this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
425 points (94.0% liked)

World News

39041 readers
3263 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's been a common line pretty much since the war in Ukraine began:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/01/10/russia-might-be-running-out-of-tanks/?sh=23e456721027

Think of it like this:

Russia invades Ukraine and rather than bulldozing them in a week, they have been fought to a stand still for 2 years.

If Russia had to fight Ukraine + the combined power of NATO how fast would it end?

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Your cite says nothing about his claim. His claim is we have plenty of ammunition to send. We don’t.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 4 points 8 months ago

It's a matter of what ammunition, not ammunition in general. Ukraine uses a quarter of a million artillery shells a month. The US doesn't have facilities to build them that fast because we would never need to use that many. We would absolutely own the sky over both the battlefield and Russia itself, reducing the utility of artillery and increasing it's effectiveness. The benefits of combined arms and force multiplication can't be overstated.

We could very quickly build out capacity to produce the shells Ukraine needs, but it's a problem of economics. Those facilities are expensive, and wouldn't be required long enough to provide suppliers a return on investment. We would have to pay a massive premium on those shells and, this far, there hasn't been the will to do that.