Ukraine war: Kyiv forced to cut military operations as foreign aid dries up - eviltoast
A top general says diminishing foreign military aid is already having an impact on the battlefield.

Ukraine has warned it is already being forced to downsize some military operations because of a drop-off in foreign aid.

Top general Oleksandr Tarnavskyi said troops faced ammunition shortages along the “entire front line”, creating a “big problem” for Kyiv.

It comes as billions of dollars of US and EU aid have been held up amid political wrangles.

Ukraine said it hoped to boost its own ammunition industry with western help.

But it relies heavily on western supplies, particularly on deliveries of long-range missiles and air defence systems, to fight occupying Russian forces.

  • Sami_Uso@lemmy.worldEnglish
    297·
    11 months ago

    “slated to win easily”

    Almost sounds like a sports cliche. Easy to talk about war like that when you have little to no stake in the game and can think of both sides as good guys and bad guys.

    • popcap200@lemmy.mlEnglish
      193·
      11 months ago

      I agree with most of your points. Fortunately unlike most wars, this one does actually have a clear good and bad guy.

      • Sami_Uso@lemmy.worldEnglish
        622·
        11 months ago

        I had to watch John Kirby cry about Russians hitting Ukrainian hospitals and then smirk as he’s talking about Israelis doing the same thing. There are no good guys when the US is involved in war.

        • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          116·
          11 months ago

          Sure, the US hardly ever deserve the title of good guys, but surely we can agree Ukraine is the penultimate good guy

          (for now, it’ll be interesting to see then switch back out of wartime emergency powers if things ever settle down enough for them to have the chance)

          • GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.socialEnglish
            5·
            11 months ago

            Uh…sorry to sidetrack here, but do you know what penultimate means? Because in this context it would mean that Ukraine is the second to last good guy. Which doesn’t make much sense.

          • TheDarkKnight@lemmy.worldEnglish
            46·
            11 months ago

            Meh the US at the helm typically keeps everyone else chilled the fuck out so I would say net-net they’re good.

            • Sami_Uso@lemmy.worldEnglish
              76·
              11 months ago

              Lol okay, good for who? Vietnam? Iraq? Korea? Cambodia? Panama? Nicaragua?

              The US has been “at the helm” for so long now it’s impossible to think it any other way. US foreign policy is “good” for one country, the US. The global police bullshit is exactly that, bullshit.

                • Sami_Uso@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  6·
                  11 months ago

                  I would have preferred the US foreign policy to be closer to what our founding fathers wanted, to stay the fuck out of everyone’s business. Unfortunately, people in Washington starting realizing that wars are GOOD business and have basically kept us involved in some sort of active conflict for decades now

        • worldsayshi@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          11 months ago

          I mean the Soviets helped beat the Nazis and they were hardly the good guys. Helping Ukraine makes US the good guys in the Ukraine war. Each action should stand on its own.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.worldEnglish
            31·
            11 months ago

            There is no such thing as a transitive character for the property of being a good guy, otherwise any arms dealer would be a “good guy” by selling weapons to Ukraine.

            Its the actual reason for helping the good guys in this war - Ukraine - that makes a 3rd party helping then good guys or not (hence, for example selling weapons to Ukraine is just business, not being a good guy) and if there is one thing US actions in Israel show is that it’s not a high moral standpoint or even basic humanity that shapes US help, even if their propaganda relentlessly proclaims their actions are driven by the purest of motivations.

        • frezik@midwest.socialEnglish
          1·
          11 months ago

          John Kirby is an asshat. That has nothing to do with who should be supported in Ukraine.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
      152·
      11 months ago

      can think of both sides as good guys and bad guys.

      One country invaded another country without (real) cause. That seems pretty clear-cut.

    • frezik@midwest.socialEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      This was stated before the offensive began. Here’s an article from Febuary:

      Russia will struggle to adapt to the increased capability Western tanks will bring to Ukraine. But the tanks currently on offer—thirty-one US Abrams, fourteen UK Challengers, and fourteen German Leopards—will not turn the tide of the war. There are reports that France, Poland, and Canada will also provide tanks to Ukraine, although how many and when is unknown. For Western assistance to enable a Ukrainian military victory, four things must happen. First, Western countries would need to provide enough tanks to give Ukraine a devastating offensive punch. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has put this number at 300–500 tanks, far more than the fifty-eight currently on offer. Tanks are most effective when formed into battalions (thirty to forty tanks as Ukraine structures them) and brigades (ninety to 120 tanks). Zelensky’s number, which he certainly got from his military commanders, seems designed to allow Ukraine to form four new brigades of Western tanks, each composed of three battalions. Used properly, four new tank brigades would represent a ground offensive capability that could be decisive.

      Ukraine never got those increased numbers. The outcome was predicted accurately beforehand.