Estonia’s top military commander said fresh intelligence on Russia’s ability to produce ammunition and recruit troops has prompted a re-evaluation among NATO allies and a spate of warnings to prepare for a long-term conflict.
Martin Herem, the commander of the Estonian Defense Forces, said predictions that Russian forces would reach the limits of their resources haven’t come true. President Vladimir Putin’s military has the capacity to produce several million artillery shells a year, far outstripping European efforts, and can recruit hundreds of thousands of new troops, he said.
The general from Estonia, which shares a nearly 300-kilometer (186-mile) border with Russia, joins a growing number of North Atlantic Treaty Organization military chiefs who have warned over the past month that the alliance should prepare for a war footing with the Kremlin. Herem referenced an earlier estimate that Russia could produce a million artillery shells a year.
“A lot of people thought they couldn’t go beyond that — today, the facts tell us otherwise,” Herem said in an interview in Tallinn. “They can produce even more — many times more — ammunition.”
TL;DR: Russia can produce ammunition for trash weapons at great speed, and has vast amounts of untrained meat to throw at the front lines.
Yeah, the real problem isn’t sending weapons to Ukraine, it’s the problem that occurs when Ukraine runs out of ammo, or people to operate said weapons.
The US (and NATO) has often measured its ability to wage war by spending (in dollars, or percentage of GDP). Spending on single high tech missiles that costs millions are included here. So those numbers look really impressive. But if those missiles aren’t being used (because they’re too expensive, or we can’t risk them being recovered and reverse engineered), and are kept in reserve indefinitely, then what remains is an ammunition gap.
Furthermore, I am of the strong opinion that Ukraine loses, eventually, unless NATO boots are on the ground in Ukraine, and NATO planes are in the air above. It doesn’t matter what the exchange ratio of casualties is once the available manpower in Ukraine is low enough. And without air superiority, Russia wins a ground war given enough time.
I realize that NATO boots on the ground constitutes an escalation. So we should do it slowly, like turning up the temperature on the pot of frogs.
Lastly, if we’re going to spend so many billions on missiles, they should be ABMs (anti ballistic missiles).
I am but an armchair general, sitting comfy in Canada. I’ve got a family map of Ukraine here with Melitopol circled that says “grandfather’s birthplace” – my family fled due to Russification 120 years ago. It seems Russia never changes.
I realize that NATO boots on the ground constitutes an escalation. So we should do it slowly, like turning up the temperature on the pot of frogs.
I slightly disagree with this point, I think the first time a single NATO boot hits the ground in Ukraine Russia will see it as an escalation and respond in kind. They’ve been posturing and playing a game of brinkmanship for decades and lately they’ve started probing NATO defenses in Poland.
Call me crazy but I think Putin wants this to escalate so he can draft every able bodied person and enact a “Total War” policy.
So if we’re going to put boots on the ground, we need to put as many as possible right away
Call me crazy but I think Putin wants this to escalate so he can draft every able bodied person and enact a “Total War” policy.
A “Total War” with Russia would be nuclear. Either you think Putin is suicidal, or we need a new term to describe “total except for nuclear” war.
I was thinking the same thing.
If we were to actually get involved, kick it off with an A-10 singing the song of it’s people, and eliminate all russian forces in Ukraine in no greater than 24 hours.
If you’re not willing to do that then just stay home, we’ve seen how the ‘slow war’ style goes.
I slightly disagree with this point, I think the first time a single NATO boot hits the ground in Ukraine Russia will see it as an escalation and respond in kind.
“Respond in kind” would be Russia putting boots on the ground.
Call me crazy but I think Putin wants this to escalate so he can draft every able bodied person and enact a “Total War” policy.
What good would that do Russia? He’d have more “meat waves”, but Russia is already destroyed half of its military in vehicles and aircraft. Its stripping distant military bases, but that leaves Russia’s back open. China would love a defenseless Russian border.
Ukraine will lose because Russia has managed to turn up their war time economy to 1000 while the West has given away most of the stockpiles it was willing to commit and has failed to put their money where their mouhts are and actually start a real war economy.
We are giving Ukraine just enoth to not lose at this point. And with Israel taking away the spotlight and adding another nation that is in need of war supplies, Ukraine will run dry eventually.
All the big words of the west on the end will habe been but a lie. And the rest of the world will see this and see it very well, when it comes to who they pick as their allies.
It doesn’t matter what the exchange ratio of casualties is once the available manpower in Ukraine is low enough.
At current casualty rates, that would take a very long time. Much more likely is one side or the other deciding that the cost isn’t worth it, not running out of material ability to continue the fight.
NATO likely isn’t interested in Ukraine outright winning. It’s far more beneficial for them that Russia is tied up in an endless stalemate and resistance conflict for a decade. Yes this means essentially sacrificing Ukraine, but it wouldn’t be the first time something like that has happened.
NATO needs to research blue flame, stagger a line of siege tanks, and maybe pump out some liberators.
This is the first screenshot of this game that has made me want to play it
NATO overestimated Russia’s actual war capability, but underestimated Russia’s willingness to grind.
Seems more like a meat grinder than a war machine.
Keep in mind that the Nazis back in the day had sophisticated weaponry and a lot of high quality stuff, but they were beaten by cheap, mass produced, easy to use weapons and armor. Among other things - but the point still stands.
Keep in mind this is just a all too often rehashed myth and didnt reflect the sorry state of the German military where 2.75 million horses were the number one logistics transport, among many other shortcomings.
You’re not wrong. This is one of the ‘other things’ I mentioned. A shortage of natural resources is another. Winter, too.
But it is not a myth that Germany had many high quality, but incompatible weapons systems from different manufacturers (handguns and rifles) and that e.g. the tiger was impressive but unreliable.
The best example might be the Wunderwaffen they shot London with. Useless in the grand scheme of things, yet technologically impressive.
My point is that technological supremacy isn’t automatically going to secure the victory.
The Germans were artisans.
They could build beautiful tanks in a beautiful way the west could only dream of. They kept skilled workers doing a craft that was the envy of workers around the world.
An American tank was fixed with replaceable parts punched out on a factory line by a women with 2 hours of experience. Germans tanks were unique and were taken back and repaired in a factory that had been bombed 3 times.
I think this calculus mainly applies to a land war where numbers of bodies and a bunch of shitty artillery moves the needle. Their navy and airforce is a joke, comparatively and they apparently are very limited in anti air defenses, given how they keep having to shuffle it around to different places in the country.
Ukraine’s inability to establish complete air superiority is what is making Russia’s ability to sacrifice its own people in droves a viable strategy and tactic. NATO (and the US specifically) has spent decades ensuring that it can establish complete control of the skies within a few days of the outbreak of hostilities; when you have air superiority in a theater, waves of infantry and massive amounts of artillery just turns into targets for air-based weapons platforms which cannot currently operate in Ukraine due to Russia’s ability to maintain its AA systems. These AA systems are a non-issue in a NATO conflict due to the money and time which has been poured into developing stand-off munitions and stealth platforms designed to cripple AA and even detection systems.
Israel was able to execute the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot forty years ago because of NATO (US) weapons platforms and strategic vision. Ukraine is unable to establish air superiority because they don’t have enough of the former.
