Ukraine’s counteroffensive, well-funded and expensive, is making significant progress, but not at the level expected by many Western countries, which are threatening to cut their support, Sky News writes.

Poland announced on September 20 that it would focus on armaments rather than providing additional military aid, and Trump supporters in the US Republican Party actively oppose additional support.

So is the West running out of guns? Are the big players losing interest? Have the goals of the West changed after 18 months of war?

The biggest threat to the supply of American weapons to Ukraine is domestic support, not issues of production or procurement.

So, if support for sending more aid stopped, how would that affect the situation? And what will this mean for Ukraine on the ground?

“I suspect that if the United States had to cut, it would cut from things that don’t affect immediate combat capabilities,” Mark Canican of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) told Sky News.

He stated that spending on other financial assistance could be reduced to appease those opposed to additional support by “reducing the purchases that will come after the end of the war, [sau] may reduce support for the Ukrainian government.”

“Without support, Ukraine could fight for another two weeks”

However, if the administration was put under enormous pressure and short-term supplies were affected, Ukraine would be in serious trouble.

“Undoubtedly, Ukraine is absolutely dependent on the support of the United States and NATO, and if all this were to disappear, it could fight for another two weeks, but then it would collapse,” he said.

“The military in combat needs a constant flow of weapons and ammunition because war destroys them,” Kanikan notes.

He said the most likely scenario would be that Ukraine would have to rationalize its military production as support would end.

“If you have 10,000 shells per day, you can fire at many targets,” he gave as an example. “But if you only have 5,000, you have to prioritize, and if you only have 1,000, you have to really prioritize.”

At worst, front-line troops would be in constant danger of being outflanked – forced to wait until the enemy was seen to fire, instead of opening fire in areas where they believed they would be in direct contact, Kanikan says. .