Most respondents oppose Kyiv’s exclusion from U.S.-Russia peace talks and doubt Europe alone could support Ukraine

I mean not only did Kyiv host peace talks that excluded Russia (thus came to nothing), but Zelenskyy outlawed talks with Putin so why is he complaining?

And yeah, Europe can’t defend Ukraine alone. The UK for example already sent basically their entire SPG fleet to Ukraine. 7 months ago, Poland had sent basically half of their SPGs to Ukraine. NATO‘s artillery fleet outside of the US is already gutted despite not being at war. France only have enough ammunition to last a few weeks in a bitter fight against Russia per France’s own calculations.

Disposed? They were going to be refurbished as ATACMS isn’t being produced anymore since 2007. For now, current stockpile are needed for refurbishments until its successor, PrSM can actually get out in actual numbers which takes time and is unlikely to outpace Russian Iskander production which has already at least 7 months ago, almost reached peak ATACMS production and probably has by now if not surpassed.

But because of the US sending them into Ukraine, they don’t have these ATACMS that would be very useful to equip NATO or US forces in Europe with at least until PrSM becomes available in large numbers and knowing US production tendencies, will be quite some years away.

(Doubt the ATACMS problem is as bad as the Stinger problem, they had to get retired employees whom are in their 70s to teach new employees because some smart person decided to cancel stinger production, retire the Stinger and give them to the national guard til Ukraine).

It’s going to be the modern day missile gap.

America should double down support for the Ukrainian regime that shot and killed unarmed pro-separatist protestors on film with some of those being shot at, having their hands up with this occurring even before Russian war criminal Igor Girkin ignited everything further? A strange albeit sadly common take.

Yes, I am quite aware. US cut off intelligence to Ukraine and are planning to end sanctions with Russia which is as if the Americans stop cooperation with the Soviets completely during WW2 and gave lend-lease to the Nazis instead.

I personally see Russian conflict with Ukraine to be more grey vs grey considering that there is footage of Ukrainian troops mowing down pro-Russian protesters with guns in post-Maidan Mariupol (not as bad as Russia’s Bucha atrocity I admit) but to each their own.

Think of it however you want, someone else here stated that freezing it is just means that all that aid goes into Trump’s pockets instead which is certainly a good argument for unfreezing this aid and sending it into Ukraine anyways even if it won’t achieve much in the end.

Personally I think it is smarter if Europe keeps their stockpiles in country and prepare for a future war with Russia and the American aid gets sent to NATO allies instead.

deleted by creator

The US did halt lend lease shipments to the USSR in the middle of Stalingrad in order to support actions in Tunisia.

I’d suspect the five million ain’t going to be worth much after Trump is done.

I mean the US already sent too much to Ukraine. European members can hardly add much, UK sent bascially all of their SPGs to Ukraine for example. 6 months ago, Ukraine used 15% of US ATACMS stockpile. US six months ago only had 2,000 ATACMS left. Iskander production last year was around 360 (which outpaced use) and Russia has plans to produce 750 this year. US and their European allies are having their stockpiles bled dry and why send more for a country that clearly ain’t going to make it? As far as I can tell, most Russian units aren’t even in Ukraine and I suspect late April is going to be interesting considering I see signs of a possible Re-Invasion of Ukraine but take that with a grain of salt.