Tungsten is mostly used in artillery, tank shells, it will take some time to ramp up which makes me think the timing is peculiar along with the happenings in Europe.

I see some people are saying it's a win for Australia but I'd say its a bit of a mixed bag given their dependence on China's liquidity. The major question here is are Australians willing to accept a return to the Hawke days for moral solidarity with a continent far away that barely acknowledges or trades at the level it does with Asian giants like China?

▲

anon48293 an hour ago | parent [-]

Why is it peculiar? Ukraine needs a lot of ammo and the EU is massively ramping up production

▲

zuzululu an hour ago | parent [-]

Ukraine is a lost cause at this point and EU doesn't want the war to continue as it is and Russia wants an exit as well. Neither side has anything to gain by prolonging the war.

I'm happy to hear your case for why Kiev currently have no effective air defence and facing dwindling man power. If EU truly cared about Ukraine they wouldn't be in this current position. Doesn't make sense why they would withhold resources that Ukraine desperately needs at the moment if they are just beginning to ramp up production now.

By the time the current build up is done which will take years, Ukraine will not be a sovereign nation at its current rate. For Russia's perspective, a regime change is their ultimate goal, not territory. Once the corridor is secure they are likely to turn to Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania.

The bigger conflict seems to point to baltic states that would draw in NATO and thats the one that EU seems to be preparing for, not Ukraine.

▲

toyg a minute ago | parent | next [-]

EU states are providing Ukraine with every resource they can spare without compromising their own defensive stance - which is, understandably, their n.1 priority. In addition, they are ramping up production - largely to satisfy demand on the Ukrainian front rather than their own.

Nobody is perfect, nobody has infinite money to burn, and nobody wants this war to continue - because nobody wanted this war to start with, except Putin; but rhis war only ends if/when Putin decides it's not worth continuing, or when the last Ukrainian soldier dies. EU states have no real say.

▲

infinite_spin 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> By the time the current build up is done which will take years, Ukraine will not be a sovereign nation at its current rate. For Russia's perspective, a regime change is their ultimate goal, not territory. Once the corridor is secure they are likely to turn to Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania.

All the more reason for the EU to continue supplying Ukraine.

▲

KaiserPro 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Assuming your thesis is correct: the war in ukraine is a dead end and the EU should let russia finish what it started (parahpraasing, I apologise if I miss the nuance)

Surely that would mean _another_ russian friendly Satellite state that can be used as an invasion point by a resurgent russia?

Surely its in the best interest of the EU (and US, because trading partner and sphere of influence) to make sure ukraine wins? keeping russia in its box and stop it expanding westwards?

	▲	zuzululu 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don't follow. Ukraine war isn't a one sided affair, a perma-militarized frontier state dependent on EU doesn't meet their interests at all. I guess a lot of people mistake Ukraine as being part of Europe because they are Europeans but this shows poor understanding of West/East Europe and their history. EU itself struggles put up a solid unified front and its members regularly disagree on how to approach Ukraine. I'm curious, are you American? What media do you consume because as an Eastern European myself, I find the cognitive dissonance fascinating.