Obviously here are ways to spend the $60B to get more or less value out of it and Ukraine will try to address their needs with that in mind. As pvn pointed out most of the money is going to be spent in the US. Some of the ATACMS that are sent to Ukraine would otherwise have to be decommissioned. The US might actually be saving money by giving them away while providing desperately needed long range capabilities to Ukraine.
No, I believe foreign aid is not popular during a recession even if it drives US jobs. Low info voters wonât make the connection and will also be like âif we have so many problems here, why are we sending our money to solve other countriesâ problems?â
This is already the sort of thing I hear when I go to visit family in Pennsylvania, from those I would consider low info non-MAGA Republican types. Itâs the type of message that resonates with swing voters in the suburbs too if their own economic fortunes deteriorate.
https://x.com/OSINTua/status/1794659101328486531
Russians fire about 500 artillery shells per hour or about 5000 in one day on just one part of the front. It pisses me off tremendously every time I read â[country] will provide Ukraine with ~100k artillery shells until the end of the yearâ. Great, thatâs enough for a week. Whatâs Ukraine supposed to do the rest of the year? Oh, another country will also provide ~70k shells". Cool, only 50 more weeks to go.
Do the fuckers in charge ever really consider what it means if Russia wins and gobbles Ukraine into its empire?
I had a bunch of tldr bunch of blather, decided to delete it and post this relatively recent (5/7/24?) and interesting conference
Was wondering with the Russia advantage on shells, is it expected they can indefinitely keep that up with productions by themselves or allies or they burning through supply that unlikely to be adequately replenished quickly? The tone of articles lately make it feel like they could do it indefinitely but not sure I seen addressed specifically
The Economist has an article about European shell production. They plan to increase it to 1.4 million per year though up to now they have overpromised and underdelivered every time. A while ago reports talked about Russians firing ~20k shells per day which could be replenished by the equivalent of half the planned European production.
With the help of North Korea, Iran, China and others Russia might be able to keep up their firing rate for the foreseeable future.
Russia needs artillery though to fire those shells and barrels only have a limited amount of shots before due to wear and tear they become too inaccurate or completely break. Itâs doubtful they will be able to produve those in sufficient quantities. Once they have used up their existing stocks Russiaâs artillery capabilities will diminish. The $64000 question is if that happens before Ukraineâs defenses collapse.
Great news, everyone.
In about a year Belgium will start producing 1.5 days worth of artillery shells annually. Ukraine is saved if they can hold on until 2026.
https://x.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1796038426719908189?t=T_7xBtQibsJR3gwvSqdWvQ&s=19
I wish she were able to make Scholz understand this.
Looks like itâs open (window) season again:
Weird that falling out of windows seems to be such a problem in this one country.
Man, I would never go up to even the second floor anywhere in Russia.
Not even if someone invites you over for tea?
Thatâs pretty impressive from Germany standpoint. Feels like lot of articles I see have an underlying tone that Germany maybe not particularly supportive of Ukraine but those numbers donât seem to lie
Germany is the second largest supporter in absolute terms but only 15th when measured in percentage of GDP (the US is 16th).
Fair criticism is that all this support only comes after long, unnecessary delays, critical weapon systems like Taurus arenât provided at all and Ukraine wasnât allowed to use German weapons on Russian territory.