the problem with armaments is, the US only produces X amount during peacetime, and Ukraine is going thru a year’s worth of X in about 2 weeks..... The armaments provided by the EU/Nato partners is a pittance in comparison to what the US has provided. The cost of replacing X amount should also be considered in the final tally since it is always more expensive to restock (increased cost of labor/materials, etc).
Well it sounds like we are buying a lot of armaments new for Ukraine, as opposed to using armaments in stock.
Not in all cases, but that’s one of the reasons we haven’t delivered more HIMARS. We’re waiting on them to be produced, instead of shipping 100 out of inventory. (100 HIMARS is what the Pentagon said early on we could spare without reducing our combat readiness).
And yeah we only produce x amount during peacetime. But we should always be prepared to ramp production quickly when it suddenly ceases to be peace time. We should keep spare production capacity at all times whether we are currently using it or not.
And while I agree that Europe should be providing more. I’m also sympathetic to the position they are in.
When you live next to Russia and they become aggressive, you want to start holding on to as many weapons as you can.
Poland may be the only EU country that is significantly reducing their combat readiness in support of Ukraine.
They get it. Win in Ukraine and you don’t have to fight with your own people on your own soil. Lose in Ukraine and the war will come to your own land, involve your own troops. And Russia will be bigger, stronger, with more conscripts, more weapons factories, more steel mills, and more monopoly control over energy and grain.