If NATO can't logistically sustain the Ukrainian army in a relatively small-scale high-intensity war against Russia, how can it sustain itself in a war with Russia?
The Winter War of 2022 is exposing the fragility of high-tech warfare without sufficient supplies to sustain it:
The basic problem is that it is a historical fact, reinforced by the current situation, that you must maintain adequate stockpiles of ammunition and equipment for use against a large, well-equipped force in a war. These stockpiles are also referred to as the “War Reserve”, as in large quantities of munitions and spares stockpiled to keep the troops supplied during the initial 30-60 days of fighting until production can be increased to sustain the fighting. These stockpiles must contain the most useful munitions and other supplies and be positioned so they can be moved to the combat zones as quickly as possible. Without adequate logistics, as in the right supplies delivered in time, wars or at least battles, are often lost early and often. This is happening to the Russians and is crippling Ukrainian war efforts because NATO cannot keep key weapons and other supplies coming. ...
The initial NATO response [to Russia's February invasion of Ukraine] was massive and demonstrated the superiority of NATO weapons. It also revealed that NATO nations had underestimated the need to stockpile sufficient munitions to fight this kind or war and nations manufacturing most of these weapons had not paid enough attention (despite frequent warnings) to how long it would take to achieve wartime production levels.
Congress is addressing this failure:
The assumption seems to be that, if the U.S. ever does go to war, we can quickly ramp up production of munitions to meet the military’s needs.
That assumption has now proved false. In just 135 days of conflict, we have sent about a third of our stocks of Stinger and Javelin missiles to a single country, Ukraine. And there is little hope of replenishing those stocks anytime soon.
Right now, being the arsenal of democracy to defeat Russian imperial ambitions is a practice run for being able to keep shooting during a major war with a peer military power.
Russia has three times the population of Ukraine. I compared Russia's war with Ukraine to the Iran-Iraq War where Iran had a 3:1 population edge:
What about GDP and defense spending? You'd think Russia clearly has the edge with a 9:1 GDP advantage.
But Russia is under Western sanctions that will harm Russia's ability to go to war production levels. Russian Soviet-era stockpiles will run low in time--or reach the material and ammo almost more dangerous to Russian users than Ukrainian targets.
And Ukraine is being supplied by the West, which has an immensely greater GDP advantage than Russia's advantage over Ukraine. So you can't just count the value of the arms and services provided to Ukraine when comparing the economic advantage. You'd have to count the research and development and logistics value on Ukraine's side of the ledger that provides the weapons, supplies, and services.
So when you compare the scientific, industrial, and military effort on both sides, is Russia really superior in material?
That depends on how much of the products of the Western military-industrial complex is funneled to Ukraine. I can't rule out that the West will end up trying to give enough to defeat Russia but fail to fine tune its effort enough to deprive Russia of victory.
I'm worried that even if the West decides to go all-in to help Ukraine win on the battlefield that the West does not have the industrial capacity to do that. If the West can't sustain Ukraine's fight, the West couldn't possibly sustain a war in defense of NATO members. Or a war in Asia. And if it can't sustain its arsenal, the war will get very ugly, indeed.
We should not blow this warning to correct our weaknesses in assumptions, military power, and industrial capacity.* Russia must know that it can't outlast NATO. And defend a free (if all too corrupt) democracy that does not want to submit to Russian control, of course. The end of history is over, man.
*Never forget that Eisenhower said America had an imperative need for the military-industrial complex he warned us about.
UPDATE: The West does have the edge if it tries: "post-Soviet Russia could not afford to maintain manufacturing facilities capable of producing large quantities of ordinary artillery shells and unguided rockets. ... Meanwhile Ukrainian troops receive more trucks, weapons and ammunition from NATO nations that can outproduce the Russians."
NOTE: War coverage continues under this tag.
