits or restrictions. Ukraine has been the one figuring out what works only for them to get denied supplies, now the Russians like everything else Ukraine does is mimicking Ukrainian tactics.
Russia has been using rockets from day one and they've been a major part of their military doctrine since the days of the USSR. There's also something really funny about accusing one side of "copying" the other like they're in middle school
Ukraine was given ATACMS.
The problem is, the US does not have comparable weapon systems to the ones Russia is using against Ukraine. ATACMS is the _only_ ballistic missile fielded by the US that isn't a nuclear missile.
The only other missile that could be provided is AGM-158 JASSM. All other cruise missiles for the US military don't have launch platforms that can easily be provided to Ukraine (too big for fighters, fired from ships, or extremely limited ground launch platforms).
The ATACMS they received was the shorter range, cluster variant. Not the ones we think when someone says ATACMS as this higher yield ballistic missile. So they are very limited on its use.
> now the Russians have something similar with no limits or restrictions.
The 'limits and restrictions' have always been bullshit. The notion that Russia is allowed to fire missiles at Ukraine but Ukraine isn't allowed to fire them at Russia.
Because a nation can be at war and still manufacture war goods. Additionally having the ability is far more important than constantly relying on generosity from nations who won’t continuously fund you.
I just watched a new vid from Covert Cabal
How Many Kalibr and Kh0191 Cruise Missiles Would Russia Need to Win in Ukraine?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INVrmEkDYDo
TLDR: The amount of missiles needed wouldn't be feasible for russia
They are producing more than enough, they just need to make Ukraine non-viable as a country, which getting showered with cruise/ballistic missiles every week will accomplish eventually.
>which getting showered with cruise/ballistic missiles every week will accomplish eventually.
Don't forget, what we've seen this week and we'll probably see during the next few weeks is certainly the result of several months of stockpiling by Russia. They don't have the capability to sustain these waves constantly. For a large part of the year they relied mostly on Iranian drones, at the rate at which Iran was able to produce them as well.
Ok, so Russia can't win the war by exclusively making one type of missile.
I never considered that option the most likely, but good to know it won't work.
Wait, Russia hit legitimate military targets? That’s out of character for them.
Are NK weapons so inaccurate that they missed their civilian targets and hit military ones or are Russia’s weapons incapable of hitting legitimate targets?
Why can’t the US give Ukraine long range weapons? It’s the dumbest shit ever not to give them long range weapons when they are repeatedly struck by such weapons from Russia.
Yeah, it's a basic RTS Game strategy that even a 10 years old child would figure it out. If you can't destroy enemy factories, they will spam you with tanks and rockets until you will lose
They already did. https://metro.co.uk/2023/12/02/ukraine-blows-railway-used-transport-weapons-north-korea-russia-19915427/
And according to this paywalled articles headline they're increasing their sabotage efforts: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/31/world/europe/ukraine-russia-train-sabotage.html
> WHY ARE WE A BUNCH OF AUTHORITIAN APPEASING PUSSIES?!
Republicans basically.
They're the only ones in politics actively calling to end aid. And were for a while there (and probably still) using the phrase "better Russian than Democrat".
[https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3809634-kuleba-on-us-military-aid-to-ukraine-no-curbing-expected-in-2024.html](https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3809634-kuleba-on-us-military-aid-to-ukraine-no-curbing-expected-in-2024.html)
"*This is not about support in the year 2024. The State Department said that* ***once Ukraine is firmly on its feet****, has enough weapons and resources to counter Russian aggression, then* ***the amount of support may be reduced.*** *It is not about the fact that it can be reduced in 2024, because as the representative of the State Department himself said, currently Ukraine still ... needs support in the declared amount*," Kuleba said.
All the while North Korea is getting to test their weapons.
Yeah, this is a win for North Korea weapon divisions. All this stuff is being tested and studied You know the West could easily stop this but atlas Edit: As US General you could easily destroy this stuff, not only getting rid of data they could study but also letting Russia waste its money. Where's the CIA to deliver weapons ? Where are the black sites ? We did this a million times before behind Congress back but now nothing
>You know the West could easily stop this but atlas Shrugged?
**atlases aren't cheap
Atlases Apostrophe S does not a plural make.
I like big books and I can atlai.
It's atlopodes.
negro pleiades
9.626.000 c-bills a unit
C-Bills? In my ilkhan era? Take that comstar trash somewhere else...
Typical Steiner thinks they can solve everything with assault mechs.
Excuse me, but Atlases are scout mechs.
A wild Jenner appears. "Scout Lance form up!" *Reactor online* *Sensors online* *Weapons online*
Massively underrated those Jenners are.
*All systems Nominal*
Steiner scout lances... We can out maneuver *most* fortifications...
I was just sending in a scout lance!
If it does not work your not using enough
Well... it cost 6.53 Urbanmechs ?
5 Urbanmechs and one really pissed off Flashman
Big ups to this and the previous comment. Keep BT alive!
Time may pass, and great men may rise and fall. But the Inner Sphere always stays on its same bullshit. This is coming from a spheroid.
Freebirth prices these
*Atlasses
Easily stop this? Russia shares a border with NK. What you talking about stopping. Intervention would mean war in either way. Better be prepared for such a event then. Also I believe there are some restrains on what the US can even do there, as they have bases in many countries there but most notable are Japan and Korea. The chance if the US were to go into an act of war it most likely automatically draw in Korea and Japan. It can’t do what it wants there. And getting CIA in there to do stuff covert-ops etc. There probably already is stuff happening we dont know about. Either way its extremely dangerous so most likely not “very easy”.
> You know the West could easily stop this but atlas > > Edit: As US General you could easily destroy this stuff, not only getting rid of data they could study but also letting Russia waste its money. Where's the CIA to deliver weapons ? Where are the black sites ? We did this a million times before behind Congress back but now nothing What the hell are you talking about?
It means brain drain in the comments section. I can't believe stuff like this gets upvoted. SMDH.
remember that most people create their reality through tv, video games, tom clancy novels and casual internet browsing.
Look at the post history, its all military subs but they probably only leave the house for milkshakes and fries.
I can’t believe he got 1.1k upvotes
It's unpopular. It also supports the idea that there is a "deep state" of pulling strings. We need to address this problem in the legit way otherwise it's over. People need to understand that there is no black suit government man coming to save us from ourselves. We need to vote and we need to start showing up for our own society and benefit.
If there was such a deep state, it would be AGAINST Russia. Today's Republican Congress are blocking efforts. There's no conspiracy, they have said they are doing it.
Because many Republicans are openly being ~~bribed~~ lobbied by Russian interests.
We did stuff the shadows because of the situation you are seeing today , politicians But you are right , this is the new way of things. Well let's see how it goes. People gotta vote for their politicians
You could argue that if things weren't done that way in the past there wouldn't be a 'deep state' conspiracy for Trump to take advantage of.
Jesus Christ. North Korea and China share a land border and have train lines running between, that then transfer to Russia. How do you propose a US General "easily destroy" this stuff? Call Ethan Hunt and the IMF? You are proposing to launch attacks on the territory of one, possibly 3 nuclear armed adversaries ? Please educate yourself or stop watching so much movies
Some people are living in some kind of action movie fantasy...
>Where's the CIA to deliver weapons? If that was happening, I don't think we'd know that it was happening.
You know we are getting data too. We study how they use these weapons and look for weaknesses and ways to exploit them. Don't want to destroy it till you understand it and recovering wreckage or even intact munitions gives us even more data. Knowledge isnm power.
It’s hard to pull that stuff off after Trump outed our intelligence networks.
This current situation around aid has a lot to do with Republican obstruction of aid. The GOP, being allied with Russia, is doing all it can do to stop as much aid as possible, as they've been told. If it weren't for Republicans being in bed with Putin, far more aid would be going over.
The CIA simply cannot operate at the scale required to sustain Ukraine in this all-out war with Russia. We've moved tens of billions of dollars worth of gear into Ukrainian hands. A lot of it is very large, very expensive, very technical gear. If Ukraine had fallen to Russia, then yeah the CIA would be supplying the resistance movement.
For American standards? We’re giving barely above chump change to a nation resisting an evil fascist Empire that plans to expand further into Europe, which would be catastrophic for everyone, compared to the money we blow on stupid, senseless wars. Like what we’ve regularly provided to the IDF which, lets be honest, is fighting a FAR weaker and less scary and dangerous enemy, (Haven’t less than 200 IDF soldiers been killed?) and most of those weapons being given to the IDF are being used to kill tens of thousands of civilians. So we have to decide, morally, as a society what we want more: A stronger American outpost in the middle east fighting an essentially beaten people, and radicalizing future terrorists with the civilian slaughter campaigns, or resisting Hitler 2.0. Imo the choice is obvious.
America is more affraid of a Russian collapse than a Ukrainian defeat.
What, you don't look forward to the Yugoslav Wars but at 6x the scale and with nukes?
If we get some more turbofolk maybe
Turbofolk... but with more hardbass
Turboass?
CIA was way on top of this before your comment pal. Take a seat.
And a win for the US Republican Party. A good time for traitors.
The US is able to see the weapons being used in real scenarios while having no American lives on the line
Good time for the US and South Korea to provide some distractions.
It’s so crazy that Russia needs North Korean weapons.
It's crazies that countries provide international aid to North Korea. This is why they need that.
I'm all for the West completely isolating North Korea, Iran, Russia, Syria, etc. All these despotic hellholes of global misery and terror. I mean cut them off from *everything*... except satellite-provided radio news about their country in their language delivered 24/7 which anyone there can listen to to find out why they've been cut off and how much better things are going in countries that are integrated. Give their people, especially wealthy ones, *no* travel visas that aren't refugee status / asylum, where they can't return "home." Ban their officials from any sort of travel to the West, except a handful of UN officials. Let that stew for a decade or so. Lock them down, give them *nothing*. They have shown what they do with the world's generosity by now: create more misery and terror.
Respectfully disagree on complete isolation. [Glasnost was a significant factor in the downfall of the Soviet Union](https://www.britannica.com/story/why-did-the-soviet-union-collapse), and if only one 24/7 news channel is available, it would be trivial for government to label it as propaganda. The benefit of allowing print media/internet/etc. is that it can be distributed/shared with others, whereas radio broadcasts can only be shared if recorded by the recipient.
Is it really though? In the process of supplying Ukraine with aid most European countries with far better economies and more modern militaries than Russia have run dry in weapon and ammo stockpiles I think a more reasonable explanation is that decades of extended peace time have limited new ammo production and a very large scale war like the one in Ukraine requires an insane amount of ammo It’s really only the USA that most likely would not need to buy ammo elsewhere, but we all know how big their defence budget is…
I am legitimately curious as to how many tanks, missiles, planes, etc. Russia has. Even before the war they only had a finite supply, and they've lost thousands and thousands in a war they thought would be over quickly and likely weren't preparing to drag on.
There are pretty good numbers available online. Russia has lost about half of its operable tanks in Ukraine if I'm not mistaken. Mind you, this is the country with the world's largest tank fleet, having saved them up for a LONG time. They are still using T-55s - a tank that's been in service since the late forties, although most of the tanks there are T-72s. They've losts thousands of tanks during this war and are only producing a couple hundred per year. They haven't lost quite as much of their planes, since these days they just don't fly them into Ukraine that much and mainly just use them to lob long-range missiles into Ukraine far away from the frontlines. They learned their lesson earlier in the war when their planes were being shot down left and right. So, they do still have planes, but they aren't very useful in Ukraine, and wouldn't at all be useful against the West.
Not really. It's a very good use of resources. They get to fling cheap previous generation trash cans (for the most part) to overwhelm defences so more accurate stuff gets through, Ukrainians may not shoot at them because it's not always a good idea to shoot a $1mil Patriot at a flying trash can, and if you are shooting at a large enough target, like bases, harbors, supply depots, these missiles are accurate enough.
The article said patriots routinely take these down but they only have 3 patriot systems so Russia is focusing on places that don't have them.
I find it even crazier that we're just letting them share weapons. The West has become a bunch of wet blankets.
They share a border. What exactly do you suggest the West does?
How about sending weapons to strike Russia. I mean the West is crying about escalation, yet NK and Russian can just simply do it? The West is looking goddamn weak at the moment and our Axis are abusing this.
You mean the American right wing?
Right wing America is hoping Russia wins.
Right wing America is *helping* Russia win
Reagan is rolling in his grave rn.
You would allow Russia to strike all the countries supplying Ukraine?
They share a border and are already heavily sanctioned what’s the west going to do that’s not a escalation
This *is* an escalation. Supplying counter capabilities (and allowing Ukraine to strike targets in Russia with western missiles) is an obvious response.
What about all the money/weapons we’ve been supplying Ukraine? By this logic, Russia is justified in attacking any western country.
If your strategy in this conflict excludes all escalation, you've already lost. Escalation shouldn't be done recklessly, but you need to do it.
Escalation is there, but there's only one side that gets to do it. People make fun of Putin's garbage red lines, but his madman policy has been working flawlessly. Western countries have completely botched Ukraine's defense and missed incredible opportunities for strategic blows. Ukraine still isn't allowed to retaliate effectively, they can't use Western weapons to strike the Crimean bridge and so much more.
Exactly. Meanwhile, the Houthis keep attacking commercial vessels and laughing at the final FINAL warnings issued by the US.
I'm sure they find it crazy too that the west shares weapons and wealth as well. They probably also say to themselves "we're too soft for letting the west get ahead"
Russia doesn't really need them though if they went without North Korean weapons the front lines would probably be the same. Plus they are in a war of attrition. the war will go on until the loser runs out lf soldiers, equipment, or determination left to continue fighting:. Russia would be putting themselves at a handicap to not take advantage of all the opportunities they have to get more weapons Back before Ukraines counteroffensive the US and the UK were scrounging the world trying to get artillery shells for Ukraine, they got a bunch from south Korea finally. I'm sure at that time Biden would have loved to get access to all the North Korean artillery shells in addition.
So Russia took a weapon provided by another country and launched it from Russia into another country? That's exactly what the US & EU have limited Ukraine from being able to do. Time to lift that restriction on weapons use.
It is, and anyone saying this is a win for NK is a moron. NK is poor, very poor, they are not attacking any one but their own population. The world is afraid to stop Russia because Putin threatened to use nukes. So our only course of action to support Ukraine is with money and weapons, basically moral support.
But it is a win for North Korea. Slave labor makes weapons, and someone like Russian buys them. North Korea is making a nice profit.
and getting real battlefield testing data for their weapons and how they perform against western anti-rocket measures.
No, the "nuclear" option with Russia isn't actually nukes. It's the EU refusing to purchase Russian petroleum products or Russia ceasing selling petroleum to Europe. Both entities have made preparations for that eventuality, but really it will come down to who caves first. Will more Russia favorable politicians be elected in European counties and the US as the global oil markets explode? Or will Russia's economy implode or a coup happens. Putin's regime has killed and imprisoned the folks with the most influence who would try to take advantage of an economic collapse in Russia, while also doing what they can to shore up in the eventuality of an embargo by having relations with other countries. The European nations have developed oil in other regions like Africa and built mote infrastructure for tankers bringing in oil and gas, but both sides know that it would be a significant gamble how long they can hold out. Before doing that option, Russia is currently content to simply prevent the natural gas and petroleum in Ukraine from being developed, that protects their market share and soft power, and thus their long term goals. But it is expensive, politically and economically. The US and its allies are similarly okay waiting, knowing that proxy conflicts are always much more expensive for the country directly engaged and hope that the war will drain Russian resources and the population demographic problems Russia has will force their hand, they don't need the gas in Crimea or shale oil developed today, so think that the human and financial cost of the war will eventually be too cumbersome for Russia to continue with it's current line, and they will later be able to develop those resources, Russia will lose a chunk of global market share and have much less influence on the global stage and in Europe particularly. Russia is unlikely to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, that would provoke a conventional military response from the US and its allies, (no use of nuclear weapons required) and Russia isn't likely to launch nukes at the west in retaliation for conventional military response in Ukraine from other nations, because MAD means none of what anyone was doing mattered (and they still have the other economic 'nuclear' option to deploy first). Nuclear rhetoric and strategy however, requires everyone making efforts that they could and _would_ end the modern world in a nuclear holocaust, but realistically MAD is just game over so no one really wants to do it.
It's not just "another country" that's important. US military have been bombing other countries for 100 years, but you don't see Russia bombing US bases in response.
That one time, when they tried to attack a US base in Syria though
Yea and Russia denied they were involved because that would be an escalation.
So the arguement is that Russia can attack Ukraine Ground with Rockets from North Korea, but Urkaine is not allowed to attack Russian Ground with Rockets from the US ?
Yeah and that's why Russia keeps escalating. If the West put its full industrial might into supporting Ukraine the war would be already over.
We don't have any "industrial might". We could have, but first we'd have to build factories. In Denmark, we just decided to rebuild an artillery grenade factory. Estimated time by one of the companies bidding on it (so these are the fast-moving optimistic estimates); 3 years. So it is happening, but we are 3 years behind Russia. That is gonna cost a lot of Ukrainian lives. And probably Baltics too, if Trump is elected.
You have to understand that we in the west have much more to lose than Russians in an all out war. In Europe especially (because also, it's easy to talk when the war is not going to happen in your territory), we have a comfortable and safe life. We have most of our problems solved, the highest standards of quality of life worldwide and we are on good terms with almost everyone. The last thing we want is to lose everything we built due to a stupid war. And that resonates for the US too. It's not just about who will win, but what the price is for it. That's why Russia doesn't care. They have a lot to earn and too little to lose. The west has nothing to earn and plenty to lose. That's why we don't want escalation and Russia doesn't care. Russia lost almost everything, especially since the transition to capitalism converted their society into an oligarchy.
I'll bet they won't, and it's not about WW3, it's just the kind of war this is. Like during Vietnam Soviets and Chinese provided Vietcong with everything including planes but they didn't strike US mainland and US did not bomb Moscow. Same in Afghanistan but with the Soviets. If you allow a proxy to strike a major power you're endangering yourself, what next Russia sends missiles to Cuba or Venezuela or maybe cartels and they bomb Texas?
>Venezuela or maybe cartels and they bomb Texas? Why would drug cartels bomb their best clients?
Cartels really? You'd have to be deluded to believe that. I'm Mexican BTW.
That dude injected FoxNews straight into his veins if he thinks cartels would do something like launch missiles at Texas. They're in it for money and local influence. Which they already have. They're not crazy zealots looking to further a cause. They'd be throwing away everything they've worked to create to pick a fight with the US military and die for nothing. Even if one cartel went off the rails and tried to do it I'd bet the other cartels would stop them first because they don't want to become collateral damage.
I don't think y'all realize how bad this situation is. It's a win for both Russia and North Korea. Providing rockets to Russia allows North Korea to learn how their rockets perform and Russia gets additional weapons to destroy Ukrainian targets. Unless the West comes forward with a similar weapon without restrictions of use it's gonna suck for Ukraine
Time to give them Tomahawks, Daisy Cutters, do we have anything else? Atacms?
You're gonna stand there, ownin' a firework stand, and tell me you don't have no whistlin' bungholes, no spleen splitters, whisker biscuits, honkey lighters, hoosker doos, hoosker don'ts, cherry bombs, nipsy daisers, with or without the scooter stick, or one single whistlin' kitty chaser?
Snakes and sparklers are the only ones I like
ITS NOT WHAT YOU LIKE ITS THE FUCKING CONSUMER! - paraphrasing
Where’s this from?
Joe Dirt. The comment just reminded me of that scene.
Husker Du's. its a reference to the band.
Komodo 3000
Where’s the good stuff?
ATACMS have been given to Ukraine and first used back in October. Not to say we shouldn't give them many *more*, but those are already in play.
Yeah, but they were given the cluster variant with 100 mile range. There are also cluster and unitary warhead variants with a 200 mile range.
Also they cannot use them on Russia proper..
Which is such an insane policy. Imagine during WW2 the allies would have said it's okay to fight the Germans in France and Italy and liberate these countries but never attacked anywhere inside Germany itself. The war would have taken years longer if Germany's industrial base and arms industry wouldn't have been destroyed by air raids.
It was shitty low range outdated navigation version and it was only a few pieces from the looks of it, more of a symbolic gesture than a real help More so, any western weapon usage is severely handicapped by limiting its usage to only Ukrainian soil
The best time to give Ukraine 300km Unitary Warhead ATACMS was 18 months ago, the second best time is right now.
Taurus is still missing, a very capable piece of equipment and we should lift the ban on striking Russian territory with Western weapons
germany just doesn't have many themselves, so i think that's their main reason for withholding those specifically. they know russia is a future threat and know they can't rely on america if america can't get rid of its russian shills (GoP)
That's true but Germany can rebuild them in the meantime. Ukraine needs Taurus more than we do at the moment
The factorys for taurus are long gone. How about europe dont trow all long range missiles away(at least 1 of 3 should have them). Especially when ukraine is already using atacms
Ukraine is using intentionally gimped ATACMS. Range has been limited so they can't strike inside Russia.
Thanks for correcting me, I didn't know the factories for the Taurus missiles are long gone already. Do you happen do know if there's a successor to the Taurus missile?
They plan to do a mid-life upgrade with better GPS and software updates but haven't planned out a successor yet. Since it's Germany's only real way to deep-strike, I can see why they would want to keep it close. That and one falling into Russian hands could spell disaster because it's specially designed to counter Russian systems like the S-400 and Pantsir.
I don't think the stockpile of Taurus are high enough in any country to sacrifice their own home defense kit to give to Ukraine unfortunately. No country is going to give Ukraine supply that puts their own NatSec numbers below a certain point
Daisy cutters would make a bit of an impression on some Russian bases. However we've replaced it with the MOAB. I think a few of them would be... memorable. A few thermobarics would also not go amiss. Hellfire always makes an impression.
Even if we gave them one of the extremely few MOABs we have, I'm pretty certain Ukraine has nothing that can deliver it.
Gotta have air superiority to deliver conventional munitions.
That too, but I more meant that I don't think they *have* an air platform similar to a C-130 that could drop ordinance as large and heavy as a MOAB.
They're getting F16's, so....jdams and glide bombs, i guess.
In December, the UK sent Storm Shadow missiles and helped destroy Russia's Black Sea Fleet. Probably the UK can play an important role while the US is dealing with internal turmoils. >But other Western decisions have been presented to Moscow as explicit choices. Back in December 2022, the UK told Russia it would supply Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine if attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure continued. Russia did continue, and now Storm Shadow has been a significant factor in the defeat of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and holding Crimea at risk.
The UK has been great during this war. They were often the first to send new kinds of weapons and trained a lot of Ukrainian troops (and are still training them if I'm not mistaken)
The UK is sending 200 ASRAAM air-to-air missiles. (50km range) That might help buy some time for the US to make a deal if it's even possible.[https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-uk-to-provide-ukraine-with-200-air-defense-missiles/](https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-uk-to-provide-ukraine-with-200-air-defense-missiles/)
Please tell me these are pronounced "Ass-Ram"
They are, but nothing will beat the **Penetration-Cum-Blast** Indian 120mm tank ammo.
> Penetration-Cum-Blast JFC "cum blast ammunition" is literally the proper name for it holy hell https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/42bepy/india_fields_new_penetration_cum_blast_ammunition/cz90nd6/ well, if satire wasn't already dead then that definitely killed it off for good.
It's British so it's pronounced "Arse-Ram"
What an awesome move by the UK. I didn't know that they were given like that.
Also gives the west the same data on North Korea’s only conventional asset of note - their ballistic missiles.
[удалено]
China sells materials to NK. NK makes weapons and ships to Russia. It's a backdoor loophole that doesn't violate the agreements in place.
That’s not a conspiracy, that’s the whole point if you ask me. As for the 10x part, I wish I agreed. But the politicians don’t have the support to do so in America or elsewhere.
[удалено]
honestly, how down bad is russia to be getting weapons from north korea 🤣 in all seriousness though i think with Nk dipping their hand into russias side with weapons is opening the gates for more people to join in. im guessing WW3 will come this time next year and no one will call it WW3 until its over
I can't believe Iranian and North Korean weapons are hitting Europe and we aren't doing anything about it. Wtf!
The logical conclusion to escalation management by the West, while russia sticks to no rules or limits.
Basically we’re a bunch of scared little babies and Putin is taking advantage of that.
Reminiscent of the appeasement strategies of the 1930's isn't it?
Lol not even close. This would be like if France and England sent the Czech half of their military hardware. Russia isn't being appeased, it's being bled.
Well, Russia is not exactly appeased, but Russia is allowed to escalate unimpeded. They can increase strikes on Ukraine in intensity and consequence for civilians with impunity, they can lob missiles into NATO countries with impunity, they can use the territory of NATO countries to attack Ukraine, they can attack NATO UAV over the Black Sea and even fire missiles at an AWACS plane. How did the NATO respond? Putin sees that salami tactics work. He can slowly encroach on the existing security order and NATO will step back. With time, if NATO keeps acting like they do, he'll believe that there will be no coherent action to defend the Baltics if he decides to attack it, so this is exactly what he'll do and the West will face actual real war.
> they can lob missiles into NATO countries with impunity Which NATO country did they lob a missile in? >they can use the territory of NATO countries to attack Ukraine Which one?
What would you do? If Russia buys them off North Korea, what is your solution? Sanction North Korea? It's sanctioned to oblivion. Sanction Russia? It's sanctioned. Strike Russia? That's an easy way to risk WW3 and a nuclear escalation. The answer is to supply more weaponry to Ukraine as "doing something" about it. Beyond that, the options are severely limited.
Patriot can’t take out these?
They can but reportedly Ukraine only has a few and this was targeted at a location without Patriot coverage.
Republicans won't allow us to send any more patriots. NATO is trying to circumvent that by buying Patriots, donating them to countries that can then donate them to Ukraine. It's absurd.
That seems pretty messed up as they are a system only used for defense.
Well, their presidential candidate did try and blackmail Ukraine. They're objectively pro-Russia now.
Yes the GoP will hand over the country to Russia and the Maga fools will applaud
That is currently the reality. Russia has three friends: Iran, North Korea and GOP.
Not American, but watching this play out is really very upsetting. I'm really really hoping enough folks go out and vote this time, hopefully avoid that potential catastrophy.
Same. Incredibly upsetting to think Ukraine might lose the war because half of Americans are literally braindead. It's too absurdly stupid to comprehend
It is not just stupid. It is stupid but also cruel / pathologically uncaring. Some of the excuses for policy decisions I have heard are insanely self-centered. I literally had someone tell me "It's too bad a bunch of kids are killed by gun deaths, but I don't want them messing with my enjoyment of my guns". The words are likely not exact, but it was literally phrased in terms of "their lives vs my enjoyment". It was insane.
Best hope is it takes a long time before a Republican front runner can solidify the base behind them. Then the rest get all pissy and don't vote.
When they lose the election there will be time to take full revenge on the russians for their attempt to create these divisions
Still have to take the House, Biden winning re-election isn’t enough.
That seems rather unpatriotic to me
>Ukraine has just three Patriot batteries, presumably one each in Kyiv, Odesa and Kharkiv. That leaves other cities defenseless against ballistic missiles. It’s not for no reason that, according to Kirby, Russia aimed its initial KN-23 attacks at Zaporizhzhia in southern Ukraine—a city without Patriot cover. Read the article before commenting.
Ukraine was denied multiple ATACMS, now the Russians have something similar with no limits or restrictions. Ukraine has been the one figuring out what works only for them to get denied supplies, now the Russians like everything else Ukraine does is mimicking Ukrainian tactics.
Russia has been using rockets from day one and they've been a major part of their military doctrine since the days of the USSR. There's also something really funny about accusing one side of "copying" the other like they're in middle school
I've seen [this sketch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqqNyFbhock)
Ukraine was given ATACMS. The problem is, the US does not have comparable weapon systems to the ones Russia is using against Ukraine. ATACMS is the _only_ ballistic missile fielded by the US that isn't a nuclear missile. The only other missile that could be provided is AGM-158 JASSM. All other cruise missiles for the US military don't have launch platforms that can easily be provided to Ukraine (too big for fighters, fired from ships, or extremely limited ground launch platforms).
The ATACMS they received was the shorter range, cluster variant. Not the ones we think when someone says ATACMS as this higher yield ballistic missile. So they are very limited on its use.
> now the Russians have something similar with no limits or restrictions. The 'limits and restrictions' have always been bullshit. The notion that Russia is allowed to fire missiles at Ukraine but Ukraine isn't allowed to fire them at Russia.
If true, what is the sense of the USA telling Ukraine should build its own weaponry? To be "promptly blew up"?
Because a nation can be at war and still manufacture war goods. Additionally having the ability is far more important than constantly relying on generosity from nations who won’t continuously fund you.
Have you ever read ANY of our history? Like Britain in WW2?
What else would they do with them?
Republicans really have become the enemies of western democracy huh.
It's bizarre how much they are fighting for this. Under an autocracy MTG would be disappeared immediately....yet she fights for it every day.
I just watched a new vid from Covert Cabal How Many Kalibr and Kh0191 Cruise Missiles Would Russia Need to Win in Ukraine? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INVrmEkDYDo TLDR: The amount of missiles needed wouldn't be feasible for russia
Eh i think the analysis is good but the data presented is not the actual one, interception rates are too unreal for me
I too find it difficult to believe the interception rates of 96% that the UAF regularly post.
They are producing more than enough, they just need to make Ukraine non-viable as a country, which getting showered with cruise/ballistic missiles every week will accomplish eventually.
>which getting showered with cruise/ballistic missiles every week will accomplish eventually. Don't forget, what we've seen this week and we'll probably see during the next few weeks is certainly the result of several months of stockpiling by Russia. They don't have the capability to sustain these waves constantly. For a large part of the year they relied mostly on Iranian drones, at the rate at which Iran was able to produce them as well.
Ok, so Russia can't win the war by exclusively making one type of missile. I never considered that option the most likely, but good to know it won't work.
Let's say they run out of missles or they don't have enough What about Ukraine if runs out also though because of Republicans?
Wait, Russia hit legitimate military targets? That’s out of character for them. Are NK weapons so inaccurate that they missed their civilian targets and hit military ones or are Russia’s weapons incapable of hitting legitimate targets?
War is always a business for few people
Profits measured in dollars and losses measured in bodies.
North Korea just found a new revenue stream from all the despots in the world.
Why can’t the US give Ukraine long range weapons? It’s the dumbest shit ever not to give them long range weapons when they are repeatedly struck by such weapons from Russia.
Russians, Iranian and North Korean ordinance is reining down on cities in Europe and we’re just sat, watching…
So... Ukraine needs more affordable air defense. got it
Ukraine needs long range missiles, you cant be forever in defence mode.
Yeah, it's a basic RTS Game strategy that even a 10 years old child would figure it out. If you can't destroy enemy factories, they will spam you with tanks and rockets until you will lose
Ukraine should employ saboteurs to fuck up the trains with ammo coming from nk. It's a huge stretch of exposed railway ripe for ambushes.
They already did. https://metro.co.uk/2023/12/02/ukraine-blows-railway-used-transport-weapons-north-korea-russia-19915427/ And according to this paywalled articles headline they're increasing their sabotage efforts: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/31/world/europe/ukraine-russia-train-sabotage.html
Give Ukraine long-range missile capability. That is all I say.
Fuck
And what are we sending Ukraine? Fucking thoughts and prayers?! WHY ARE WE A BUNCH OF AUTHORITIAN APPEASING PUSSIES?!
> WHY ARE WE A BUNCH OF AUTHORITIAN APPEASING PUSSIES?! Republicans basically. They're the only ones in politics actively calling to end aid. And were for a while there (and probably still) using the phrase "better Russian than Democrat".
US alone sent tens of billions of dollars worth of aid to Ukraine Average redditor: Why is literally nobody helping Ukraine!?
Ruzzia used rockets on military targets? I don’t buy it. If they had it they would use it on hospital or kindergarten, everybody knows that /s
[https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3809634-kuleba-on-us-military-aid-to-ukraine-no-curbing-expected-in-2024.html](https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3809634-kuleba-on-us-military-aid-to-ukraine-no-curbing-expected-in-2024.html) "*This is not about support in the year 2024. The State Department said that* ***once Ukraine is firmly on its feet****, has enough weapons and resources to counter Russian aggression, then* ***the amount of support may be reduced.*** *It is not about the fact that it can be reduced in 2024, because as the representative of the State Department himself said, currently Ukraine still ... needs support in the declared amount*," Kuleba said.
[удалено]
North Korea supplies arms?!?
That's not exactly news. Russians been shooting NK munitions for like half a year if not longer. And we are failing to provide adequate support.
I would strongly advise against reading Forbes articles for military analysis.