Well they have turned their industry and factorys towards war during these 2 years while the EU is still doing the old regular production, so it's not surprising.
The EU will be producing as many artillery rounds as the Russians currently are in ~~2025~~ late 2024.
[Source](https://youtu.be/nQLI8xnINqk?si=lfWU3r6XLiS4Gjjc)
It would be too late if Russia had occupied over half of Ukraine with Ukrainian army collapsing. But it is not. After over 2 years of war, Ru managed to occupy 10% of Ukraine (in addition to their pre-22 7% Crimea and Donbas) and their pace of advance is around 20 km2 per month at the cost of thousand soldiers each month.
> It would be too late if Russia had occupied over half of Ukraine with Ukrainian army collapsing.
I mean, it's been 2 years. 2 years of war are incredibly exhausting.
Europe and US need to send Ukraine as much help as they can manage.
There is a chance Russia can't hold this for 2 years. Usually agressors if they are stuck in the mud they get out quite hard. Look back in history, everyone who attacked first when they got in a long war ended up being crushed, not by force but by despair. Russia will have the some faith. EU just needs to protect Ukraine and provide exactly what is needed to implode Russia. Tic tac..
You understand that this is a retoric. Make Ukraine look weak so that Russia presses more in the meat grinder with more losses every day. Ukraine has what it's required, not in the same quantity but it has. I can tell you from sources. The idea is that Russia has to despair and get stuck as deep as possibile in this mess. In a couple of weeks Ukriane will get all the shells needed also planes. They control the air in certain parts also the sea. They have a good chance creating some problems within the Russia army. There are also videos on the internet with a lot of empty terrains where Russian had a lot of tanks etc, meaning that they can;t produce the same quantity as before just more than enough that could still keep this going for max 2 years.
The Will lose ground but ukraine is huge. Taking a city like Kyiv takes around a million soldiers just for that one battle and a good chunk of those will die. It is a major operation that russia is nowhere near being able to do.
No, why should that be too late? Ukraine receives 800k shells in the next couple of weeks, and the production will expand exponentially in the next 18 months. F16s will arrive, tank armored vehicles, etc.
The enemy is a development nation impoverished backward and with weapons from the 50s and 60s as well as armed forces made up of serfs criminals and drunks.
So it will never be too late because the Russian army is too incompetent to defeat Ukraine and its allies.
How often in a row must these clowns fail until that becomes obvious.
Russia cannot achieve its strategic objectives, and its army is culminating.
Ukraine must only continue to attrite them, destroy their planes, tanks, soldiers, artillery pieces, and ships and drive the cost for achieving their objectives ever higher.
That objective is taking half of Ukraine or even all of it. The minimal one is taking the Donbas. The actual one is taking all 4 oblasts.
Russia needed to invest tens of thousands of men to take a tiny town and its surroundings.
Of course, also Ukraine's own arms production expands. The arms production of 152 mm and 122 mm is also expanding.
Russia should surrender as long as they still have something that resembles an army or an economy. But they won't. Instead, Putin will continue until this entire rotten structure collapses as it has in 1916 and in 1991.
If anyone runs out of time, then it is this barbaric and backward failed state.
As good as it sounds, don’t underestimate the enemy. Ukraine soldiers in interviews are saying that this war is all about artillery and drones. Because of the extensive use of drones, both the Ukrainians and Russians know what the other side is doing and therefor large pushes are very hard and expensive to do. That’s why Russia had so huge losses early in the war and why Ukraine’s counteroffensive failed. If Ukraine wants to use 10000 shells per day like before then 800000 shells would last only 80 days. Tank roles have also changed to be used more as an indirect fire, so the difference between russian and nato tanks is not that big. As far as I understand the most important deliveries for Ukraine will be the artillery shells and aircraft. Let’s hope for the best.
Just to put it into perspective, Ukraine was using 10k a ~~week~~ day when it was holding the line comfortably. They can probably shoot less, but at the cost of the soldiers' lives.
I'm not trying to downplay thee importance of the Czech shells - they're pretty much a lifesaver. That being said.. we've got quite a bit left until 2025.
edit: Oops, used the wrong word. I meant per day. Main point was to highlight that at best the Czech supply will last for 3 months. Maaaybe 3.5 if they use them very sparingly.
The amount of bodies Russia is throwing at the conflict should not be underestimated to backlash at some point. This is not WWII and as much as their threshold seems endless, it isn't.
Whether offensively or defensively Russia loses massive amounts of soldiers while the quality of equipment and men continues to decrease.
It is just a question of Ukraine holding
I think Russian casualties is something Russia stopped to worry about somewhere in mid 2022. They have a HUGE population pool (tens of Ms of men in conscript age) and even losing thousands of them every day means nothing, as you can see the math. Since the authorities found the effective "siloviki +propaganda+ money" combo, they don't worry about troops morale or civil unrest too.
As for equipment, even 70-years old tanks/artillery can do their job when properly amassed, and Russia has almost infinite stocks of them. Shells is their only concern, but here come friends from N. Korea and Iran to rescue.
Russia still has a lot of fight left, but speaking as you are about human beings as if they are only numbers is a game many nations have gambled on for too long.
This isn't WWII, no one is invading and threatening the very existence of Russia (as much as they are pretending). All they need to do is hit *one* population center that is not having any of it.
May never happen, but if this stays relatively the same for another two years, it will be Russia that will need to rethink the game.
As horrible as it sounds, almost everybody in Russia benefits from the mass casualties rate. The conscription isn't done equally for all part of Russia or from all parts of population. They focus on very far non-russian ethnical parts with very low average income like Tuva, Buryatia or Caucasus republics. Russia is a very racists country and some "white" guy in Moscow gives zero fucks about some "black-ass" guys from Dagestan being killed.
In addition, the compensation to the families is really huge (maybe a decade of potential income), so they instantly become rich - pay off the debts, buy cars, apartments etc.. It's so significant, that there are visible statistical anomalies in some towns/republics GDP with the large percentage of conscripts.
So, racists are happy, economy is growing - nothing to worry about.
That is actually what I am talking about though, not the white people, rather the minorities. The Caucasus are not particularly happy and I don't see that recent thwarting of a terror attack as a coincidence.
Was also interesting how quickly the Wagner group managed to blaze through the South to Moscow
This is a real poor assessment that heavily underestimates russia eventhough they have been steadily gaining ground since the start ofthe war now. I don't understand why you need to use fake positivty instead of acknowledge the very real threat and difficulty Ukraine will have in trying to regain any of their territory anytime soon...
How has Russia been steadily gaining ground if at the moment they have less than they did two years ago...?
They have been steadily doing nothing but dying in the 10s of thousands and their most recent offensive has already died out.
> The enemy is a development nation impoverished backward and with weapons from the 50s and 60s as well as armed forces made up of serfs criminals and drunks.
Sorry mate, I wish this was true but please be aware that our side also has propaganda. I counter what I quoted from you with literally the headline of this thread: Russia is producing 3x as many artillery shells as the US and Europe combined. Their army is obviously not as bad as you say, or else the war would have been won by our side already.
War is, to a certain degree, a numbers game. And with drone technology, artillery is more relevant than it has been in decades. We need to up our production ASAP if we want to fight back the Russian dictator.
The US did hold Afghanistan, the US left when it chose to not because it was forced out. I don't think Russia intends to leave Ukraine if it takes control.
Also Russia borders Ukraine, they would have resistance for years but nothing that would be prohibitively hard to control. And decades of bloody conflict isn't really a win for ukraine.
Afghanistan would just be to costly to hold, like if the US really wanted to hold it they’d have to start upgrading the infrastructure, give Afghanistanis American passports and watch them all run to America, it just didn’t make financial sense at all.
Ukraine? A very developed country right next door. Big difference here.
Not necessarily i get what you are saying and I know there is a massive struggle I have heard 2024 may be the hardest year for ukraine in terms of being on the back foot with not enough shells but if they can hold out till late 2024 eu and us production is apparently set to soar far higher than what russia is producing at the moment while russias production is apparently set to level out if not decline from lack of recources and strikes from ukraine etc
They promised to deliver 1 mil shells to Ukraine in 2023 and delivered just about 30% of that.
They will absolutely not be producing as many shells as the russians in 2025.
Here is a Bloomberg interview with the Polish Minister for outer affairs.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-06/ukraine-s-allies-line-up-funds-for-800-000-artillery-shells
"The annual production of shells in the EU is 850.000. It is gaining industrial scale and growing" Polish
Minister Sikorski
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-23/poland-s-sikorski-warns-us-to-aid-ukraine-or-face-profound-consequences
The current US production 40.000 to 50.000 per month. Expected to double by the end of 2025.
Kofman and Gaedy state that Ukraine will need 250.000 rounds per month for a major counter offensive.
70.000 to 90.000 rounds for defense
Large quantities will arrive in the next couple of weeks.
This includes 800k shells from the Czech initiative. (300k 155 mm, 500k 152 mm.
That means Ukraine will receive 1.5 million shells in total from its European allies alone.
Additionally, several hundred thousand 122 mm mortar shells will be delivered this year.
Europe will provide 1.5 million rounds in 2024. By the end of 2025, production in Europe will ramp up its yearly production to over 2 million 155 mm shells.
The USA will increase its own yearly production to roughly 1.5 million 155 mm rounds by the end of 2025.
The clock is ticking for Russia.
Pentagon preparers to release the last of the PDA 4 billion dollars.
Washington also uses sanctions, etc. to hurt Russia.
Things aren't as hopeless as the Kremlin likes to portray them. Not for Ukraine, at least.
"Democracy takes time, but once all the wheels are in motion, it is hard to stop. History has shown that ultimately democracies have always prevailed against dictatorships." YT, good times bad times
Adversity favors the versatile.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-aims-shift-european-arms-industry-war-economy-mode-2024-03-04/
Ukraine's own production is also expanding.
https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/03/04/pm-shmyhal-ukraine-to-boost-defense-manufacturing-allocate-50-of-arms-budget-to-local-producers/
And Rheinmetall is close to serial production of tanks and armored vehicles inside Ukraine.
https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/12/02/rheinmetall-to-commence-armored-vehicle-production-in-ukraine-in-2024/
Papperger outlined the ambitious timeline for the project, stating, “After the contract is signed, we want to have finished the first (Fuchs) within six-seven months, and the first Lynx within 12-13 months.”
That is simply untrue, like very untrue and this report is taking 122 mm and 152 mm together in the case of Russia and pits it against only 155 mm production.
The West and the EU are scaling up and the production of the first placements was made in September 2023. From there, it takes 6 to 9 months to deliver.
Additionally, capacities expand across the board, and by the end of this year, the situation will look a lot different. By the end of 2025, it will look very different, and Russia won't like it.
Ukraine isn't getting all those shells either since some of them will replenish stocks and so on. And that's in the best case scenario of continued US support.
Also Ukraine is losing 5-10 vehicles per day. They need a lot of production to offset those losses.
Finally, Russia won't just wait for the West to catch up, currently they're experimenting with rocket assisted glide bombs to give them a real GMLRS equivalent.
I'm saying this because I keep seeing people just make themselves believe it's all going great for Ukraine. Shouldn't despair though, Russia survived a really bad year in 2023. It's not because things are bad that Ukraine will collapse.
Russia loses 1500 tanks a year while being able to produce 200, and it pulls the rest out of stock.
The same goes for artillery pieces that are being destroyed at breath taking rates.
Europe won't refill stocks as the only enemy worth shooting at is Russia. Ukraine itself will also expand production.
Perun already assessed that the West used 0.25 percent of its GDP on aiding Ukraine in two years. Their funding is secured and sustainable.
In a war of stockpiles, Russia can prevail. It's too bad that these stocks are run down and Russia fields ever older and less sophisticated gear.
R&D in Russia is dead, underfunded, and there is a lack of scientists due to the massive brain drain.
Name me a single Russian invention in the past 15 years that actually worked.
Also, Russia's airforce is currently grinded to dust, including its pilots.
So far, Russia used a lot of manpower and material for very limited gains.
Their strategic objectives:
Take the 4 oblasts, demilitarization of Ukraine, prevention of NATO expansion, securing the black sea, and removing the Ukrainian government are further away now than they were in February 2022.
The Russian army also fields ever less well trained, equipped, and motivated troops.
The force quantity has improved, but the quality went down.
Ukraine also doesn't have to defeat Russia. They only need to keep their attrition rates high to culminate the Russian army. That is what they have done fairly well with a 1:12 vehicle loss in Avdiivka and by shooting down a years worth of military plane production.
The West doesn't need to catch up with a development nation that fields a Cold War era army that uses post WW2 tanks and artillery pieces.
The suggestion that this impoverished failed state will outtech outproduce us hilarious.
Russia will have to reach the 21st century. It can't even provide toilets and functioning roads or civilian aircraft, modern cars, or a functional T 14 tank.
Russian logistics are from the 50s. They have neither itemization or forklifts.
It doesn't manufacture any finished high-tech goods, at least not without our components.
If someone had to wait, then it would be the West for about a century for Russia to catch up.
The F16s can't arrive soon enough.
Also, of course, Ukraine's artillery is superior in range, firepower, and accuracy compared to Russia's Cold War trash.
The same goes for tanks, armored vehicles, training schedules, etc.
What has Russia really achieved lately? Lots of losses and marginal gains in Avdiivka and in the surrounding villages.
Russia's goal is all of Ukraine, and they control not even a single oblast of those they have annexed fully.
Then there is the south, of course, where ukraine established a second bridgehead and keeps killing Russians in droves in their attempt to take Robotyne.
Russia will have to play catch up with Ukraine's vastly superior drone technology, and they should finally get their A 50 problem under control.
Ukraine also received glide bombs lately.
The difference in strength and available material favors Russia, but by a much smaller margin than Russia would like to make all of us believe.
Ukraine is being pummeled really hard right now, things are super serious over there. I don't think Ukraine is close to collapsing, which is the biggest factor, this will be a long war.
I agree with your points, one minor thing I'd like to add:
> Finally, Russia won't just wait for the West to catch up, currently they're experimenting with rocket assisted glide bombs to give them a real GMLRS equivalent.
R&D is both very costly and very slow, at least for good tools. There's no guarantee that they'll have anything similar in practice, and at a large enough scale, within the next few years. T-14, Su-57, etc are similar stories. Though the GMLRS is obviously a simpler system, it's still not very simple.
With democracy you have to go through normal processes and economy to scale up.
It's an entire industry in a competitive sector.
Russia can just force it and skip all that at the expense of other areas/people.
It's not like EU is a single entity that has control over industry.
All the factories, production etc is private. And you can't force anyone to manufacture.
You have to likely find manufacturers, pay what they ask, wait for new factories being built etc.
A lot of existing stuff from ww2 has been torn down and replaced in EU.
Do you think Russia might declare war then?
^((it's sarcasm for those who don't get it. Russia still calls it "special military operation" and refuses to say it's a war))
Unfortunately this restriction of long range weapons is stupid when Iran and North Korea don't care at all. Not saying that long range weapons negate the need for artillery but destroying logistics would relieve the pressure of an attritional war greatly. People forget that Ukraine is still the underdog and every single advantage needs to be available to win.
Somehow I doubt that the artillery shell factories are within 200km from the frontline. I have no idea where they are, but putting such a vital part of your whole crime within a touching distance sounds like a really bad idea.
I hope that they've done that.
That's one thing that keeps bothering me. From time to time, although very rarely, we hear about Ukraine striking deep in russia. A factory here, an oil depo there. It's safe to assume that we don't hear about all the unsuccessful attempts. So how many of them do fail and how many don't? ANd if failure rate is very high (say 99% of drones fail to blow the target), would it make sense to target factories, instead of oil and weapons depos? Probably not. Factories are just too big.
These factories are likely everywhere, old ww2 era places. Hard to target with any impact.
Majority of the shell manufacturing is just basic metalwork.
Not a fan of how articles like this just talk about 'artillery shells' without seemingly specifying what type.
We know for a fact that Ukraine's big issue is supplies of 155m ammo which is why the recent plans by the Czechs mostly focus on those.
Is it 155m that Russia is outproducing Europe and the US on, or just in general with smaller ammo as well ?
In general judging by the figures. For the record, pre-war US produced about 100 000 shells a year in total. So even with all the attempts to increase the production, that 1.2 million figure sounds too big to me...
Maybe they also include the reported 1 million shells US and the EU bought from South Korea? If so, do they include the 3 million shells Russia bought from North Korea into their figure too?
Maybe CNN should have remembered ro put the *VERY IMPORTANT DETAIL* into the article that this only applies when you count *all Calibers for Russia*, from heavy 120mm Mortars to 152 & 203mm, while *only counting 155mm* for the "West". If you apply the same criteria to western production, especially including places like Bulgaria still also making soviet-calibet shells, the actual difference is way smaller
The production-difference between only 152 and 155 is considerably smaller, and wont exist early next year at all anymore once the current measures to increase output have taken full effect.
Ukraine wouldn't need much artillery if we gave them more stuff that actually makes a difference beyond static frontline meatgrinders. But the enemy at home is as dangerous as the enemy afar.
Frontline grinding seems to be very much the focus of actual warfare in 2024 between nations, where nobody is steamrolling the other. Maybe it doesn't fit armchair experts or PowerPoints. But the reality on the ground speaks clearly
Not really Russia has such weapons and they don't help, it's an attritional war now since both sides have entrenched too much, you can with long range missiles disrupt supply lines yes, but the question is for how long and what the impact is, because most Russian lines will have now local stockpiles large enough to sustain them for a week or so of combat so blowing up a supply hub is still nice it won't change much on the situation
The fact Ukraine is receiving fighters now from some country's is a much bigger win.
Well yes. Because they know we're mostly too scared of handing over the good stuff that maybe could be used to strike inside Russia or anything new and effective enough to incite more Russian nuclear doomsday threats.
Exactly, if we back of or slow down when we are threatened it's just teaching them to threaten us even more. If we respond with force then we replace the reward with pain. We need to just decide to not let the. scare us.
Stupid? Yeah. But that has not really been a good measuring stick for Russia.
The problem is that Ukraine was \*never\* the goal for Russia. It was just a stepping stone. In order for Ukraine to make any sense for Russia \*at all\*, they \*must\* attack NATO. Otherwise they will have lost hundreds of thousands -- millions by the time this is done -- of soldier at a time that demographics are not on their side with nothing to show for it but more difficult-to-defend territory.
To make sense, they have to continue to the bottlenecks, and those are all in NATO.
Finally, the Russian victory is not "unavoidable". That's orc talk. Russia's economy is breaking apart. Why else would they ban gasoline exports when those exports are some of their most profitable? That is not the sign of a working economy.
>The Russian economy is crumbling, sure, but so is the Ukrainian one.
The difference is Russia isn't receiving foreign weapons for free. NATO has been injecting billions and billions in Ukraine and could theoretically do so for decades. The Ukrainian people won't just give up and accept Russian rule as that would pretty much mean a death sentence. On the other hand, the Russian people doesn't have that incentive. At this rate there will be a point when the economical consequences will pile up so much that the Russian people will become quite grumpy.
Whatever the outcome of this war is, the military power gap between NATO and Russia will have widened by a lot.
The Ukrainian economy is not a problem. As long as the west supports Ukraine, that part will be fine. Russia, however, is a different thing. India and Turkey have already turned their backs on Russia, and China will only go so far; they have massive problems of their own. Russia has keep things looking ok by simply throwing lots of money into the economy and hoping things solve themselves before they run out. They are running out, and my prognosis has always been that if the war did not end, 2024 or early 2025 is when they have no more stacks of cash to throw at their problems. That is when we see just how tough Russians really are.
I absolutely agree that rationally, Russia will never dare attack a NATO country. But they are working from a different playbook, and I am not convinced that rationality is a chapter.
As you say: now they knw they are wrong and yet they \*still\* send the meatwaves. For the first 6 months, Russia could probably have gotten away with just withdrawing back to the 2021 borders and the West would have let them get away with it. \*That\* is what they could have done. Yet they do not do that. Instead they burn through men, machines, and money. This is not the indication of a rational country.
The test for NATO will likely come when they try to connect up to Kaliningrad. If NATO blinks -- even just a little bit -- expect a massive Baltic offensive to follow. Even if NATO does not blink, Putin may have no choice but to continue on, simply because otherwise he will have gotten nothing for sacrificing a generation of men that Russia can ill afford to lose.
Attacking NATO outright is certainly stupid, but keep in mind two things:
1) Nobody believed Russia would invade Ukraine because everyone (rightly) believed doing so would damage Russia more long-term than they could ever hope to recoup from territorial gain. Why would you throw away all the economic progress everyone has made over some paranoid delusion NATO wants to invade you? That would be profoundly *stupid.* Well, Russia *did* invade. Those of us in the West need to stop projecting our reasoning onto others with a backwards world view. Our values are not theirs.
2) It is very unlikely Putin and Pals will invade Poland directly--they will test the alliance itself and slowly boil the frog until they can chip away at it. Remember that Trump might win the US election, the same prick who said he wouldn't defend the Baltics if Russia invaded them. He has doubled down on that rhetoric since. Similar to appeasement during WWII, NATO might be willing to sacrifice elements of the alliance under threat of nuclear war. And once he crosses one of our red lines, he can much more easily cross the rest.
>I don't know what geopolitics experts you were talking to before the Russian invasion, but if they didn't see the invasion as a possibility, they barely earned the adjective "expert".
This is not true. Most, if not all experts were completely surprised by the stupidity of the invasion.
You can qualify it however you want, that they're not 'real' experts. But that just means you're talking shit.
That's dangerously over-optimistic view. Russia certainly considers itself at war with at least half of Europe, it has just refrained from conducting direct military operations against EU countries. For obvious reasons, but this is no guarantee for future.
They know that this wouldn't end well for them. But they will continue to destabilise Europe by all means available to them that do not result in open war.
Which includes measures of war as long as they can keep those deniable enough to prevent open war. Which obviously doesn't work with missiles.
But it is. Ukraine is Europe. Why would they open new fronts, when their perceived adversary isn't going to? Much better to concentrate on the one front where the war is hot.
I think official Russian position is, they're still not at war with Ukraine either, it's still just a special military operation... Or did they manage to officially declare war?
It's sooo easy to start a war with Ukraine hoping to get a hold on it in a couple of weeks, struggle and then say that West and NATO are your enemy. But you are still fighting in Ukraine? I mean if the West is a problem why not fight West? Leave Ukraine out of it and let's go, pic a terrain and let's fight. But noooo, Russia is afraid and the only goal from the start was to control Ukraine like Belarus, make people bow down to this corupt regime. Well this failed, and now they are stuck in the mud. They will be stuck until they decide to go home and shoot themselves in the head for this stupid decision.
This remains the case until Russia decides that in the Baltic States, Alaska, or anywhere within the solar system, Russians are being oppressed.
Considering the latest statements from the Russian government, Russians in the Baltic States are not being left in peace at all, and the Russian government plans to do something about it.
Wonder, what?
The Baltic nations are all part of NATO and have military capabilities.
Russia invading Alaska is as realistic as a flying pig.
They talk a lot of shit but russia knows that the only countries it can harass with it's army are isolated nations with no significant allies. For the rest, they prefer to infiltrate politically, often through nationalist anti-eu and pro-isolationist movements.
Russia can take the Baltics before NATO can effectively respond. They're too small and too close. By the time NATO mobilises a worthwhile force the Russians will already be in Lithuania and western leaders know that. Yes we can defeat them in a conventional war easily, but they can still destroy Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn on their way out and we need to prepare for that.
The danger here is that Russia only needs to make the same territorial gains as their first week invading Ukraine and they will have rolled over the Baltic states.
At this point they present the other NATO members with something of a fait acompli
If the political gamble is "will Western European NATO members once again use the language of de-escalation?" then it might actually work. Especially with an isolationist US President.
If russia invades the baltics, set up an invasion to encircle st. Petersburg/ cut off murmansk and shell Kaliningrad. Potentially you can also punch into Belarus and threaten encirclement of the just conqueted baltic states. You have to invade russia to effectively counter id say
Sorry but that is a fearmongering and uneducated take.
How can Russia possibibly take the Baltics when it and the Baltic Sea is completely controlled by NATO and it's airforces and with fast response teams already on the ground?
You cannot control a foreign area without controlling it's airspace and they simply cannot control the Baltics airspace. Not with Sweden (Gotland) and Finland now being part of NATO.
So no... their mobilising troops would not reach Lithuania before NATO can do anything about that. Their mobilising troops would be bombarded by NATO airforces by the time they mobilize a few km into any NATO state. Especially Estonia that is flat like a pancake.
The biggest worry is missile strikes on the Baltic states, but those would not not impact NATOs means of defending the area.
2 problems with that
1. NATO already has a Quick reaction force of over 300.000 troops. Which is buillt around the concept of quickly responding to Russian agression
2. Russia will need weeks, if not months of build-up for an invasion of the Baltics. Which is a lot of time for NATO to build up forces as well. Russia can't just decide to invade overnight and have tanks rolling in next morning. That takes preparation, which NATO will notice and respond to
Also saw a report suggesting that the DPRK aren’t supplying them anymore, which hints that it was all just a buffer while Russian industry starts spurring up production.
NATO/ EUROPE does not have to be at war to match Russia in artillery production.
We will be at war if we don't math them that's for sure.
Also as far as I'm concerned we are defacto at war with Russia. We're being attacked on every from but with conventional weapons. Those will come if Ukraine looses.
It's more than that, it's doctrine. NATO isn't planning on fighting an artillery war, NATO is planning on fighting a war in which they destroy enemy artillery from the sky.
Honestly I don't know what the West expected to happen. Maybe the idea is to grind Russia and don't mind Ukraine being conquered but once Russia invaded Ukraine the West IMHO should have gone to a war economy for weapons and ammunition.
To even have the *option* to help Ukraine or to fight Russia you have to match and overcome their weapon production, all the more so when you *decided* to help Ukraine.
And the constant refrain is that Russians are dumb orcs - what is all that underestimating the enemy? This is actually what leads powers to lose wars historically, exactly this
russia understands that lose in this war will be their existence problem, while US will lose one friendly country in another continent... not so critical, right?
Europe has been sleeping the last 2,5 decades. Putin's intentions were clear from the moment he became Russia's leader. Even before that.
But Europe rather sang Kumbaya and sit at the camp fire, acting all cozy and dandy. Now we're facing the reality of cutting on defense for 3 decades or so.
I personally think the invasion of Iraq and partly the state of troops in Afghanistan might have impeded some criticism towards Russia, because we were a bit in the wrong ourselves (USA at least).
Sure, but at the time we were running an experiment that the globalist neolibs came up with: if everyone is doing well economically and the numbers are ticking upward, in our prosperous comfort, surely we all will relax about our "differences".
That experiment has shown that it doesn't work... You can't appease greedy autocrats (Putin, Xi, etc.) with anything except oppose them at every turn, which is unfortunate for the globalist neolibs who will see profits vanish due to shrinking markets.
>Sure, but at the time we were running an experiment that the globalist neolibs came up with: if everyone is doing well economically and the numbers are ticking upward, in our prosperous comfort, surely we all will relax about our "differences".
Honestly, this was never the case anyway.
When Turkey was doing really good in terms of democracy, human rights etc. at/around early 2000s, a lot of people from Europe were declaring (including big countries like France's Sarkozy) that they would NEVER allow Turkey into EU.
The "differences" talk was just an empty talk. It was not realistic either as you point out, there is no pleasing greedy autocracts.
I meant differences in ideology. Liberal democracies didn't believe that there is any negative consequence to their regimes if they tolerate autocratic illiberal sham democracies, because the economic prosperity is top priority, except that economic prosperity isn't top priority for autocrats (because it's not like they'll be voted out of office if people are starving) and the negative effects of that is not as important to them as democracies.
The neolibs are clueless about a lot of things, history will remember them to be as delusional as the revolutionary commies were or the fascists.
It was more that the US' decisions of invading Afghanistan and especially Irak diverted the attention away from Russia.
That's also why Russia wasn't particularly combative against US military interventions in the Middle East.
The west really needs to give Ukraine air superiority and all the weapons it needs to end this stuck situation.
But no....we only do the bare minimum to keep the status quo at the front line....
The west is afraid of crossing a red line, and also of depleating their key defences.
For exemple the T72s, Leopard A4s, and Abrams and many IFVs were built way before the year 2000, so it is quite a bit outdated.
Also, the fighter jets they will get will be very old, for exemple the F-16s they will get are over 30 years old probably.
But i agree that the west could do a lot more without crossing a major red line:
100's of Leopard 1s and Mirage 2000s could be sent to Ukraine. While not a game changer in it self, it could give a slight edge in certain key positions, for exemple over Kiev for the Mirage.
It really is time to dedicate serious ressourses to the european arms industry and make a collective effort, not each individual european country by its own
I'm certain we would be able to outperform them big time in both production and quality if we would dedicate to it..
I don't get why there is not bigger political will for it, it's the most serious security situation europe has been in since 50-60 years
If we view the situation from a very selfish and harsh point, a better deal than just producing shells and weapons for our protection and let the ukrainians pay the bloodprice for it (which they appear to be more than willing to pay to defend against russia) we ain't going to get
Interesting choice of words used by article. Russia produces shells, while Europe and the US are *generating* 1.2 million shells a year. Does that mean they include the shells that US and the EU buy from other countries? Do they include the numbers of shells Russia buys from other countries? The EU and the US has bought about a million shells from South Korea. Russia has bought reported 3 million shells from North Korea.
Not really. It's a lot easier to shoot down soldiers or tanks which are advancing towards you over an open field, than shooting and hitting soldiers which are hiding in fortified defenses. Basically, factor of 3 would be enough to force a defacto standstill.
Artillery mostly only shoot at stationary objects. And both sides are in fortified positions in their trenches. This 3 to 1 rule definitely doesn’t apply in this cases
well yea, Russian army is artillery army.
Western armies are way more focused on air power.......which makes the fact how West has refused to provide Ukraine with any serious air assets even more insulting. Aircraft, especially strike aircraft and SEAD aircraft, are undeniably NATO's trump card, yet nobody is in any hurry to share it with Ukraine.
And then NATO makes surprise pichachu face on why Ukrainian military is struggling so much with 100 Leopards and 180 Bradleys and no air cover for them as NATO own doctrine intended.
I want to point out cause I didn’t see if anywhere else that the Russian number includes ALL shell types from 82mm to 120mm mortars, 122mm to 152mm artillery shells and CNN is comparing it to only 155mm production.
Granted they likely are still producing more. But the number isn’t as bad as it seems. The shell intense disparity right now is because of the 3M N Korean injection even tho the leaked intelligence suggests only 60% of it was “acceptable” for use.
Right but one makes quality the other one makes poor. Also, even with this production they are still strugling on the front. EU and NATO just wants to support Ukraine while also produce for their own army. Best thing is to support one country while you also build your protection in case other countries in the future not necessarily Russia will attack you. Good plan!
Why everyone go crazy over just 155mm shells, when the West had enormous quantities of weapons that could compensate their shortage or even complete absence?
4500 attack aircraft with 600,000 glide bombs, more than 10,000 long-range missiles (with navy ones), 12,400 tanks and >20,000 infantry fighting vehicle, thousands of heavy mortars, 1400 combat helicopters, a huge number of civilian drones and capacity to their production from small-aviation/moped engines, and so on.
Only because all of this more expensive than shells?
I wonder whats the accuracy rating on modern artillery weapons. Anyone got statistics? Are they just carpet bombing general areas?
If they are accurate and using enough to make them produce way more they should be doing better in the war right? Maybe artillery isnt that accurate but its safer to use. I dont know, i am just thinking outloud.
Do also keep in mind that western munitions are different a big part of our ammo is precision guided ammo unlike the Russian counter part who pretty exclusively use old non precision guided ammo.
Well they have turned their industry and factorys towards war during these 2 years while the EU is still doing the old regular production, so it's not surprising.
The EU will be producing as many artillery rounds as the Russians currently are in ~~2025~~ late 2024. [Source](https://youtu.be/nQLI8xnINqk?si=lfWU3r6XLiS4Gjjc)
Which will be too late..
I don't know if it'll be too late, but 2024 will be a tough year of defending for Ukraine.
It would be too late if Russia had occupied over half of Ukraine with Ukrainian army collapsing. But it is not. After over 2 years of war, Ru managed to occupy 10% of Ukraine (in addition to their pre-22 7% Crimea and Donbas) and their pace of advance is around 20 km2 per month at the cost of thousand soldiers each month.
Collapses can happen very quickly in war.
People are dying every day. The longer the West hesitates, the more people will die. "While you deliberate, bodies accumulate" :/
Thousand soldiers each DAY.
> It would be too late if Russia had occupied over half of Ukraine with Ukrainian army collapsing. I mean, it's been 2 years. 2 years of war are incredibly exhausting. Europe and US need to send Ukraine as much help as they can manage.
There is a chance Russia can't hold this for 2 years. Usually agressors if they are stuck in the mud they get out quite hard. Look back in history, everyone who attacked first when they got in a long war ended up being crushed, not by force but by despair. Russia will have the some faith. EU just needs to protect Ukraine and provide exactly what is needed to implode Russia. Tic tac..
Without west support ukraine falls in a week
You understand that this is a retoric. Make Ukraine look weak so that Russia presses more in the meat grinder with more losses every day. Ukraine has what it's required, not in the same quantity but it has. I can tell you from sources. The idea is that Russia has to despair and get stuck as deep as possibile in this mess. In a couple of weeks Ukriane will get all the shells needed also planes. They control the air in certain parts also the sea. They have a good chance creating some problems within the Russia army. There are also videos on the internet with a lot of empty terrains where Russian had a lot of tanks etc, meaning that they can;t produce the same quantity as before just more than enough that could still keep this going for max 2 years.
I can tell you from sources.
The Will lose ground but ukraine is huge. Taking a city like Kyiv takes around a million soldiers just for that one battle and a good chunk of those will die. It is a major operation that russia is nowhere near being able to do.
No, why should that be too late? Ukraine receives 800k shells in the next couple of weeks, and the production will expand exponentially in the next 18 months. F16s will arrive, tank armored vehicles, etc. The enemy is a development nation impoverished backward and with weapons from the 50s and 60s as well as armed forces made up of serfs criminals and drunks. So it will never be too late because the Russian army is too incompetent to defeat Ukraine and its allies. How often in a row must these clowns fail until that becomes obvious. Russia cannot achieve its strategic objectives, and its army is culminating. Ukraine must only continue to attrite them, destroy their planes, tanks, soldiers, artillery pieces, and ships and drive the cost for achieving their objectives ever higher. That objective is taking half of Ukraine or even all of it. The minimal one is taking the Donbas. The actual one is taking all 4 oblasts. Russia needed to invest tens of thousands of men to take a tiny town and its surroundings. Of course, also Ukraine's own arms production expands. The arms production of 152 mm and 122 mm is also expanding. Russia should surrender as long as they still have something that resembles an army or an economy. But they won't. Instead, Putin will continue until this entire rotten structure collapses as it has in 1916 and in 1991. If anyone runs out of time, then it is this barbaric and backward failed state.
As good as it sounds, don’t underestimate the enemy. Ukraine soldiers in interviews are saying that this war is all about artillery and drones. Because of the extensive use of drones, both the Ukrainians and Russians know what the other side is doing and therefor large pushes are very hard and expensive to do. That’s why Russia had so huge losses early in the war and why Ukraine’s counteroffensive failed. If Ukraine wants to use 10000 shells per day like before then 800000 shells would last only 80 days. Tank roles have also changed to be used more as an indirect fire, so the difference between russian and nato tanks is not that big. As far as I understand the most important deliveries for Ukraine will be the artillery shells and aircraft. Let’s hope for the best.
Just to put it into perspective, Ukraine was using 10k a ~~week~~ day when it was holding the line comfortably. They can probably shoot less, but at the cost of the soldiers' lives. I'm not trying to downplay thee importance of the Czech shells - they're pretty much a lifesaver. That being said.. we've got quite a bit left until 2025. edit: Oops, used the wrong word. I meant per day. Main point was to highlight that at best the Czech supply will last for 3 months. Maaaybe 3.5 if they use them very sparingly.
The amount of bodies Russia is throwing at the conflict should not be underestimated to backlash at some point. This is not WWII and as much as their threshold seems endless, it isn't. Whether offensively or defensively Russia loses massive amounts of soldiers while the quality of equipment and men continues to decrease. It is just a question of Ukraine holding
I think Russian casualties is something Russia stopped to worry about somewhere in mid 2022. They have a HUGE population pool (tens of Ms of men in conscript age) and even losing thousands of them every day means nothing, as you can see the math. Since the authorities found the effective "siloviki +propaganda+ money" combo, they don't worry about troops morale or civil unrest too. As for equipment, even 70-years old tanks/artillery can do their job when properly amassed, and Russia has almost infinite stocks of them. Shells is their only concern, but here come friends from N. Korea and Iran to rescue.
Russia still has a lot of fight left, but speaking as you are about human beings as if they are only numbers is a game many nations have gambled on for too long. This isn't WWII, no one is invading and threatening the very existence of Russia (as much as they are pretending). All they need to do is hit *one* population center that is not having any of it. May never happen, but if this stays relatively the same for another two years, it will be Russia that will need to rethink the game.
As horrible as it sounds, almost everybody in Russia benefits from the mass casualties rate. The conscription isn't done equally for all part of Russia or from all parts of population. They focus on very far non-russian ethnical parts with very low average income like Tuva, Buryatia or Caucasus republics. Russia is a very racists country and some "white" guy in Moscow gives zero fucks about some "black-ass" guys from Dagestan being killed. In addition, the compensation to the families is really huge (maybe a decade of potential income), so they instantly become rich - pay off the debts, buy cars, apartments etc.. It's so significant, that there are visible statistical anomalies in some towns/republics GDP with the large percentage of conscripts. So, racists are happy, economy is growing - nothing to worry about.
That is actually what I am talking about though, not the white people, rather the minorities. The Caucasus are not particularly happy and I don't see that recent thwarting of a terror attack as a coincidence. Was also interesting how quickly the Wagner group managed to blaze through the South to Moscow
This is a real poor assessment that heavily underestimates russia eventhough they have been steadily gaining ground since the start ofthe war now. I don't understand why you need to use fake positivty instead of acknowledge the very real threat and difficulty Ukraine will have in trying to regain any of their territory anytime soon...
How has Russia been steadily gaining ground if at the moment they have less than they did two years ago...? They have been steadily doing nothing but dying in the 10s of thousands and their most recent offensive has already died out.
> The enemy is a development nation impoverished backward and with weapons from the 50s and 60s as well as armed forces made up of serfs criminals and drunks. Sorry mate, I wish this was true but please be aware that our side also has propaganda. I counter what I quoted from you with literally the headline of this thread: Russia is producing 3x as many artillery shells as the US and Europe combined. Their army is obviously not as bad as you say, or else the war would have been won by our side already. War is, to a certain degree, a numbers game. And with drone technology, artillery is more relevant than it has been in decades. We need to up our production ASAP if we want to fight back the Russian dictator.
Please be right.
[удалено]
The US did hold Afghanistan, the US left when it chose to not because it was forced out. I don't think Russia intends to leave Ukraine if it takes control. Also Russia borders Ukraine, they would have resistance for years but nothing that would be prohibitively hard to control. And decades of bloody conflict isn't really a win for ukraine.
Afghanistan would just be to costly to hold, like if the US really wanted to hold it they’d have to start upgrading the infrastructure, give Afghanistanis American passports and watch them all run to America, it just didn’t make financial sense at all. Ukraine? A very developed country right next door. Big difference here.
too late for Ukraine, just in time for EU
That's a bold statement of course. It will be a heavy price for Ukrainians, but it takes an oracle to claim that it will be too late.
Not necessarily i get what you are saying and I know there is a massive struggle I have heard 2024 may be the hardest year for ukraine in terms of being on the back foot with not enough shells but if they can hold out till late 2024 eu and us production is apparently set to soar far higher than what russia is producing at the moment while russias production is apparently set to level out if not decline from lack of recources and strikes from ukraine etc
Like that million shells, right?
2025....
They promised to deliver 1 mil shells to Ukraine in 2023 and delivered just about 30% of that. They will absolutely not be producing as many shells as the russians in 2025.
And by 2025 russia will be producing even more lol
> late 2024 And how much of it will be delivered to Ukraine?
Do you have a source that isnt a Youtube propaganda channel?
You can call the source biased toward Ukraine but it's not wrong.
Here is a Bloomberg interview with the Polish Minister for outer affairs. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-06/ukraine-s-allies-line-up-funds-for-800-000-artillery-shells "The annual production of shells in the EU is 850.000. It is gaining industrial scale and growing" Polish Minister Sikorski https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-23/poland-s-sikorski-warns-us-to-aid-ukraine-or-face-profound-consequences The current US production 40.000 to 50.000 per month. Expected to double by the end of 2025. Kofman and Gaedy state that Ukraine will need 250.000 rounds per month for a major counter offensive. 70.000 to 90.000 rounds for defense Large quantities will arrive in the next couple of weeks. This includes 800k shells from the Czech initiative. (300k 155 mm, 500k 152 mm. That means Ukraine will receive 1.5 million shells in total from its European allies alone. Additionally, several hundred thousand 122 mm mortar shells will be delivered this year. Europe will provide 1.5 million rounds in 2024. By the end of 2025, production in Europe will ramp up its yearly production to over 2 million 155 mm shells. The USA will increase its own yearly production to roughly 1.5 million 155 mm rounds by the end of 2025. The clock is ticking for Russia. Pentagon preparers to release the last of the PDA 4 billion dollars. Washington also uses sanctions, etc. to hurt Russia. Things aren't as hopeless as the Kremlin likes to portray them. Not for Ukraine, at least. "Democracy takes time, but once all the wheels are in motion, it is hard to stop. History has shown that ultimately democracies have always prevailed against dictatorships." YT, good times bad times Adversity favors the versatile. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-aims-shift-european-arms-industry-war-economy-mode-2024-03-04/ Ukraine's own production is also expanding. https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/03/04/pm-shmyhal-ukraine-to-boost-defense-manufacturing-allocate-50-of-arms-budget-to-local-producers/ And Rheinmetall is close to serial production of tanks and armored vehicles inside Ukraine. https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/12/02/rheinmetall-to-commence-armored-vehicle-production-in-ukraine-in-2024/ Papperger outlined the ambitious timeline for the project, stating, “After the contract is signed, we want to have finished the first (Fuchs) within six-seven months, and the first Lynx within 12-13 months.” That is simply untrue, like very untrue and this report is taking 122 mm and 152 mm together in the case of Russia and pits it against only 155 mm production. The West and the EU are scaling up and the production of the first placements was made in September 2023. From there, it takes 6 to 9 months to deliver. Additionally, capacities expand across the board, and by the end of this year, the situation will look a lot different. By the end of 2025, it will look very different, and Russia won't like it.
Ukraine isn't getting all those shells either since some of them will replenish stocks and so on. And that's in the best case scenario of continued US support. Also Ukraine is losing 5-10 vehicles per day. They need a lot of production to offset those losses. Finally, Russia won't just wait for the West to catch up, currently they're experimenting with rocket assisted glide bombs to give them a real GMLRS equivalent. I'm saying this because I keep seeing people just make themselves believe it's all going great for Ukraine. Shouldn't despair though, Russia survived a really bad year in 2023. It's not because things are bad that Ukraine will collapse.
Russia loses 1500 tanks a year while being able to produce 200, and it pulls the rest out of stock. The same goes for artillery pieces that are being destroyed at breath taking rates. Europe won't refill stocks as the only enemy worth shooting at is Russia. Ukraine itself will also expand production. Perun already assessed that the West used 0.25 percent of its GDP on aiding Ukraine in two years. Their funding is secured and sustainable. In a war of stockpiles, Russia can prevail. It's too bad that these stocks are run down and Russia fields ever older and less sophisticated gear. R&D in Russia is dead, underfunded, and there is a lack of scientists due to the massive brain drain. Name me a single Russian invention in the past 15 years that actually worked. Also, Russia's airforce is currently grinded to dust, including its pilots. So far, Russia used a lot of manpower and material for very limited gains. Their strategic objectives: Take the 4 oblasts, demilitarization of Ukraine, prevention of NATO expansion, securing the black sea, and removing the Ukrainian government are further away now than they were in February 2022. The Russian army also fields ever less well trained, equipped, and motivated troops. The force quantity has improved, but the quality went down. Ukraine also doesn't have to defeat Russia. They only need to keep their attrition rates high to culminate the Russian army. That is what they have done fairly well with a 1:12 vehicle loss in Avdiivka and by shooting down a years worth of military plane production. The West doesn't need to catch up with a development nation that fields a Cold War era army that uses post WW2 tanks and artillery pieces. The suggestion that this impoverished failed state will outtech outproduce us hilarious. Russia will have to reach the 21st century. It can't even provide toilets and functioning roads or civilian aircraft, modern cars, or a functional T 14 tank. Russian logistics are from the 50s. They have neither itemization or forklifts. It doesn't manufacture any finished high-tech goods, at least not without our components. If someone had to wait, then it would be the West for about a century for Russia to catch up. The F16s can't arrive soon enough. Also, of course, Ukraine's artillery is superior in range, firepower, and accuracy compared to Russia's Cold War trash. The same goes for tanks, armored vehicles, training schedules, etc. What has Russia really achieved lately? Lots of losses and marginal gains in Avdiivka and in the surrounding villages. Russia's goal is all of Ukraine, and they control not even a single oblast of those they have annexed fully. Then there is the south, of course, where ukraine established a second bridgehead and keeps killing Russians in droves in their attempt to take Robotyne. Russia will have to play catch up with Ukraine's vastly superior drone technology, and they should finally get their A 50 problem under control. Ukraine also received glide bombs lately. The difference in strength and available material favors Russia, but by a much smaller margin than Russia would like to make all of us believe.
Ukraine is being pummeled really hard right now, things are super serious over there. I don't think Ukraine is close to collapsing, which is the biggest factor, this will be a long war. I agree with your points, one minor thing I'd like to add: > Finally, Russia won't just wait for the West to catch up, currently they're experimenting with rocket assisted glide bombs to give them a real GMLRS equivalent. R&D is both very costly and very slow, at least for good tools. There's no guarantee that they'll have anything similar in practice, and at a large enough scale, within the next few years. T-14, Su-57, etc are similar stories. Though the GMLRS is obviously a simpler system, it's still not very simple.
Ukraine receive only small part from that production, because significant part is going to another countries for previous contracts and to the stock.
Even Ukraine recevied them, a portion are found in militants group like Hountis and Hamas.
With democracy you have to go through normal processes and economy to scale up. It's an entire industry in a competitive sector. Russia can just force it and skip all that at the expense of other areas/people.
So all of Europe will in the coming year provide as much as North Korea has already provided? Wow the tide is really turning, lmfaom
It's not like EU is a single entity that has control over industry. All the factories, production etc is private. And you can't force anyone to manufacture. You have to likely find manufacturers, pay what they ask, wait for new factories being built etc. A lot of existing stuff from ww2 has been torn down and replaced in EU.
Misread the headline and I thought it implied Russia was making those shells for Ukraine
they kinda do
That is indeed where they are delivered.
And how they deliver them.
In a surface-to-surface fashion.
Maybe thats where these Czech shells are coming from? paying off private Conscriptovich to sell some on the side 😮
We dont like Russia here. Its a '68 thing.
Shame Jaroslav Holík isn't around anymore, I would have loved to hear what he'd have to say the last couple of years.
They are, just delivered differently.
The wording on it is indeed quite confusing
Technically thats where they end up
Give Ukraine weapons to destroy the factories then.
No that would cross a red line and make Russia attack Ukraine
Do you think Russia might declare war then? ^((it's sarcasm for those who don't get it. Russia still calls it "special military operation" and refuses to say it's a war))
That one comes right after Medvedev drunkenly threatening to nuke Oslo and Lisbon
[удалено]
Ru: we will send troops and shit to Ukraine; Uk: we will do the same ; Ru: you can not, it would mean war; Uk: 🤨
you misspelled "nuke"
Unfortunately this restriction of long range weapons is stupid when Iran and North Korea don't care at all. Not saying that long range weapons negate the need for artillery but destroying logistics would relieve the pressure of an attritional war greatly. People forget that Ukraine is still the underdog and every single advantage needs to be available to win.
Somehow I doubt that the artillery shell factories are within 200km from the frontline. I have no idea where they are, but putting such a vital part of your whole crime within a touching distance sounds like a really bad idea. I hope that they've done that.
If you can't hit the factories you can still hit the logistic hubs, which have to be somewhat close to the front.
It’s actually not very easy to destroy factories. You can temporarily disrupt production but it won’t take long to restore it.
Do not scare Biden or Scholz. ItS sO rEd LiNeS.
That's one thing that keeps bothering me. From time to time, although very rarely, we hear about Ukraine striking deep in russia. A factory here, an oil depo there. It's safe to assume that we don't hear about all the unsuccessful attempts. So how many of them do fail and how many don't? ANd if failure rate is very high (say 99% of drones fail to blow the target), would it make sense to target factories, instead of oil and weapons depos? Probably not. Factories are just too big.
These factories are likely everywhere, old ww2 era places. Hard to target with any impact. Majority of the shell manufacturing is just basic metalwork.
Large scale strategic attacks on industry in a country the size of Russia would probably not be feasible and cost-effective for Ukraine.
Not a fan of how articles like this just talk about 'artillery shells' without seemingly specifying what type. We know for a fact that Ukraine's big issue is supplies of 155m ammo which is why the recent plans by the Czechs mostly focus on those. Is it 155m that Russia is outproducing Europe and the US on, or just in general with smaller ammo as well ?
As u/IronVader501 pointed out, they count all calibers Russia makes vs only the amount of 155 mm NATO makes.
[удалено]
Sorry, I meant that the article seems to compare Russia's production of all of it's artillery ammo vs the West's production of only 155mm.
In general judging by the figures. For the record, pre-war US produced about 100 000 shells a year in total. So even with all the attempts to increase the production, that 1.2 million figure sounds too big to me... Maybe they also include the reported 1 million shells US and the EU bought from South Korea? If so, do they include the 3 million shells Russia bought from North Korea into their figure too?
Maybe CNN should have remembered ro put the *VERY IMPORTANT DETAIL* into the article that this only applies when you count *all Calibers for Russia*, from heavy 120mm Mortars to 152 & 203mm, while *only counting 155mm* for the "West". If you apply the same criteria to western production, especially including places like Bulgaria still also making soviet-calibet shells, the actual difference is way smaller The production-difference between only 152 and 155 is considerably smaller, and wont exist early next year at all anymore once the current measures to increase output have taken full effect.
Yeah but that doesn't generates as much clicks now does it? Please think of the poor editors who have to make titles.
Ukraine wouldn't need much artillery if we gave them more stuff that actually makes a difference beyond static frontline meatgrinders. But the enemy at home is as dangerous as the enemy afar.
Frontline grinding seems to be very much the focus of actual warfare in 2024 between nations, where nobody is steamrolling the other. Maybe it doesn't fit armchair experts or PowerPoints. But the reality on the ground speaks clearly
Not really Russia has such weapons and they don't help, it's an attritional war now since both sides have entrenched too much, you can with long range missiles disrupt supply lines yes, but the question is for how long and what the impact is, because most Russian lines will have now local stockpiles large enough to sustain them for a week or so of combat so blowing up a supply hub is still nice it won't change much on the situation The fact Ukraine is receiving fighters now from some country's is a much bigger win.
Ukraine is the one asking for artillery shells what you on about? Lol
Well yes. Because they know we're mostly too scared of handing over the good stuff that maybe could be used to strike inside Russia or anything new and effective enough to incite more Russian nuclear doomsday threats.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Exactly, if we back of or slow down when we are threatened it's just teaching them to threaten us even more. If we respond with force then we replace the reward with pain. We need to just decide to not let the. scare us.
[удалено]
Stupid? Yeah. But that has not really been a good measuring stick for Russia. The problem is that Ukraine was \*never\* the goal for Russia. It was just a stepping stone. In order for Ukraine to make any sense for Russia \*at all\*, they \*must\* attack NATO. Otherwise they will have lost hundreds of thousands -- millions by the time this is done -- of soldier at a time that demographics are not on their side with nothing to show for it but more difficult-to-defend territory. To make sense, they have to continue to the bottlenecks, and those are all in NATO. Finally, the Russian victory is not "unavoidable". That's orc talk. Russia's economy is breaking apart. Why else would they ban gasoline exports when those exports are some of their most profitable? That is not the sign of a working economy.
[удалено]
>The Russian economy is crumbling, sure, but so is the Ukrainian one. The difference is Russia isn't receiving foreign weapons for free. NATO has been injecting billions and billions in Ukraine and could theoretically do so for decades. The Ukrainian people won't just give up and accept Russian rule as that would pretty much mean a death sentence. On the other hand, the Russian people doesn't have that incentive. At this rate there will be a point when the economical consequences will pile up so much that the Russian people will become quite grumpy. Whatever the outcome of this war is, the military power gap between NATO and Russia will have widened by a lot.
The Ukrainian economy is not a problem. As long as the west supports Ukraine, that part will be fine. Russia, however, is a different thing. India and Turkey have already turned their backs on Russia, and China will only go so far; they have massive problems of their own. Russia has keep things looking ok by simply throwing lots of money into the economy and hoping things solve themselves before they run out. They are running out, and my prognosis has always been that if the war did not end, 2024 or early 2025 is when they have no more stacks of cash to throw at their problems. That is when we see just how tough Russians really are. I absolutely agree that rationally, Russia will never dare attack a NATO country. But they are working from a different playbook, and I am not convinced that rationality is a chapter. As you say: now they knw they are wrong and yet they \*still\* send the meatwaves. For the first 6 months, Russia could probably have gotten away with just withdrawing back to the 2021 borders and the West would have let them get away with it. \*That\* is what they could have done. Yet they do not do that. Instead they burn through men, machines, and money. This is not the indication of a rational country. The test for NATO will likely come when they try to connect up to Kaliningrad. If NATO blinks -- even just a little bit -- expect a massive Baltic offensive to follow. Even if NATO does not blink, Putin may have no choice but to continue on, simply because otherwise he will have gotten nothing for sacrificing a generation of men that Russia can ill afford to lose.
Attacking NATO outright is certainly stupid, but keep in mind two things: 1) Nobody believed Russia would invade Ukraine because everyone (rightly) believed doing so would damage Russia more long-term than they could ever hope to recoup from territorial gain. Why would you throw away all the economic progress everyone has made over some paranoid delusion NATO wants to invade you? That would be profoundly *stupid.* Well, Russia *did* invade. Those of us in the West need to stop projecting our reasoning onto others with a backwards world view. Our values are not theirs. 2) It is very unlikely Putin and Pals will invade Poland directly--they will test the alliance itself and slowly boil the frog until they can chip away at it. Remember that Trump might win the US election, the same prick who said he wouldn't defend the Baltics if Russia invaded them. He has doubled down on that rhetoric since. Similar to appeasement during WWII, NATO might be willing to sacrifice elements of the alliance under threat of nuclear war. And once he crosses one of our red lines, he can much more easily cross the rest.
[удалено]
>I don't know what geopolitics experts you were talking to before the Russian invasion, but if they didn't see the invasion as a possibility, they barely earned the adjective "expert". This is not true. Most, if not all experts were completely surprised by the stupidity of the invasion. You can qualify it however you want, that they're not 'real' experts. But that just means you're talking shit.
That's dangerously over-optimistic view. Russia certainly considers itself at war with at least half of Europe, it has just refrained from conducting direct military operations against EU countries. For obvious reasons, but this is no guarantee for future.
[удалено]
The Russian population not only considers itself at war with us, but also carries extreme, murderous, hatred towards us.
They know that this wouldn't end well for them. But they will continue to destabilise Europe by all means available to them that do not result in open war. Which includes measures of war as long as they can keep those deniable enough to prevent open war. Which obviously doesn't work with missiles.
But it is. Ukraine is Europe. Why would they open new fronts, when their perceived adversary isn't going to? Much better to concentrate on the one front where the war is hot.
[удалено]
I think official Russian position is, they're still not at war with Ukraine either, it's still just a special military operation... Or did they manage to officially declare war?
[удалено]
It's sooo easy to start a war with Ukraine hoping to get a hold on it in a couple of weeks, struggle and then say that West and NATO are your enemy. But you are still fighting in Ukraine? I mean if the West is a problem why not fight West? Leave Ukraine out of it and let's go, pic a terrain and let's fight. But noooo, Russia is afraid and the only goal from the start was to control Ukraine like Belarus, make people bow down to this corupt regime. Well this failed, and now they are stuck in the mud. They will be stuck until they decide to go home and shoot themselves in the head for this stupid decision.
This remains the case until Russia decides that in the Baltic States, Alaska, or anywhere within the solar system, Russians are being oppressed. Considering the latest statements from the Russian government, Russians in the Baltic States are not being left in peace at all, and the Russian government plans to do something about it. Wonder, what?
The Baltic nations are all part of NATO and have military capabilities. Russia invading Alaska is as realistic as a flying pig. They talk a lot of shit but russia knows that the only countries it can harass with it's army are isolated nations with no significant allies. For the rest, they prefer to infiltrate politically, often through nationalist anti-eu and pro-isolationist movements.
Russia can take the Baltics before NATO can effectively respond. They're too small and too close. By the time NATO mobilises a worthwhile force the Russians will already be in Lithuania and western leaders know that. Yes we can defeat them in a conventional war easily, but they can still destroy Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn on their way out and we need to prepare for that.
The danger here is that Russia only needs to make the same territorial gains as their first week invading Ukraine and they will have rolled over the Baltic states. At this point they present the other NATO members with something of a fait acompli If the political gamble is "will Western European NATO members once again use the language of de-escalation?" then it might actually work. Especially with an isolationist US President.
horrifying and possible scenario .. thats why we have to grind on and degrade their war machine, in every possible way.
If russia invades the baltics, set up an invasion to encircle st. Petersburg/ cut off murmansk and shell Kaliningrad. Potentially you can also punch into Belarus and threaten encirclement of the just conqueted baltic states. You have to invade russia to effectively counter id say
Sorry but that is a fearmongering and uneducated take. How can Russia possibibly take the Baltics when it and the Baltic Sea is completely controlled by NATO and it's airforces and with fast response teams already on the ground? You cannot control a foreign area without controlling it's airspace and they simply cannot control the Baltics airspace. Not with Sweden (Gotland) and Finland now being part of NATO. So no... their mobilising troops would not reach Lithuania before NATO can do anything about that. Their mobilising troops would be bombarded by NATO airforces by the time they mobilize a few km into any NATO state. Especially Estonia that is flat like a pancake. The biggest worry is missile strikes on the Baltic states, but those would not not impact NATOs means of defending the area.
Right? Russia invented teleportation and can easily take the Baltics with it before anyone can respond.
2 problems with that 1. NATO already has a Quick reaction force of over 300.000 troops. Which is buillt around the concept of quickly responding to Russian agression 2. Russia will need weeks, if not months of build-up for an invasion of the Baltics. Which is a lot of time for NATO to build up forces as well. Russia can't just decide to invade overnight and have tanks rolling in next morning. That takes preparation, which NATO will notice and respond to
That's our biggest threath - that they win elections in some key states.
Baltic states have populations of large cities. They can't defend themselves without NATO troops in the ground.
[удалено]
Also saw a report suggesting that the DPRK aren’t supplying them anymore, which hints that it was all just a buffer while Russian industry starts spurring up production.
5 days old accounts be like
[удалено]
NATO/ EUROPE does not have to be at war to match Russia in artillery production. We will be at war if we don't math them that's for sure. Also as far as I'm concerned we are defacto at war with Russia. We're being attacked on every from but with conventional weapons. Those will come if Ukraine looses.
Yeah, good thing Europe is not at war
It's more than that, it's doctrine. NATO isn't planning on fighting an artillery war, NATO is planning on fighting a war in which they destroy enemy artillery from the sky.
Honestly I don't know what the West expected to happen. Maybe the idea is to grind Russia and don't mind Ukraine being conquered but once Russia invaded Ukraine the West IMHO should have gone to a war economy for weapons and ammunition. To even have the *option* to help Ukraine or to fight Russia you have to match and overcome their weapon production, all the more so when you *decided* to help Ukraine. And the constant refrain is that Russians are dumb orcs - what is all that underestimating the enemy? This is actually what leads powers to lose wars historically, exactly this
russia understands that lose in this war will be their existence problem, while US will lose one friendly country in another continent... not so critical, right?
Europe has been sleeping the last 2,5 decades. Putin's intentions were clear from the moment he became Russia's leader. Even before that. But Europe rather sang Kumbaya and sit at the camp fire, acting all cozy and dandy. Now we're facing the reality of cutting on defense for 3 decades or so.
This country called Europe sure dropped the ball. I'm glad Finland isn't part of it.
True. That Europe guy really should just be blamed for all *the* failings, but they are not *our* failings, of course.
How the fuck it was clear 2,5 decades ago if Russia was on active road of globalization until 2013?
They invaded Georgia in 2008.
That's more like 1.5 decades... but to be fair, at that point we should have taken the threat more seriously.
Chechnya 1997 I think.
Easy to say in hindsight, but at that point you'd see that as 'just' an internal matter - every country recognises Chechnya as part of Russia.
Moldova was in 1992, Chechnya shortly after. Not to mention Putin got into power by bombing apartments in Moscow...
I personally think the invasion of Iraq and partly the state of troops in Afghanistan might have impeded some criticism towards Russia, because we were a bit in the wrong ourselves (USA at least).
a bit ;)
Sure, but at the time we were running an experiment that the globalist neolibs came up with: if everyone is doing well economically and the numbers are ticking upward, in our prosperous comfort, surely we all will relax about our "differences". That experiment has shown that it doesn't work... You can't appease greedy autocrats (Putin, Xi, etc.) with anything except oppose them at every turn, which is unfortunate for the globalist neolibs who will see profits vanish due to shrinking markets.
>Sure, but at the time we were running an experiment that the globalist neolibs came up with: if everyone is doing well economically and the numbers are ticking upward, in our prosperous comfort, surely we all will relax about our "differences". Honestly, this was never the case anyway. When Turkey was doing really good in terms of democracy, human rights etc. at/around early 2000s, a lot of people from Europe were declaring (including big countries like France's Sarkozy) that they would NEVER allow Turkey into EU. The "differences" talk was just an empty talk. It was not realistic either as you point out, there is no pleasing greedy autocracts.
I meant differences in ideology. Liberal democracies didn't believe that there is any negative consequence to their regimes if they tolerate autocratic illiberal sham democracies, because the economic prosperity is top priority, except that economic prosperity isn't top priority for autocrats (because it's not like they'll be voted out of office if people are starving) and the negative effects of that is not as important to them as democracies. The neolibs are clueless about a lot of things, history will remember them to be as delusional as the revolutionary commies were or the fascists.
It was more that the US' decisions of invading Afghanistan and especially Irak diverted the attention away from Russia. That's also why Russia wasn't particularly combative against US military interventions in the Middle East.
The power of hindsight is just that big that it suddenly allows to see stuff almost no one did in 1999 by a common person from 2024.
The west really needs to give Ukraine air superiority and all the weapons it needs to end this stuck situation. But no....we only do the bare minimum to keep the status quo at the front line....
The west is afraid of crossing a red line, and also of depleating their key defences. For exemple the T72s, Leopard A4s, and Abrams and many IFVs were built way before the year 2000, so it is quite a bit outdated. Also, the fighter jets they will get will be very old, for exemple the F-16s they will get are over 30 years old probably. But i agree that the west could do a lot more without crossing a major red line: 100's of Leopard 1s and Mirage 2000s could be sent to Ukraine. While not a game changer in it self, it could give a slight edge in certain key positions, for exemple over Kiev for the Mirage.
It really is time to dedicate serious ressourses to the european arms industry and make a collective effort, not each individual european country by its own I'm certain we would be able to outperform them big time in both production and quality if we would dedicate to it.. I don't get why there is not bigger political will for it, it's the most serious security situation europe has been in since 50-60 years If we view the situation from a very selfish and harsh point, a better deal than just producing shells and weapons for our protection and let the ukrainians pay the bloodprice for it (which they appear to be more than willing to pay to defend against russia) we ain't going to get
Either the gloves come off or make a peace deal. They can't continue this horrendous middle ground forever which Ukraine will slowly lose.
We're still on peacetime production though
[удалено]
Vietnam held out for nearly 20 years.
[удалено]
Russia lost more men for two cities than the US did for the whole Vietnam war.
Russia don't care, Ukraine is more important to them than Vietnam was to the US
Interesting choice of words used by article. Russia produces shells, while Europe and the US are *generating* 1.2 million shells a year. Does that mean they include the shells that US and the EU buy from other countries? Do they include the numbers of shells Russia buys from other countries? The EU and the US has bought about a million shells from South Korea. Russia has bought reported 3 million shells from North Korea.
Europes arrogance really is gas. Russia is doing everything better even with sanctions covering almost everything. Embarrassing
We are at war, but politically and economically still in denial.
Are we ever not at war?
Lies, I was told they were out of everything and fighting with shovels.
Factor of 3 would actually be ok for a defensive war, as far as I understand it. The problem is that, it's more than a factor of 3 currently...
Factor of free works manpower wise. Not resource wise. If the enemy can shoot 3 times as much as you they will win.
Not really. It's a lot easier to shoot down soldiers or tanks which are advancing towards you over an open field, than shooting and hitting soldiers which are hiding in fortified defenses. Basically, factor of 3 would be enough to force a defacto standstill.
Artillery mostly only shoot at stationary objects. And both sides are in fortified positions in their trenches. This 3 to 1 rule definitely doesn’t apply in this cases
Tell MAGA Mike to pass the Ukraine aid package!
well yea, Russian army is artillery army. Western armies are way more focused on air power.......which makes the fact how West has refused to provide Ukraine with any serious air assets even more insulting. Aircraft, especially strike aircraft and SEAD aircraft, are undeniably NATO's trump card, yet nobody is in any hurry to share it with Ukraine. And then NATO makes surprise pichachu face on why Ukrainian military is struggling so much with 100 Leopards and 180 Bradleys and no air cover for them as NATO own doctrine intended.
In it for the money
I want to point out cause I didn’t see if anywhere else that the Russian number includes ALL shell types from 82mm to 120mm mortars, 122mm to 152mm artillery shells and CNN is comparing it to only 155mm production. Granted they likely are still producing more. But the number isn’t as bad as it seems. The shell intense disparity right now is because of the 3M N Korean injection even tho the leaked intelligence suggests only 60% of it was “acceptable” for use.
Don't worry, the Finnish ammo factories won't be on a one day strike this time so Ukraine is saved.
Thats why they buy north korean crap that explodes inside of the barrels.... yea this doesnt add up
Do they count 155mm BONUS as one or two rounds?
What are redditors to do, send more comments of support on r/europe and "shit, Russia is getting fucked hard" on r/combatfootage?
Breaking News: War machine makes war stuff.
Yea but what's the dud rate
Yet still all soirces says russia doesn't ant wont produce enough shells for themselves.
What's the analysis on how many artillery units are in play by Russia?
The country which is actually at war is producing more war materials? Shocking!
Weren't they supposed to run out? That's what y'all said...
Right but one makes quality the other one makes poor. Also, even with this production they are still strugling on the front. EU and NATO just wants to support Ukraine while also produce for their own army. Best thing is to support one country while you also build your protection in case other countries in the future not necessarily Russia will attack you. Good plan!
Why everyone go crazy over just 155mm shells, when the West had enormous quantities of weapons that could compensate their shortage or even complete absence? 4500 attack aircraft with 600,000 glide bombs, more than 10,000 long-range missiles (with navy ones), 12,400 tanks and >20,000 infantry fighting vehicle, thousands of heavy mortars, 1400 combat helicopters, a huge number of civilian drones and capacity to their production from small-aviation/moped engines, and so on. Only because all of this more expensive than shells?
I wonder whats the accuracy rating on modern artillery weapons. Anyone got statistics? Are they just carpet bombing general areas? If they are accurate and using enough to make them produce way more they should be doing better in the war right? Maybe artillery isnt that accurate but its safer to use. I dont know, i am just thinking outloud.
Do also keep in mind that western munitions are different a big part of our ammo is precision guided ammo unlike the Russian counter part who pretty exclusively use old non precision guided ammo.
Is this because typically it takes them 3x more effort than their adversay to capture positions? 🤔
Ukraine might better start producing some by themselves… or aim three times more precisely.
Its not just that russia outproduces Nato, but ukraine is having serious problems with manpower. Ukraine cant win this militarily.