In his starkest warning yet, President Zelenskyy said that "Ukraine will lose the war" to Russia if Congress does not act to send it more aid.
  • President Zelenskyy warned that Ukraine would lose the war if the US didn’t send it more aid.
  • House Republicans have been stalling on a $60 billion aid package for Ukraine.
  • “It is necessary to specifically tell Congress that if Congress does not help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose,” he said.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Sunday that his country “will lose the war” against Russia if Congress does not act to send it more aid, Agence France-Presse reported.

“It is necessary to specifically tell Congress that if Congress does not help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war,” he said, per AFP.

For months, House Republicans have stalled on a bill containing $60 billion in aid for Ukraine, stipulating that it should also include increased funding for security at the US southern border.

  • NeuromancerEnglish
    528·
    2 months ago

    He’s not joking. They need more ammo but the truth is the United States can’t produce it fast enough.

    Europe is doing a lot but they don’t want to risk nuclear war for Ukraine.

    Really this showed nato can’t sustain long term military operations without running out of ammo. I’m pro-military but damn , I didn’t realize how little we could produce.

    • avater@lemmy.worldEnglish
      171·
      2 months ago

      you do realize that Nato is not at war, right?

      I’m not saying Europe shouldn’t do more, but at the moment we provide Ukraine with ammunition and equipment while we also have to make sure that our own forces have enough for a possible war with russia.

      If this would be an actual war, Russia would loose it in a few weeks, no need for a long time military operation…

      • NeuromancerEnglish
        422·
        2 months ago

        Woosh. You seemed to have missed what I said trying to push your own agenda.

        We blew through years of stockpiled ammo in under a year and can’t produce enough to sustain one war.

        The United States use to have a policy of 2.5 wars at a time. We changed it to two I believe and we can’t even handle one.

        And no Russia wouldn’t lose in a couple of weeks. It took a months for us to take Iraq or Afghanistan.

        • avater@lemmy.worldEnglish
          103·
          2 months ago

          It took a months for us to take Iraq or Afghanistan.

          Yep they are also much more capable than the Russians. Remind me, how many days does the three days to Kyiv war now last? Also the Afghanistan beat the fucking Russians, to there is that.

          • NeuromancerEnglish
            615·
            2 months ago

            That’s naive to think the Iraqi army is more capable than the Russian army.

              • NeuromancerEnglish
                210·
                2 months ago

                Yes. The two are not comparable. Russia has a lot more equipment and people than Iraq. They also have nuclear weapons and a large chemical arsenal. Also the size of Russia is immense. Just getting to Moscow would take weeks and securing all of Russia months.

                • avater@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  31·
                  2 months ago

                  hopefully we will never see that but I highly doubt that Russia has a chance against the full force of the NATO.

                  • NeuromancerEnglish
                    18·
                    2 months ago

                    I’ve always been shocked the people haven’t kicked out Putin at this point. Invading Ukraine wasn’t a popular decision and it hasn’t went well.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nlEnglish
      72·
      2 months ago

      Truth is that Russia had more time to prepare and the USSR stockpile to fall back on. They also do heavily rely on unguided shell artillery because of the Soviet heritage, as does Ukraine, which makes it the weapon of choice. So Russia can outpace the West in this one item, dumb artillery shells, for a year.

      Europe and the US are ramping up production, and are scheduled to outpace Russia by the end of the year. The truth is, the West was not preparing to fight this war, it was preparing to fight a war where it has overwhelming air superiority, but air capabilities take a ton of time to build with training pilots and whatnot.

      Point is, Russia has this year to push this edge as much as possible, if nothing else changes, 2025 will be heavily stacked against them. That said, shit can happen, like with the US election, but on their side as well - remember Prigozhin?

      • NeuromancerEnglish
        39·
        2 months ago

        Europe and the US are ramping up production, and are scheduled to outpace Russia by the end of the year

        Where did you see that at? America won’t even get close for several years.

        • maynarkh@feddit.nlEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          This guy has sources and seems competent and well-regarded. He also is not a click-grabbing clickbaity rah-rah Ukraine person.

          TL;DW seems to be (correct me if I’m reading it wrong here):

          • Russia has a higher production number on their main calibre dumb artillery shells than the West since they had factories where they just had to ramp up production by extending shifts in their existing plants
          • The West was not prepared for this kind of war, so they don’t manufacture main calibre dumb artillery shells at this rate, as their doctrine does not prescribe their use, they prefer air superiority tactics
          • However, both the EU and the US are ramping up main calibre shell production with each scheduled to be where Russia is at now in 18 months (if combined, they will surpass it in 12)
          • In the meantime the Czech have managed to get together a sizeable stop-gap shipment by buying from the open market using joint EU funds
          • Also, Russia has a serious problem with artillery, with the actual cannons, as their arsenal seems to be transforming from a mostly mobile self-propelled one to one dominated by towed units, with alarmingly many WWII D-10 guns, which have an effective range of 10km with very bad accuracy
          • Finally, even though Russia is producing a lot of shells, they are using even more, with them saying they need 4 million per year to sustain what they are doing now, but only producing 1.5 million per year, with a 3 million shell stockpile

          All that says that Russia has a head start on shell production and stockpiles, but it’s getting used up, while the Ukrainians need to hold on, and if both the EU and the US come through, they will be in a shell advantage by this time next year, if either the US or the EU loses political will (khm Trump), they will still be okay by end of next year-ish. On the other side, victories like Avdiivka are not sustainable for Russia either, neither manpower nor production-wise, but they can get a lot of support from China, so that may tilt stuff their way. It’s still all up in the air.

    • GreenBottles@lemmy.worldEnglish
      31·
      2 months ago

      Well, I mean I’m not 100% sure, but I would bet that the USA has more ammunition than anyone else on the planet. We are just hoarding it.