Dude, the vast majority of provided weapons are NOT newly produced arms. Most of what we are sending Ukraine is old military stock.
These weapons and munitions ARE IN MILITARY CUSTODY. We are sending that stuff to Ukraine.
The fact remains, and I have said this over and over, is that LOGISTICS WIN WARS. the US Military are the kings of logistics, able to deploy anything anywhere in the world at a moment’s notice. Without this logistical support, Ukraine would have fallen a long time ago.
Answer what? What does this have to do with anything? What countries are you talking about? You can’t just bring in a random comment out of left field and pretend I’m not answering when you haven’t even asked a question.
“BIDEN’S “MILITARY” IS SENDING NEW US ARMS TO THE COUNTRIES LIST THERE WHICH ARE COUNTRIES WHERE RUSSIAN MILITARY ARE IN EXCHANGE FOR OLD RUUSIAN MILITARY WHICH THESE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE RUSSIAN MILITARY IN THEM ARE SENDING THE OLD ARMS TO UKRAINE TO FIGHT “RUSSIA’S MILITARY”………
See you just talk nonsense without ever making any points. If you wanna ask something, just ask, but be clear about what you’re asking.
Okay, so this is finally a straightforward question from you.
First, you need to understand 2 things.
Russia and Ukraine are Soviet armies. They use Soviet equipment, Soviet doctrine, and Soviet tactics. Both countries are scrambling to bolster their dwindling stockpiles, and they’re doing this by reaching out to various countries. This is why Russia tapped North Korea for artillery shells. And this is why the US is also tapping countries with Soviet supplies.
This is a great example of Russia’s declining influence in the international arms market. Everyone knows they are a big player in this space. Tons of countries have depended on Soviet arms for years, but now Russia is failing to meet obligations as a supplier. They’re not sending tanks that India already purchased. They asked Egypt for helicopter engines back. Russia is consolidating its arms for this war, and in the process it is hurting its reputation as an international partner.
All this is a boon to Western arms manufacturers. Germany, France, the US are all positioning themselves as suppliers moving forward. Just as the US is selling gas to Europe that Russia no longer can, we want to sell materiel as well. We want to get other countries, like India, using our systems. Making long-term contracts with our defense industry.
FINALLY…
Your tweet is talking about an OFFER to Latin American countries, but ACTUAL WEAPONS TRANSFER is a different story. A lot of these countries DENIED THE OFFER and are choosing to be neutral in this conflict.
Most of this knowledge is out there and easily obtained with some research, but I’m happy to educate when you have honest, straightforward questions.
None of the above has anything to do with the US Military’s involvement in logistics in this war. Of course there are no troops on the ground in Ukraine. Deliveries to various support countries in Eastern Europe are all that’s necessary.
What are you talking about? I posted a link with the response of several Latin American countries saying they don’t want the deal.
As for the rest of your random questions, you can JUST ASK QUESTIONS all you want, but none of that has anything to do with the US Military supplying materiel to Ukraine.
Let’s see what a Lieutenant General, Major General, and Brigadier General of the US Army have to say…
“Army Materiel Command (AMC) has been at the forefront of delivering record amounts of military aid to Ukraine as that nation defends against Russia’s unprovoked full-scale invasion.”
THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO HMM…
AMC’s specific role is ensuring the safe and speedy delivery of materiel and services
AMC has identified needed equipment and established a steady logistics flow to deliver precision sustainment and materiel readiness from the strategic support area to the tactical point of contact.
the Army sends equipment from stock and replaces the stock with modernized equipment
ASC has been actively engaged with leveraging the presence of Army field support brigades (AFSBs) to play pivotal roles in swiftly delivering essential equipment to allies and partners… Thanks to the strategic placement of AFSBs worldwide, including in Europe, these brigades have bolstered the support network and strengthened collaborations, ensuring swift and efficient assistance when and where it mattered most.
From the Army’s organic industrial base (OIB) depots and facilities to the ports in the U.S. and Europe, and then overland by truck and rail to the fight, AMC has been agile and has adapted to help reinforce a sovereign nation’s capacity and readiness.
Remember guys, Stormy tells you that the US Army is NOT involved in logistics and delivery for Ukraine. They directly say they are.
I am regularly astounded at the level of ignorance you display.
The most basic needs for an army are food and water. You can’t plunder and feed your army post 16th C. They’re too large. Logistics is the use of protection of supply lines, the use of which date back to neolithic times. What you’re talking about it tactics. “amateurs talking about tactics, but professionals study logistics.” Gen Robert H Barrow 1979.
The most basic description is you can send your soldiers wherever, but what happens when they run out of fuel, ammunition, etc? The supply of said material requires supply chain logistics…kind of like how Russia sent a 40 mile caravan of men and tanks to Kiev, but ran out of fuel. They had to stop for more than a week and go back to get more fuel while everyone waited. Then, when they got back with fuel…they had run out of food. It’s pretty basic and plays the heel or hero in most wars. The Nazis, for instance, ran most of their supply chain logistics via short haul rail traffic, which they didn’t keep up before the war. The proved fatal when they couldn’t maintain the expanding territory and failed to adequately provide things like coal. So, it worked for France, but when they went into Russia, they were entirely unprepared for long haul style rail systems and expected the campaign would be much swifter. Without going into the split of the army into a kind of trident and then returning, allowing the Russian winter to set in, the German short haul trains couldn’t handle the Russian winter and broke down, leaving their unprepared Army without proper supplies to maintain the Russian campaign. They were unable to maintain their forward forces at Stalingrad and Caucasus, unable to supply the flanking German 6th Army or the core forces and proved the be the turning point of WW2.
As the ancient proverb goes:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
But, what’s the use of explaining anything to you at all, really? Not much
