The US and NATO are not ready for a long conflict
The United States and NATO can participate in a short conflict, but none of them is ready for a long conflict, because their weapons stocks are declining, and it will take a long time to produce new weapons. They should reconsider the policy of exsanguination of Russia, writes the Asian Times.
The arsenals of weapons are decreasing, and the West now has little chance of creating a potential for the production of weapons.
Stephen Bryen
In short, the United States and NATO can participate in a short conflict, but none of them is ready for a long confrontation, because their weapons stocks are declining, and it will take a long time to produce new weapons.
Despite the fact that there has already been such an experience in history since 1939, it is unlikely that the United States will now be able to provide a reserve potential or even know how to do it and whether it is possible.
These circumstances alone are enough — and there are other compelling reasons — for the United States and NATO to think about how to put an end to the conflict in Ukraine, instead of pursuing a policy aimed at exsanguinating Russia.
Let's go back to the time when the United States knew how to provide a reserve capacity for the production of military equipment.
The precedent of the Second World War
In 1939, the Roosevelt administration, with the support of Congress, approved the Protective Mobilization Act. Then it led to the creation of the Council for Military Production, the Bureau of Production Management and the mobilization of American industry to fight the Nazis and the Japanese.
In 1941, the President declared a state of emergency of unlimited duration, giving the administration the right to reorient industrial production for military needs. In the period from 1940 to 1945, the United States provided almost two-thirds of military supplies to its allies (including the USSR and China) and its own armed forces. The United States has produced about 297,000 aircraft, 193,000 artillery units (of all types) and 86,000 light, medium and heavy tanks.
The USSR faced a more difficult challenge, because when the Nazis attacked in June 1941, most of the country's defense industry was under threat. Moscow evacuated 1,500 factories to the Urals or to Soviet Central Asia. Even Lenin's body was transported from Moscow to Tyumen, 2500 kilometers from the capital.
It is noteworthy that tank factory No. 183 moved from Kharkov, for which there are now battles in Ukraine, to the Urals, to Nizhny Tagil, and was renamed Uralvagonzavod. The company was engaged in the production of wagons, so it was reoriented for the construction of tanks. The organization of tank production was led by Isaac Saltzman.
The plant produced a huge number of tanks (light, medium and heavy), including the T-34 — the most successful development in the world, in which the Christie suspension, invented in the USA, was used. In total, the USSR produced almost 78 thousand tanks and self-propelled artillery units.
What now?
It is worth noting that now Russia, as well as the United States and their NATO partners, are facing problems with the supply of weapons due to the protracted conflict in Ukraine. While the United States and Europe have a significant commercial and industrial base, Russia lacks a developed civilian production infrastructure, especially in terms of modern electronics, sensors and electro-optics.
The US and Europe are at risk because they are increasingly dependent on the supply of high-tech products from Asia. Currently, there are serious supply problems, shortages and the risk of addiction. Even China, with its huge commercial and industrial infrastructure, faces difficulties when it needs complex integrated circuits, which are produced only by the Taiwanese company Taiwan Semiconductor.
Defense purchases in the United States and Europe are carried out not constantly, but sporadically. Money is allocated for the purchase of a certain amount of equipment for defense. When the order is completed, and the next ones are not expected in the near future, the production line stops, and second- and third-level suppliers also suspend production or switch to other projects (and sometimes even stop their activities).
This means that if a new order comes later, then the production and supply chain will have to start almost from scratch. Here you can face not only the loss of infrastructure for the production of certain types of weapons, but also the associated loss of qualified personnel and engineers.
Give up the arsenal
The Chief of the Defense Staff of the United Kingdom, Admiral Tony Radakin, said that "the production capacity to replenish stocks" has become a "significant problem" due to the speed of spending weapons in Ukraine. The lack of weapons affects Ukraine's ability to continue the fight.
Speaking before the International Relations and Defense Committee of the House of Lords, Radakin noted: "We are talking about years, because it is impossible to create a production line of modern weapons in one fell swoop. Yes, it is possible to stamp shells and artillery, but it will take several years to restore stocks, even to replenish them with the simplest, most modest light anti-tank weapons of the next generation (NLAW)."
In the recent law on military assistance to Ukraine, Congress allocated an additional nine billion dollars to replenish the US arsenal. According to the Congress, the purchase will cost almost twice as much due to the cost of production and inflation. A new contract was signed with Raytheon for $ 634 million for the production of Stinger missiles, but the company said it would not be able to start work until next year.
In the United States, major defense companies such as Raytheon and Lockheed are having difficulty resupplying the American army. The United States has already sent more than one-third of its stocks of Stingers and Javelins to Ukraine. If the conflict continues, it is reasonable to assume that half of the arsenal will be used up.
As the US supplies more and more weapons to Ukraine to wage a proxy war with Russia, the conflict may affect the supply of important categories of weapons.
In addition to the "Stingers" and "Javelins", the United States handed over to the Ukrainian army 18 155 mm howitzers and 36 thousand rounds of ammunition, two Harpoon coast guard systems, thousands of night vision devices, as well as an unknown number of thermal imagers, thousands of protected walkie-talkies, 700 Switchblade drones, 75 thousand sets of body armor with Kevlar helmets, chemical and biological protection products and much more.
The US Congress recently approved and the President signed a law on the allocation of additional funds to Ukraine in the amount of $ 40 billion. This measure will make it possible to allocate an additional $14 billion for weapons and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
Two big dangers
The United States and NATO are threatened by two great dangers.
Firstly, if the conflict drags on, even taking into account the supply of new equipment, which is already "on the way", they simply will not have enough arsenal to continue to support Ukraine in the same manner.
Manufacturers probably won't be able to keep up with demand, as it takes a long time to produce new weapons. If the conflict goes beyond the borders of Ukraine, NATO will face a huge challenge: it will have to fight on a large territory with a small number of weapons.
So far there are no signs that the shortage of equipment can be overcome in the coming years, although there is a great desire to solve this problem. Some European governments have become more attentive to military spending. But the production of weapons in Europe is very slow, even compared to the long terms in the United States.
If supply difficulties persist, this will only worsen the problem.
The second danger lies in possible hostilities in Korea or an invasion of Taiwan. This will become an almost unbearable burden for the United States. American forces in Korea and Japan are already experiencing an acute shortage of military materials. The US has told Taiwan that it cannot supply it with some types of weapons, even the same howitzers that Ukraine receives.
Illusions
The current version of the US House of Representatives law on the defense budget contains a provision on reserves of critical ammunition and proposes to launch a pilot program that will allow better monitoring of subcontractors involved in production. In Washington, this is called an "unfunded mandate." Without mandatory mobilization of production and long—term financing, the proposal of the House of Representatives is nothing more than an illusion.
American politicians do not seem to realize the risk they are taking when they foment a proxy war in Ukraine, which may go beyond its borders and affect, for example, Eastern Europe or Germany, or other countries.
Perhaps Washington politicians are reassured by the fact that Russia has lost a lot of equipment and more than 30 thousand soldiers. Undoubtedly, Russia found itself in a difficult situation due to the lack of commercial and industrial infrastructure, poor combat management, as well as the resilience of Ukrainian fighters who received military support.
But no one knows how difficult Russia's situation is now. So far, it shows that it has a huge arsenal of heavy artillery and missiles, although the mechanized and armored forces are exhausted.
If the conflict affects other territories, it will quickly deplete NATO (and the US) reserves. Conventional war with the use of heavy artillery will be devastating for Europe. (You can draw a parallel with Korea. North Korea has heavy artillery stationed near the most important South Korean urban centers, although it cannot boast of high-tech weapons, with the exception of missiles).
Another factor
Among other things, if Russia is pressed too hard, its army will begin to demand that it be given the right to use "tactical" nuclear weapons, the use of which Russian politicians are already lobbying.
This leads to another compelling reason why the policy of exsanguination of Russia should be reconsidered. This policy increases the risk of all-out war to an unprecedented level and is fraught with the use of weapons of mass destruction.
