Biden lets slip during interview US low on artillery ammunition rounds as it tries to aid Ukraine, s

An interesting read.

The Decline Of American Manufacturing Inevitably Means An Empty Wartime Arsenal

https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/0...ng-inevitably-means-an-empty-wartime-arsenal/

 

Biden said the artillery ammo is running out.

 

Biden can’t remove Putin’s regime without ammo.

 

The NATO Commander voiced his concerns about this several months ago. Told NATO countries to turn manufacturing from peacetime to war time.

 

Why say anything? What’s the benefit from saying the US is low on artillery ammunition? Maybe Biden wants our Allie’s to think that so they will accept his decision to send cluster bombs that many NATO counties have determined illegal?

 

Biden can't defend our country and our interests around the world without ammo.

As for our allies and enemies across the globe, now they all know for certain that the Arsenal of Democracy is about spent....

 

Shades of the debacle in Libya...

 

This

 

Not this guy. I’m all for helping Ukrainian military fighters kill Russians for invading their country. I would be okay with publicly announcing relocation of a nuke or two over to Poland just to send a message. However I am not okay with publicly stating munition shortages.

 

This isn't a secret. I read an article about it several months ago. They are trying to increase production but that will take a long time. In the mean time we are depleting our stockpiles and buying from allies to try to keep them supplied. They are going through more mortars than we can produce in a month in just a matter of a week or so.

 

Maybe it should have been?

 

If the article you read was speculation, then Biden confirmed it.

 

No it was about Congress authorizing the money. Here is one article from December https://www.defensenews.com/congres...itions-production-with-emergency-authorities/

Here is another from March https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...-ammo-europe-faces-pressure-produce-rcna73231

Neither of these were the article I read, but it gets to the same end.

 

Well that is arguable I suppose, but the article I read which I cannot quickly locate was focused more on how the US was the only country actually coming close to delivering on its promises to Ukraine but we wouldn't be able to do it indefinitely as the new congressional funding to ramp up production still required a lot of lead time as the manufacturers were already running at about max capacity at their current facilities.

 

Thanks.

Now this is just a thought, but in just about every major war one of the objectives towards winning it is reducing the enemy’s ability to rearm itself and attacking supply chains. I hope to god Putin doesn’t start sinking our ships.

 

Great.... let's see what you have ....

 

omg … we’re running out of artillery shells … hair on fire …

do you really think the MIC doesn’t have this figured out???

Biden has nothing to do with this …

 

I assume we deliver it by air then ground to the western part of Ukraine where they hump it to the east. I started off believing there was no way Ukraine could win. I was getting more optimistic until I read earlier this year about how they were just absolutely pushing our supply chain to the limit and we were having to significantly draw down the stuff the DoD had stockpiled for war and the US was desperately trying to source the stuff over seas. We are going to soon be at the point we either have to cut them off or supersize the type of ordinance and equipment we are making available to them. I am not sure if it is that things are that bad in Ukraine or if they are just firing this stuff blindly in the general direction of Russia, but it sounds unsustainable.

 

Not hard for me to guess you would be confused since you're the guy that did mental gymnastics daily during the Russian hoax trying to turn every day's events into proof Trump was a Russian agent. Real easy, watch the video. If you think ole Putin didn't meet with advisors about a US president proclaiming we're low on specific munitions we're sending to Ukraine, then your bubble is so far gone that I won't waste my time. If you think the chicom's didn't take notice, then I'll just laugh at you and move on.

 

You are the one who claimed this was a military secret. You have been shown it wasn’t.
Do you still maintain that it was?

 

I do not care if the Ukrainians fall. As far as I'm concerned, they're as much to blame for their failure to negotiate between the two massive sides(The European Union and the Russians) as the Russian aggression itself. And then after that, we've basically subsidized the Ukrainian military and as other PF posters have noted: To our detriment.

Meanwhile, China moves unopposed and has made moves in Latin America, violating the Monroe Doctrine and now she more closely threatens our Pacific. Happy times.

So, the US must make a choice: Defending Ukraine, or defending the Pacific front which has always been our most vulnerable front.

I believe firmly in the sanctity and safety of the US, so I choose beefing up our Pacific defenses and the fate of Ukraine, rests solely with the Ukrainians.

 

Russia actually invaded Ukraine and you consider Ukraine equally responsible? If I actively invaded your house, would you be equally responsible for not having negotiated a different solution in response to my demands?

And China is hardly “unopposed” in the Pacific. The Biden administration has secured access to four additional military bases in the Philippines, has sent additional arms to Taiwan, has a regular naval presence around disputed islands. China is definitely NOT unopposed.

There is no reason that America cannot do both - support Ukraine and counter China.

 

For your argument to hold water (and it doesn't ) the US would have committed so much war material to the war in Ukraine that it had literally impoverished its ability to defend itself in the Asia Pacific Region. It manifestly hasn't.

As I stated previously the entire arsenal of the United States barring 155mm artillery shells and HIMAR's (and even there production is being ramped up) is at mandated levels. Its Navy is fully ready, its Air Force is fully ready and with the exception of those two systems the Army and Marines are fully ready. China knows this, Russia knows this and America's allies in the Pacific know this. And with respect you are apparently the only one who doesn't know this!

Using your argument technically sending Ukraine any aid financial or otherwise that might (repeat might) undermine its capacity to wage war somewhere else is wrong. And it doesn't matter it it was just a crate of bandages, a few boxes of .22 and ten bucks in loose change. All of that 'stuff' in theory could be used elsewhere. So according to you it shouldn't be sent. Mind you, it also means no aid should be sent to any ally. So in the end America ends up friendless!

Lastly I defy you to come up with a realistic scenario involving a ground war in Asia where the current shortage of 155s and HIMARs is going to turn the tables against the US. There isn't one. Taiwan? Before large numbers of US troops could be landed on the Island to oppose a Chinese invasion the air and seas approaches to Taiwan would have to be secured. And if they are secured? China has lost anyway. Same thing for a large scale land war anywhere In Asia involving the US. America has no critical strategic interests in mainland Asia that would currently require the deployment of large scale land forces as the first order of business.

 

That's all well and good, but the naval buildup right along our coast lines is a far more concerning manner and we'll need to address that violation ASAP. If the Chinese are allowed to build military bases there, god knows what China would have planned for that part of our map.


And yes, I hold Ukraine just as responsible for her predicament because she was supposed to be a neutral nation. That was the whole point of those agreements, and the point of contention for Russia. She should have refused any and all overtures from the European Union, as a powderkeg to the crisis.

And the European Union itself, should have known better than to stick its nose where it knew it didn't belong. And we should've known better than to back it up. All of these factors manifested itself into the Russo-Ukraine war.

But to me, while the Russians are responsible for their aggression, we are responsible for the conditions that made it possible. Because we had backed the EU logistically and militarily since really the post WW2 period, there came a point of arrogance and laziness upon the European States that the US will militarily bail them out.

And ever since the Biden Administration, Zelensky even more so has this same approach. And now, all sides are stuck in a situation with no easy way out.

Well, it's actually pretty simple for us to disengage in Ukraine since we don't really have a presence there, but that would be the US State Department not throwing good money after bad. Another possible solution is Zelensky understanding that both his forces and foreign logistics are stretched, and to come to an agreement that he's not ready to come to, but is in fact inevitable.

A third solution is a daring one: Formally enter the war so we can be the one firing the shots, and to make it our mission to push the Russians back to the Russian border, and so as not to provoke the Russians, we won't advance an inch beyond UN recognized Ukrainian borders.

 

Then that sounds like your best play.... run away and hide...

And FTR, I never claimed Trump was a Russian agent.... He was way too unstable to get that official status, even in the beginning...

He was, and remains to this day, a Russian asset.... One day, there is a chance you guys will understand the difference between those 2 A words...