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?
Your cite says nothing about his claim. His claim is we have plenty of ammunition to send. We don’t.
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.
Running out of old stockpiles to send. Western militaries have plenty to spare, but it'd be the ammo they actually use.
You have a cite for that. That goes against every news article and statement from the White House and pentagon.
What your suggesting is false and no source will convince you otherwise. Your acting in bad faith.
He's a mod for a dying conservative community, he does this ALL the time.
Don’t blame me for your failure to cite. Attacking me just shows how weak your claim is.
I cited my claim. Now cite yours
You did not cite a source. You made a baseless claim that these sources exist.
I'm solely blaming you for your deluded and misinformed takes.
I did and I’ll cite it again.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-boosts-artillery-key-ukraine-aims-hundreds-thousands-shells-month-2023-9?amp
So please cite your source that says we have plenty of ammo.
This article doesn't support your assertion. You clearly have a issue with comprehension.
It clearly does.
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?
Your cite says nothing about his claim. His claim is we have plenty of ammunition to send. We don’t.
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.