Is there a realistic scenario of something like this happening? I mean, Russia doesn't have any direct route to Moldova and they have (according to wiki) around 1,500 troops in Transnistria? I mean, even with some additional troops from Transnistria itself they're not going to take the country, surely?
Although after all the shit that Putin has pulled so far even those lunatic-sounding scenarios may be his actual plan...
It does, but as I previously stated, they can simply expand the industry without telling their country and divert all resources into it in the short term whereas the "West" can't do it freely under some circumstances. You hope that some of the countries from the West have started doing it as much as they can.This is also applies to Russia in fairness
Are we sure that NATO is the “smaller side” in the realm of arms production capabilities?It does, but as I previously stated, they can simply expand the industry without telling their country and divert all resources into it in the short term whereas the "West" can't do it freely under some circumstances. You hope that some of the countries from the West have started doing it as much as they can.
In addition, the UA requires a steady supply of ammunition to repel the RA human waves. At the moment, the UA can face a more serious short-term issue with it if they want to hold the line as much as possible.
Not at all, though I'm not sure what NATO's or the RA's current arms production rate (not capabilities) is. However, based on all of the reports alarming that the current rate of ammunition production will not be able to keep up with usage in the near future, I am hopeful that NATO countries will start taking it very seriously very soon, because I am sure that the RA is doing everything they can.Are we sure that NATO is the “smaller side” in the realm of arms production capabilities?
Recall that one to two months ago, US and UK intelligence assessed that Russia 1) had a critical artillery shell shortage 2) had reduced artillery fire by up to 75% compared to its wartime peak and 3) that Russia had been using 40 year old shells recently in Ukraine.Not at all, though I'm not sure what NATO's or the RA's current arms production rate (not capabilities) is. However, based on all of the reports alarming that the current rate of ammunition production will not be able to keep up with usage in the near future, I am hopeful that NATO countries will start taking it very seriously very soon, because I am sure that the RA is doing everything they can.
Nevertheless, NATO countries have to persuade their politicians/populations to increase the arm production in peacetime (?), and how long they will do so even if they increase is obviously an open question.
I've seen them and they still have more shells than what UA has right now. That led back to the post you first replied. The Russians, of course, do not have as many weapons and ammunition as they did before the invasion, but they do have manpower, and the UA needs all the ammunition it can get to repel them to save their own manpower, which is inferior to Russia's. Furthermore, the point was made that Putin does not care about his people. He has the authority to divert all resources to produce as much ammunition as possible, which many Western countries do not have, which could be a problem in the short term for UA if the situation keeps going on. Also, recall that the US has been telling UA that they were using an unsustainable amount of artillery shells in the Bakhmut area.Recall that one to two months ago, US and UK intelligence assessed that Russia 1) had a critical artillery shell shortage 2) had reduced artillery fire by up to 75% compared to its wartime peak and 3) that Russia had been using 40 year old shells recently in Ukraine.
It is. For example Rheinmetall is building a new facility in Germany to produce medium caliber ammuninition and just yesterday the contracts were signed that they will produce and deliver the 35mm Gepard ammo for Ukraine. And that's not the only movement towards more ammo production, but just an example.I'm more interested in knowing if NATO is increasing production of some critical ammunition for the UA than in assuming the Russians will also face difficulties. Well, good if they do, but what about UA?
Yes, but a large stock of old, degrading artillery isn’t going to be as useful as a growing stock of new artillery. Not to mention, Russia’s entire army doctrine relies on burning through massive quantities of shells and howitzer barrels before making an assault. Doing that with reduced quality equipment is going to lead to a large capability gap between what their stockpile can provide and what their doctrine demands. It will lead to them ordering, as we’ve already seen evidence of, large infantry assaults without their usual covering artillery and armor. Fighting in Ukraine has increasingly resembled the Western Front of WWI and in recent months we have been witnessing Russia’s capability and doctrine devolve from Western Front 1917-1918 practices to Western Front 1914-1915 practices… which is not good for them. 1914-1915 showed what happens to infantry assaults against prepared positions without adequate artillery support, and it was a bloodbath.I've seen them and they still have more shells than what UA has right now.
The US, for one, is increasing artillery production by 500%.I'm more interested in knowing if NATO is increasing production of some critical ammunition for the UA
The Defence Secretary says 97% of Russia's army is involved in the Ukraine war.
Ben Wallace said Russian troops in Ukraine are suffering "almost First World War levels of attrition and with success rates of a matter of metres".
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Wallace said since General Valery Gerasimov was appointed Russia's Chief of the General Staff, "we've seen a sort of effort to advance on all fronts".
"We haven't actually seen this massing of a single force to punch through, a big offensive – just an effort to advance, and that has come at a huge cost to the Russian army," he said.
(...)
"If 97% of the Russian army is now committed to Ukraine with an attrition rate very, very high, and potentially their combat effectiveness depleted by 40% and nearly two-thirds of their tanks destroyed or broken, that has a direct impact on the security of Europe."
He added: "It actually says, that those Russian land forces that used to mass in places like Kaliningrad on the border between Poland and the Baltic states or those threats are absolutely in a less threatening position simply because there aren't much left of it."
Interesting to read back some of the takes at the time. Predictions are hard, I guess?
The UA have their work cut out for them. Learning from how the US Army punched the hole through Iraqi defense lines in 1991 is the key from the moment when enough tanks will join the fight on the Ukrainian side.
Let's hope they are sufficiently rearmed and trained up on the next level of weapons supplied to them before all of this kicks off.
UA manpower is actually massive though given so many civilians are fighting, obviously that means large swathes of both sides now aren't really trained properly but I don't think manpower is an issue for Ukraine.Have they enough men to use these weapons?
That would be my concern. Can Russia just wear them down with sheer manpower over time - given we know Putin doesnt care about the quantity of men that die.
If the UA loses the battles on the ground what will NATO do?
UA manpower is actually massive though given so many civilians are fighting, obviously that means large swathes of both sides now aren't really trained properly but I don't think manpower is an issue for Ukraine.
Last year Ukrainian said it would have 1 million men available to defend themselves by now. Whether that is true I don't know.
Ukraine's 40 mil may not look that impressive compared to Russia's 140 mil but only one country has a significant surplus of volunteers to join the army. Despite the general support towards the war in Russia (it's hard to estimate the real percentage but you have to assume that it's still relatively high), it's not something that the majority of those supporters are willing to fight for. In Ukraine the situation is drastically different. The bigger problem is teaching those volunteers and supplying them with enough ammunition, it's not just the body count.Have they enough men to use these weapons?
That would be my concern. Can Russia just wear them down with sheer manpower over time - given we know Putin doesnt care about the quantity of men that die.
If the UA loses the battles on the ground what will NATO do?
EU and UK have commited to train 50.000 Ukrainian troops this year so there is plenty of well trained replacements comming. I think these troops will be held back from the frontlines until the promised equipment have been delivered and will then be used in a counter offensive.Have they enough men to use these weapons?
That would be my concern. Can Russia just wear them down with sheer manpower over time - given we know Putin doesnt care about the quantity of men that die.
If the UA loses the battles on the ground what will NATO do?
UA manpower is actually massive though given so many civilians are fighting, obviously that means large swathes of both sides now aren't really trained properly but I don't think manpower is an issue for Ukraine.
Again with the falling from the windows. It must have creeped into the top ten most common ways to die in Russia by now.
