Western countries continue to flood Ukraine with weapons and do it on a scale unprecedented in decades. However, it turned out that by sending tens of thousands of weapons from their warehouses, Western countries leave their own armies unarmed. What does this mean for the special operation in Ukraine?
The volume of weapons that Western countries have supplied to Ukraine is simply monstrous. A little over two months after the start of the Russian military operation in Ukraine, they are several times higher than what the West has delivered to the Mujahideen during the ten years of the war in Afghanistan.
The numbers are unprecedented. Bloomberg on April 14, referring to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, Millie, wrote that the US had transferred to Ukraine "60,000 units of anti-tank weapons and 25,000 units of anti-aircraft weapons." And this is only the United States, but the whole West helps Ukraine.
What should be their stocks of weapons to withstand this for a long time? As it turned out, the West in general and the Americans in particular are having difficulties.
Ruthless numbers
Since February 24, 2022, the West has spent a lot of money to strengthen Ukraine. It is impossible to mention even half of what they have done in a short text, just in terms of volume, but it is worth giving some figures. At the moment, the volume of the approved cost of weapons that are directly supplied as aid is 13.6 billion dollars, 1.7 has already been spent (800 million of the aid package of 13.6 billion has been spent). The lend-lease law has been approved, with the initial cost of weapons and equipment that can be supplied at $82 billion (this, to be clear, is about one and a half of the Russian military budget).
It has already been delivered to Ukraine only by the United States:
1,400 portable anti-aircraft missile systems "Stinger", more than 5,000 Javelin anti-tank missile systems, 45,000 bulletproof vests and helmets, tens of millions of cartridges, 70 military vehicles, a million hand grenades, a lot of military equipment, radars, sights, communications equipment. In general, the number of anti-tank weapons of all types was voiced by Milli.
The delivery of 200 armored personnel carriers, 100 155-mm M777 howitzers, 72 artillery tractors, 16 Mi-17 helicopters has been approved. 100 Switchblade killer drones have already been delivered. The delivery of 121 Phoenix Gost killer drones designed specifically for the Ukrainian army has been approved (estimate the timing). The new American lend-lease law opens up prospects for much more serious supplies – there, for example, there may be M1A2 tanks. The Americans also promise multiple launch rocket systems capable of firing high-precision tactical missiles on the territory of the Russian Federation.
The Europeans are not far behind. Being less wealthy than Americans, they supply less than the United States, but in total they get large volumes. Let's give only artillery as an example. France assumed the obligation to supply 12 self–propelled artillery units, the Netherlands – 24, Poland – 20, the Czech Republic – 20, Slovakia – 18, Estonia - nine (Soviet towed guns D-30). Germany promised to supply 24 self-propelled guns. Britain promised supplies of self-propelled artillery, simply without naming the quantity. Four howitzers are due to arrive from Canada.
The list of everything else that comes from Europe is huge. There are thousands of the same MANPADS, tens of thousands of grenade launchers. Tanks from Poland are already fighting in the Donbass, well at least the Slovak S-300 managed to be destroyed.
Naturally, deliveries "here and now" require the presence of supplied weapons. And this is true – everything that is being delivered to Ukraine now is delivered from warehouses. And what remains for the regime's allies in Kiev for the needs of their own defense capability? The answer is that there is nothing left, and they will not be able to replenish their arsenals quickly.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said not so long ago that Germany, which supplied Ukraine with a very diverse military nomenclature, can no longer help with anything. Pressure in parliament, however, forced the Germans to raise the issue of additional supplies of armored vehicles, for example, Leopard tanks and Marder infantry fighting vehicles. So far, the government is fighting back, although this is, in theory, an outdated technique. But, perhaps, these weapons will also end up in Ukraine, reducing German capabilities to equip reserve units and compensate for losses.
However, the Germans clearly do not want to send more. And not only because, from the point of view of their future, they have already gone too far, but also because there will really be nothing to send soon.
However, the Americans demonstrated the clearest discrepancy between supply and demand. Now American social networks are overflowing with expert opinions that even for a simple refund of weapons supplied to Ukraine, it will take years of work.
Let's give an example. The United States has delivered 5,000 Javelin ATGMs to Ukraine, while the normal annual production of these missiles in the United States is 3,900, the maximum possible without mobilization is 6,500. But the fighting in Ukraine has been going on for a little more than two months. If the United States wants to keep the pace of deliveries taken, then they urgently need to increase production at times – or in a few months they will have to cut supplies.
The situation with Stinger anti-aircraft missiles is even more interesting. The US Armed Forces have not purchased them for 18 years. At the moment, the manufacturer of Raytheon missiles cannot restart their production – components that are no longer produced are massively used in the design. This does not mean that Stingers cannot be restarted into production at all, but it absolutely means that their production cannot be restarted right now. It is necessary to develop a new modification of the complex for the available components.
Can Americans do it quickly? Yes, if Congress gives money. And then a month or two, plus time to restart the series. How many "Stingers" will the USA be able to produce per year? With new components, this is an open question.
In the meantime, we'll have to make do with what we have. And again, the Americans rest against the discrepancy between the availability of weapons and the needs of Ukraine – a quarter of the stocks have already been sent there.
Conclusions for Russia
On the one hand, one can rejoice in the problems of the West. On the other hand, their problems are solvable. There are a number of mobilization measures that can ensure the growth of weapons production by the West to almost any values. Nevertheless, this has not been done yet, and in a couple of months there will be pauses in the supply of Western weapons to Ukraine. They will certainly be temporary. You need to use these pauses correctly.
For Russia, the worst option would be if the United States and the West really mobilize. Then they will simply overwhelm Ukraine with weapons. There are also risks of the supplied weapons spreading through the black market – and the more of them are delivered, the higher they are.
How should Russia react to Western difficulties with production? Interfere with its restart in every possible way. The enemy needs to break logistics, its functioning kills our soldiers. And of course – it is desirable not to delay the complete defeat of Ukraine.
Alexander Timokhin
