this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2025
14 points (93.8% liked)

World News

35662 readers
5 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Korkki@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

There is no significant ammo production. There are no significant national stockpiles anymore. They all were fed to Ukraine before and during the 2023 'counter-offensive' that flopped horribly and those stockpiles never recovered because all the new production was almost exclusively sent to keep Ukraine afloat after that. Should Europe just disarm itself completely just so that Ukraine won't even win, but just that it won't collapse totally this year?

[–] marathon01@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

If arms are stopped, peace will break out sooner. Let's hope this is so!

[–] puntinoblue@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

If I understand this correctly this is not about not giving Ukraine munitions it is about not giving the EU money to buy munitions to give to Ukraine. Each country in NATO is sovereign and pays for its own military. Each nation gives equipment and ordinance to Ukraine. There’s no change here (apart from the US saying they’re no longer supporting Ukraine). For the EU the future pooling resources will be developed within a sovereign framework so giving money to the EU for equipment now is like removing military sovereignty. Given that military procurement is rife with corruption and inflated costs, and the EU have no framework, or military strategy, or mandate for a EU army, you can understand why countries are reluctant to give money to the EU rather than giving to Ukraine directly.