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.”
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 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
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 mean, it would be a general mobilisation, probably with the immediate nationalisation of all industry, and a formal declaration of 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.
The A10 has a track record of friendly fire.
I don’t think it’s a wise use of resources to give the Ukrainians a bunch of tanks, only to send a tank killer aircraft that’s known for killing friendly vehicles because of old ass targeting systems.
I’m reminded of a WWII slogan.
The Americans particularly have a checkered history of joint operations. They seem to have a shoot first, identify the target later mentality.
Now we understand all the police violence. They’re just terrible at it
British armed response officers are highly trained, and closely monitored (mental health wise). They’ll use precisely the amount of force needed, and very little more. Even then, every bullet fired in the field is a sign of a failure. It’s analysed to see what could be improved, in future.
American police seem to replace this all with volume of fire. Maybe also a few shots of whisky afterwards, to cover mental health.
I definitely see similarities between the police mentalities and the matching army mentalities.
Heck, it was a tradition that british officers didn’t carry firearms with them, and only special units had them (not sure whether it still is a tradition).
Normal British police officers carry a Tazer at most. Even that requires additional training, including being on the receiving end of it. The UK generally uses “police by consent” rather than “police by force”.
The armed officers are part of the armed response units, roughly the equivalent of SWAT. Outside of emergency response, they often work in airports or high profile events. An armed officer, out on patrol would be seen as an extremely heavy handed response to something. While it does happen, I’ve never personally seen it happen.
“Respond in kind” would be Russia putting boots on the ground.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
I think you’re right, and there’s going to be dreadful fallout no matter what NATO chooses to do.
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.
I strongly disagree. The benefits of having Ukraine as an ally are much bigger and longer lasting than the effects of this conflict. That’s why neither side wants to compromise.