>
Ukraine should have every type of weapon and a counter to everything that Russia is attacking them with. There's no escalation if they only do what Russia does, and they'll be doing much less than that, because they'll be striking at military targets. >

Idk. If Ukraine was to knock the power out in Moscow or invade Russia with 100,000 troops I’m pretty sure Putin would try to fling nukes. >

In their doctorine it is said that any attack that would limit or remove their capability to use a nuclear arsenal can warrant a nuclear strike. You know, kind of the attack that happened at engels. >

The problem is that using nuclear weapons is so devastating that the only response is to completely annihilate the attacker. 
Russia would never use nuclear weapons just because one of a couple of their military bases are attacked. They would only consider using them as a last resort and this case is extremely unlikely because even the brave Ukraine military equipped with the most powerful equipment  provided by their partners is not a threat to the existence of Russia. >


Ukraine military equipped with the most powerful equipment provided by their partners is not a threat to the existence of Russia.

The saddest part, for Russia, is that Ukraine hasn't even gotten close to being given the most powerful weapons nato produces. They're getting the scraps and it's enough to counter Russia. >


NATO's Stoltenberg told DPA that military support for Ukraine was the fastest way to peace.
"We know that most wars end at the negotiating table - probably this war too - but we know that what Ukraine can achieve in these negotiations depends inextricably on the military situation," he said.
Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24 in what Putin calls a "special military operation" against what he perceives as threats to Russian security.
Ukraine and its Western allies have denounced Russia's actions as an imperialist-style land grab and imposed sanctions to try to disrupt the campaign.
The 11-month war has killed tens of thousands of people, driven millions from their homes, left cities in ruins and shaken the global economy, driving up energy and food prices. >

As a german one thing is for sure, if our military industries worked and produced as slow as they work now on AA military systems for Ukraine when our own country was under threat one day, the german public would demand heads to roll. Imagine a crisis situation in your own country and it takes a company +6 months to assemble a single IRIS-T AA system. This is what modern Germany has become, there's war on our doorsteps civillians dying every day and people continue to work nine to five as if nothing was going on. 
People might come for me from the hedgerows "what do you clown know about producing complex weapon systems...." but i don't give a fudge. If our government would actually require these companies to put the pedal to the metal to produce 1 system every two weeks given the the required funds and personel were provided, these companies could do it.
As demonstrated with other issues like the HUGE lack of ammunition of all calibres for the Bundeswehr our government still only talk a good game but in reality the "Zeitenwende" hasn't reached our industry at all.   
All that my country cares about these days and others like Switzerland for example is to make a good profit no matter who you're dealing with.
Once this war is over german industry representatives will throw themselves into the dirt to Putin's feet again and beg for cheap energy or access to the russian market. That is what Germany's "Wertegeleitete Außenpolitik"(value-based foreign policy) has become in the last 20 years. Our ever so hungry industries actually run Germany through intermediaries, lobbyists, lawyers and the politicians are mere salesmen and women.
I don't believe for one second that Olaf Scholz wants Russia to lose this war, Olaf wants back to business, as soon as possible. That's modern Germany for you. >

It's not just Germany, defence manufacturing has slowed to a crawl in many western countries.
We have become complacent and it's time to change. >

Complacent and dependent on the US for security. >

All while thumbing their nose at the US at the same time >

Good! Ukraine needs missiles that it can use against Russia. Ukraine MUST be able to fight back. >

Stoltenberg is right. It’s way cheaper to donate equipment. Supporting Ukraine is in interest of Europe, USA and every democratic nation. Putin must be stopped. He is a bloodthirsty monster. >

If Ukraine doesn't get better weapons, they're not going to be able to break the stalemate that has developed and Russia will have successfully stolen some land.
JDAMs (which are on the way) will really help them break Russia's lines. Ukraine's military has been constantly improving whereas Russia has just been falling further and further. JDAMs could be the next improvement which allows them to apply a lot more air power. >


If Ukraine doesn't get better weapons, they're not going to be able to break the stalemate that has developed and Russia will have successfully stolen some land.

Nah, this stalemate is caused by all the mud from the wet season. Once the ground freezes enough for heavy equipment to be moved, Ukraine will start pushing them back again. Then once spring comes and thaws the ground, it will screech to a halt again until the ground dries from the summer sun. >

This and Ukraine has said they need some time to recoup.  In a year they fought back an attack on Kyiv, a massive Russian pivot in the East, and then had two monstrous offensive victories.  
They have needed a chance to rotate some, give medical care to others, give training to the new troops, move equipment around and repair others.  
They've been blessed that during this time they could sit some guys in a trench formation with machine guns and have Russia order endless charges into it. >

It’d be great if the rest of NATO could pick up the bill this time. >

Numerous NATO members have already given Ukraine as much or more military aid in terms of aid/GDP than the US. The French really need to step it up, though. >

Although that is true it is a little misleading, the US is reimbursing the countries that are giving weapons to Ukraine with new weaponry. >

This is such a bad attitude. In 99% of the cases US companies are selling weapons to other countries. Not handing out gifts. >

USA sold for below market price abrams tanks for Poland >

Those aren't even new tanks, they're old M1A1s that have been sitting in storage. >

Yeah, but they are still highly below the market prices >

Are they really ? Or do they have so many of those old variants that they aren't worth much ?
If it was such a bad deal they wouldn't agree to it. >


If it was such a bad deal they wouldn't agree to it.

Main reason: Poland is a border of NATO.

Are they really ? Or do they have so many of those old variants that they aren't worth much ?

Ammunition in that deal istelf is worth a lot >

Why isn't the U.S. sending Gray Eagle drones? Would that be an escalation?