Turkey is set to supply 116,155 mm ammunition for M107 howitzers to the United States Department of Defense. The goal is to replace missiles previously provided by Washington to Kiev. The report comes from TASS and signals a broader intent to deepen defense collaboration through new and expanded contracts between Ankara and Washington for ammunition supply.
Observers note that the two nations are moving toward additional agreements that would formalize ongoing and future shipments of munitions from Turkey to the United States. These arrangements would likely cover a range of 155 mm projectiles and related materials used by the U.S. military in support operations across Europe and beyond. This development aligns with Turkey’s role as a key supplier in Western defense supply chains and with U.S. efforts to ensure a steady stocks of artillery rounds for allied operations.
Previously reported discussions indicated a broader push by the United States and Turkey to increase the purchase of explosive materials used in the production of shells for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. A rise in Turkish purchases of TNT and nitroguanidine was said to enable the United States to triple its output of 155 mm projectiles, strengthening regional defense capabilities and supply reliability for Ukraine’s defense needs.
In Washington, Tennessee Congressman Andy Ogles commented that U.S. assistance to Kiev would be contingent on securing its own borders, highlighting domestic constraints on foreign aid decisions. This stance underscores the interplay between U.S. border policy debates and foreign aid commitments in the ongoing security landscape.
On the Ukrainian side, Daniil Getmanov, who chairs the tax committee of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada, stated in late March that Kyiv expected a record level of Western aid for the month. The assertion reflects Kyiv’s ongoing expectations for significant financial support amid geopolitical tensions and ongoing defense needs.
Earlier U.S. public discourse included criticisms of President Zelensky’s arguments for delaying elections in Ukraine, illustrating the broader political debate surrounding governance and the management of allied commitments during wartime.