With Russia outgunning Ukraine’s artillery at an estimated 15-1 it looks like the main tool for halting Russia’s advance is about to start running at marginal effectiveness. Ukraine’s main industrial hubs are either already occupied, have incredibly difficult issues with supply lines, or have sustained physical damage, and artillery has been one of Ukraine’s most effective tools at slowing the Russian advance. The fact that Ukraine is simply using this ammunition faster than the west is willing to donate and faster than Ukraine’s domestic production can keep up with does not bode well for their ability to mount a meaningful defense for much longer. The last aid package passed by the US bought Ukraine only about 2 weeks worth of artillery shells.
I don't even want to ask about the Ukrainian stock of Javelins. Someone, during the first days of conflict, pointed out that sure, Javelins will have an early impact on the Russian advance (nowhere near enough to slow it down, western war-lovers like v*ush overestimate the impact of ONE WEAPON SYSTEM in a war, wunderwaffe-like mentality) but soon their defenses will start to fall apart and they will run dry of Javelins (plus corruption on the Ukrainian side, with people apparently selling these systems into the black market lmao), their allies wont be able to satisfy their demands, and now the Ukrainians will probably resort to simple AT weaponry.
There is an interesting aspect of modern war. Weapon systems like Javelins, guided munitions and so on, are ridiculously expensive and time-demanding on production. A Javelin alone requires a lot of materials, including chips, if global trade is disrupted you wont be able to produce many Javelins... especially if areas where raw materials are gathered from are affected by the conflict itself or something else. Major powers have a big stock of modern weapons, but in a prolonged conflict (and especially, in a state of total war), these stocks will run dry pretty quickly. At the end of the day, countries will probably rely on WW2 era shit, not saying that soon we will see Ukrainians climbing into T-34s towards the front, but "simple design" tanks like T-62s and T-55s will most likely make a comeback... simple to manufacture, operate and so on... can you replace your modern MBT losses? This isn't WW2 after all, where a Sherman was easily manufactured because it was all mechanical, today we have tanks with computers lol.
The thing that's been nibbling at me about the Javelins is something a commenter here pointed out in one of the Ukraine megathreads:
We still have yet to see a Javelin used. Like for all the propaganda and hooting and hollering about how based the Javelins are and cope cages and all that... there's not been (at least I haven't seen anyway, I may be talking out of my ass) a video of some Ukranians dunking on a T-72 with a Jav, or posing with one after a kill, or anything. Just wrecked tanks we're told were Javelin'd, and the cope cage meme.
This is purely anecdote, Doubly so bc I've been purposely avoiding combat footage, but I've only seen NLAWs and AT4 variants actually used, both of which are much lighter and easier to move weapon systems. And they were being used at point-blank range, not from stand-off distance where the Javelin excels as a platform.
This is a big part of why I think the US is now a paper tiger, and also incapable of effectively combatting a domestic insurgency. The US just can't produce enough stuff to win a real war anymore. If it didn't get a knock-out victory in the first couple of months, and was taking real, serious losses from a near-peer enemy, it would just run out of ammo. What even is the lead time on an F-35? If the US loses one would they ever be able to replace it?