The US also has massive stockpiles of stuff (enough tanks to replace all the losses on both sides many times over for example), but it's not stuff Ukraine can use right away, and most of it is on a different continent.
If the war goes long (which looks likely right now), over time we'll likely see Ukraine using more and more NATO equipment.
Barring a big change in policy, NATO countries aren't going to be sending things like tanks or planes to Ukraine (other than the Soviet tanks Poland sent). The US wouldn't even provide jets to Poland (which would have allowed Poland to send MiG-29s to Ukraine) for fear of escalation.
Longer term, NATO countries can probably provide heavier arms while distancing themselves slightly by funding Ukraine and then having Ukraine buy weapons directly from Western manufacturers, but that's going to take a while if the weapons aren't coming out of existing stockpiles.
Barring a big change in policy, NATO countries aren't going to be sending things like tanks or planes to Ukraine (other than the Soviet tanks Poland sent). The US wouldn't even provide jets to Poland (which would have allowed Poland to send MiG-29s to Ukraine) for fear of escalation.
Longer term, NATO countries can probably provide heavier arms while distancing themselves slightly by funding Ukraine and then having Ukraine buy weapons directly from Western manufacturers, but that's going to take a while if the weapons aren't coming out of existing stockpiles.
I think it'll happen eventually, if the war goes long. Not planes, too expensive and too complex. MBT's are also likely bottom of the list, as they have gruesome logistical demands on top of symbolism. But we're already seeing other mobile weapons systems and artillery, and of course light anti-tank and AA systems. Over time we'll likely see lighter armored vehicles, and after that tanks will just another item on an already long list of NATO hardware in Ukraine.
I wouldn't be surprised if Poland and US circled back to sending those Migs too at some point.
It sounds like the US is still concerned with escalation if they provide weapons that Ukraine could use to directly attack Russia. And they're worried about depleting their own supply, which might explain the delays with providing MLRS:
The U.S. is understandably concerned about their own supplies. With the chip shortages and other supply chain issues they won’t be able to replace hardware anywhere near as quickly as the military has prepared for.
Quote:
Take the Javelin. America does not release details of its stock of weapons. But according to budget documents, its army has bought around 34,500 Javelins since they went into service in 1996. Mark Cancian of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, another think-tank, reckons that it has used 12,500-17,500 for training and testing. That would leave 17,000-22,000 in stock at the end of 2021. So the 7,000 Javelins given to Ukraine may account for a third or more of the army’s stock (see chart). His calculation excludes about 2,400 Javelins bought by the marines, and perhaps 5,000 expended in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On May 3rd Mr Biden visited the factory in Troy, Alabama, where the Javelins are assembled. It produces 2,100 of them a year. It would thus take three or four years to replenish the army—more if orders from other countries take priority. The factory could in theory turn out 6,480 Javelins a year. But this assumes that its makers, a joint venture by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies, receive firm orders, can find the extra workers and, crucially, components. On earnings calls with investors last month the bosses of both firms spoke of supply-chain constraints.
The U.S. is understandably concerned about their own supplies. With the chip shortages and other supply chain issues they won’t be able to replace hardware anywhere near as quickly as the military has prepared for.
The depleting their own supplies bit is bunk. The US has so much other arms stockpiles and overlapping capabilities that giving away some of the supplies for things specifically like Manpads, towed artillery, and Javelins that its not really a big deal at all.
Most of the US hardware is designed to counter Russian hardware and its actively doing what it's designed to do, take Russian equipment off the board. Its not like Russians will be able to replenish quicker than the US can either. Perun's video on this outlines this quite well.
The only real problem with depleting supplies of some of these things is a potential conflict with China, but that is mostly going to be fought in the Taiwan straits with different types of equipment and China will not have the capability to launch that type of assault prior to 2030 without huge build out of equipment and military spending, which there would be intel on far ahead of time.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
The US isn't going to run out of weapons, but talking about how many tanks and planes the US has is basically irrelevant, because they're not going to be sending those things to Ukraine barring a significant change in policy. And it's not like there's an endless supply of what they are sending. It's unlikely that Ukraine will be getting much more in the way of Javelins/Stingers in the near future, the more powerful Switchblade drones haven't even made it there because they're in short supply, and the US has already sent about 10% of the M777s they have in their arsenal (and even with those, they're not sending their best guided ammunition).
And beyond supply issues, there are national security concerns with sending the newer, more high-tech stuff into a war where it could easily be captured by Russia.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
The US isn't going to run out of weapons, but talking about how many tanks and planes the US has is basically irrelevant, because they're not going to be sending those things to Ukraine barring a significant change in policy. And it's not like there's an endless supply of what they are sending. It's unlikely that Ukraine will be getting much more in the way of Javelins/Stingers in the near future, the more powerful Switchblade drones haven't even made it there because they're in short supply, and the US has already sent about 10% of the M777s they have in their arsenal (and even with those, they're not sending their best guided ammunition).
And beyond supply issues, there are national security concerns with sending the newer, more high-tech stuff into a war where it could easily be captured by Russia.
Tanks and planes are relevant in the sense that it's a reminder that Javelins and such aren't actually very relevant for US preparedness. They're a low priority item for the US. Even if they send all of them to Ukraine, the US would be just fine.
Ukraine is desperate for them because they dont have the tanks and planes.
(I also think sending tanks is just a question of time.)
Sure, but they're not going to send all of their Javelins and Stingers to Ukraine, so that's kind of academic. The US could give up a significant portion of its armed forces and still be fine, but they're not going to. They're always going to keep a stock of Javelins/Stingers for themselves in case they need them or need to send them elsewhere.
So far, the US government hasn't shown much willingness to compromise their own forces in any real way or to risk escalation in order to supply Ukraine. Even the $40B military aid package was pretty light in terms of new weapons for Ukraine. It basically breaks down as:
-$6B fund for paying for training, logistics, and supplies for Ukrainian forces.
-$9B to replenish US weapon stocks that have been or will be sent to Ukraine. For context, they've already sent about $3-4B in weapons from their stockpile.
-$4B for countries (including Ukraine) to finance weapons purchases from US manufacturers, but larger weapons have multi-year lead times.
-$4B to fund increased US forces in Europe.
-$0.5B in aid to help pay for weapons that allies have already sent to Ukraine
-$1.5B to improve US munitions stocks, expand production, and improve R&D
-$16B in humanitarian aid
So the vast majority of that spending is going to non-frontline combat things and most is long term. The Congressional Budget Office is estimating that the majority of that spending won't even happen until 2025 and beyond.
Three months in, and things are not dire at all in Moscow. Our company had some layoffs but is hiring in certain departments. Shops are full. Street crime still barely exist. Dollar is actually cheaper than it used to be. There are some occasional fires here and there, but it doesn't really affect mundane lives. Rumors of conscription, mobilization and such do exist but it's not happening and panic somewhat cooled off. We can't fly to the west but it only affects vacations. No flights and higher prices are the only tangible things that have changed this far. Also can't pay online to the western world, so we can't enroll our daughter to online USA school. I didn't try but I assume we can't buy games in Steam and movies on porn hubs. Nonetheless if sanctions were supposed to send Russia down the spiral of death it definitely hasn't happened yet.
Last edited by Pointman; 05-28-2022 at 08:31 AM.
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Pointman For This Useful Post:
Stingers aren't even in production anymore, they're basically obsolete tech for the US, and replacing them hasnt been a priority either.
Stingers primary purpose seems to be a slightly obsolete weapon to donate or sell. It's eighties tech.
They're still the most advanced MANPAD the US has in its arsenal. They've had little use for them because they've had air supremacy in any conflict they've been in, but they're not just going to give them all away leaving themselves with nothing. What if another conflict happens in the next 5-6 years (which is about how long it's estimated before they're getting next-gen replacements)?
People seem to be coming at this from the perspective that the US will do almost anything to help Ukraine win, so using that logic they should send all of their Javelins/Stingers and a bunch of tanks and other heavy equipment. But so far that hasn't been the case at all. The US will happily send easily replaceable equipment and money to fund Ukraine's war effort because they want Ukraine to grind Russia down. But so far they haven't shown the slightest inclination that they're willing to compromise their own position or risk escalation in any way.
Three months in, and things are not dire at all in Moscow. Our company had some layoffs but is hiring in certain departments. Shops are full. Street crime still barely exist. Dollar is actually cheaper than it used to be. There are some occasional fires here and there, but it doesn't really affect mundane lives. Rumors of conscription, mobilization and such do exist but it's not happening and panic somewhat cooled off. We can't fly to the west but it only affects vacations. No flights and higher prices are the only tangible things that have changed this far. Also can't pay online to the western world, so we can't enroll our daughter to online USA school. I didn't try but I assume we can't buy games in Steam and movies on porn hubs. Nonetheless if sanctions were supposed to send Russia down the spiral of death it definitely hasn't happened yet.
Economic effects usually take a long time to be felt on the ground. Even during the global financial crisis in 2008, it took a good 6 months or so before unemployment really spiked at all and that had a more direct impact on the US economy than sanctions will on Russia. But there's no real getting around the fact that Russia's GDP is likely going to decline by 10-12% this year, which is going to have an impact. That's basically '90s level of economic contraction and the effects back then were significant (life expectancy in Russia cratered in that decade). But it's going to be a multi-year process of the effects filtering through the economy.
That said, I do think people in the west overestimated the effect of sanctions, and it's not going to be the '90s again. Russia still exports a lot of energy (which they now get a better price for) and non-aligned countries are happy to still trade with them. And obviously life in Moscow is going to be even more insulated from the effects compared to poorer regions.
The EU is still buying huge amounts of Russian oil. They have a plan to phase it out over the next six months, we'll see if that actually occurs. Currently the EU is importing around 20% less Russian oil, but the price of oil has gone up by more than 20%, so Russia is likely profiting more from EU oil sales then they were before the war.
Overall, Russian oil imports have increased since January in volume, and the price has increased. Export duty is falling, but still up from January:
So far, the whole sanctions thing is not going well. It's difficult to just cut off the tap, but it looks like it'll take another six months before any meaningful sanctions come into effect. Right now Russia is getting a massive windfall from increased oil prices:
They're still the most advanced MANPAD the US has in its arsenal. They've had little use for them because they've had air supremacy in any conflict they've been in, but they're not just going to give them all away leaving themselves with nothing. What if another conflict happens in the next 5-6 years (which is about how long it's estimated before they're getting next-gen replacements)?
People seem to be coming at this from the perspective that the US will do almost anything to help Ukraine win, so using that logic they should send all of their Javelins/Stingers and a bunch of tanks and other heavy equipment. But so far that hasn't been the case at all. The US will happily send easily replaceable equipment and money to fund Ukraine's war effort because they want Ukraine to grind Russia down. But so far they haven't shown the slightest inclination that they're willing to compromise their own position or risk escalation in any way.
I don't think they'll eagerly send everything they have, and obviously they will try to get away with sending as little as possible, because everything costs something. I do however think they see this as a conflict that 1) can't be lost and 2) is extremely beneficial for US interests.
Russia has taken a massive hit on the global stage over this, and US has made massive gains. They'll want to milk this, and they most definitely do not want Russia to win.
It's kind of a perfect war for the US. They can be the unambiguous good guys against Russia's bad guys and "strongly defend democracy and the independence of other nations against bullies", and they don't even have to send their own guys to die. There's also no way for a propaganda machine to sugarcoat and hide Russian losses in the long term, and while the sanctions aren't crippling Russian economy yet, the annoyance level will rise over time as people's nice western stuff starts to break and the cost of replacing them rises, bringing down the standard of living. Russia is also losing manpower and equipment it currently can't quickly replace, which in itself is kind of great for US long-term interests in other conflicts around the world.
Let's remember, Russia has been one of the primary sources of arms for forces that are against US interests. Russia has already been drawing out forces from Syria, which could over time change the situation in that conflict.
I think that explains as much of the response as anything else. On one hand they're sending what's easy to send, on the other there isn't much short term benefit to sending something like tanks right now.
There's currently a huge equipment and cost gap between "they can hold their own" and "they can just straight up beat them". For example sending tanks now would mean tank battles without air superiority, tons of tanks lost on the Ukrainian side and the whole thing getting massively expensive very quickly. But the longer the conflict continues, the more likely it gets that at some point there's a situation where it starts to make sense for the US.
The fear of escalation will also diminish, and I don't anyone serious thinks it's a very serious worry right now. No one is going to go nuclear over Ukraine, it's just not a realistic risk as long as the conflict doesn't enter Russia.
Obviously the conflict might either not go long, or there might never be a situation where sending in tanks looks like a good deal, but I also think that over time, sending tanks is kind of an attractive option. Just like Russia, US has plenty of tanks in stockpile which don't have the most up to date equipment, and at some point sending that stuff is likely to become more attractive for US than for example manufacturing new weapons to send out.
So that's my logic. I could be wrong, but I think over time sending slightly old tanks will at some point become attractive, and I also think that the more Ukraine uses western equipment, the less anyone will think that sending tanks is some big escalation.
EDIT: ...but obviously there's plenty of other stuff to send before that point.
Last edited by Itse; 05-28-2022 at 11:43 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Oh, and let's not forget that the military-industrial complex has a lot of money to throw into lobbying, which they will use to "support Ukraine".
That's definitely already happened. Most of that $40 billion aid package will end up back into the US economy via weapons manufacturing and redeploying already deployed troops.
MOD and map updates. Russians continue their offensive around Popasna, Izium and Severodonetsk making minor gains over the last few days at the cost of men and equipment. Russians have apparently lost so much equipment that commanders are 'refusing' to evacuate their wounded soldiers because of the risk of losing more equipment. It doesn't help that there has been significant attrition in the Russian command structure that a lot of NCO's making these decisions are very green. That hasn't stopped the Russians from pushing into Severodonetsk itself though with fighting happening inside the city now. Ukrainians may have to pull back at some point across the river to Lysychansk so they do not get encircled.
Ukrainians have started an offensive in Kherson, though it is too early to see what the results will be yet.
Poland has given 18 of its brand new 155mm KRAB self propelled artillery to the fight, this is surprising since these units are considered state of the art, Poles have only produced 90 units of these so far, and the production run is not even complete yet. These will join the M109s provided by the Americans and Belgium, 12 PzH 2000 systems provided to the Ukrainians by the Dutch and Germans, and the Cesar systems provided by the French. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/rus...j4X0fzEuFiggtv
A deep dive into how badly corruption has decimated the Russian military and why there is such a gigantic culture of looting in the RuAF. By Russia leadership's own estimates 20% of the Russian military budget gets stolen, which is huge, but this has the effect of reducing Russia's combat effectiveness by more than half.
Last edited by FlameOn; 05-30-2022 at 08:49 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
I don't think they'll eagerly send everything they have, and obviously they will try to get away with sending as little as possible, because everything costs something. I do however think they see this as a conflict that 1) can't be lost and 2) is extremely beneficial for US interests.
Russia has taken a massive hit on the global stage over this, and US has made massive gains. They'll want to milk this, and they most definitely do not want Russia to win.
It's kind of a perfect war for the US. They can be the unambiguous good guys against Russia's bad guys and "strongly defend democracy and the independence of other nations against bullies", and they don't even have to send their own guys to die. There's also no way for a propaganda machine to sugarcoat and hide Russian losses in the long term, and while the sanctions aren't crippling Russian economy yet, the annoyance level will rise over time as people's nice western stuff starts to break and the cost of replacing them rises, bringing down the standard of living. Russia is also losing manpower and equipment it currently can't quickly replace, which in itself is kind of great for US long-term interests in other conflicts around the world.
Let's remember, Russia has been one of the primary sources of arms for forces that are against US interests. Russia has already been drawing out forces from Syria, which could over time change the situation in that conflict.
I think that explains as much of the response as anything else. On one hand they're sending what's easy to send, on the other there isn't much short term benefit to sending something like tanks right now.
There's currently a huge equipment and cost gap between "they can hold their own" and "they can just straight up beat them". For example sending tanks now would mean tank battles without air superiority, tons of tanks lost on the Ukrainian side and the whole thing getting massively expensive very quickly. But the longer the conflict continues, the more likely it gets that at some point there's a situation where it starts to make sense for the US.
The fear of escalation will also diminish, and I don't anyone serious thinks it's a very serious worry right now. No one is going to go nuclear over Ukraine, it's just not a realistic risk as long as the conflict doesn't enter Russia.
Obviously the conflict might either not go long, or there might never be a situation where sending in tanks looks like a good deal, but I also think that over time, sending tanks is kind of an attractive option. Just like Russia, US has plenty of tanks in stockpile which don't have the most up to date equipment, and at some point sending that stuff is likely to become more attractive for US than for example manufacturing new weapons to send out.
So that's my logic. I could be wrong, but I think over time sending slightly old tanks will at some point become attractive, and I also think that the more Ukraine uses western equipment, the less anyone will think that sending tanks is some big escalation.
EDIT: ...but obviously there's plenty of other stuff to send before that point.
But still, the US isn't sending things that would be relatively easy to send like guided artillery rounds (Canada sent a few, but the US refused to), which would definitely have an impact. And just today, Biden confirmed that they're not sending longer-rage rockets, so Ukraine will only be getting shorter-range ammo:
So there are clearly pretty hard limits on what they're willing to send. I agree with you that their general goal is to bleed Russia and have them waste their resources, but I think they're content to send as little as possible to achieve that. And they're very cognizant of the possibilities of both escalation and depleting their own stocks.
