> And they have nearly no capacity to replace the sophisticated guided missiles they've used up... That's not true: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/us/polit

> And they have nearly no capacity to replace the sophisticated guided missiles they've used up... That's not true: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/us/politics/cruise-missiles-russia-ukraine-sanctions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/us/politics/cruise-missil...: "Weapons investigators in Kyiv found that at least one Russian Kh-101 cruise missile used in widespread attacks there on Nov. 23 had been made no earlier than October." > ...whereas those are available to NATO, and we've seen those be a lot more effective than the dumb artillery. They are, but I'm under the impression that NATO/the US would also quickly use up their cruise missile stockpiles in the event of a hot war. > NATO has large stocks of 155mm shells. But they can also buy them because it's become a standard outside of the non Russian influence world. South Korea has a huge production and stock that is under negotiation. South Korea isn't allowing any of their equipment or ammunition to be exported to Ukraine. The best that enables is for Western countries to play musical chairs and give Ukraine a greater share of their stockpiles/production from other sources.