I am currently working on the third installment of a series of articles entitled ”Why NATO cannot fight let alone win a war against Russia”. You can find the first and second articles here and here respectively.
In my next article, I will be speaking in particular about the unsuitability of NATO weapons to fight a war against Russia, however as I labour to conclude this article, I believe it is poignant and timely to bring to your attention two recent admissions by the Western press – because there are those – even very erudite people – who have already spoken to me to tell me that I do not know what I’m saying when I state that NATO is not in a state to fight a war.
No, NATO, not even the almighty USA, is in a state to fight a limited war let alone an industrial one, particularly against Russia, which I will make obvious in future articles. Logistics (about which I will have plenty to say) was always an imperative necessity underlining war – but particularly more so when it comes to modern warfare.
The first article appeared on what is considered to be the mouthpiece of the US establishment – that is the New York Times (which unfortunately is behind a paywall) – but given the propensity of Western media to echo itself, one can read the very same article for free on the Japan Times.
In it, we are made gradually aware – that:
“Even the mighty United States has only limited stocks of the weapons the Ukrainians want and need,“
“The amount of artillery being used is staggering, NATO officials say. In Afghanistan, NATO forces might have fired even 300 artillery rounds a day and had no real worries about air defense. But Ukraine can fire thousands of rounds daily and remains desperate for air defense against Russian missiles and Iranian-made drones.”
“In the summer in the Donbas region, the Ukrainians were firing 6,000 to 7,000 artillery rounds each day, a senior NATO official said. The Russians were firing 40,000 to 50,000 rounds per day.” – They still are, despite the silly and stupid reports since the beginning of March that Russia was supposed to soon run out of ammunition – both in terms of artillery or ballistic!
“By comparison, the United States produces only 15,000 rounds each month.“
Read that, read it again, and thereafter yet again – until you understand the US production of munitions in one month is less than what the Russians expend in a day!
“The West is also trying to come up with alternative systems, even if they are older, to substitute for shrinking stocks of expensive air-defense missiles and anti-tank Javelins.” – in other words, it is already running on empty, and this without confronting a country directly which has only thus far allocated about 15% of its military potential to the fighting in Ukraine.
“NATO countries — often with great fanfare — have provided Ukraine some advanced Western artillery, which uses NATO-standard 155 mm shells. But NATO systems are rarely certified to use rounds produced by other NATO countries, which often make the shells differently. (That is a way for arms manufacturers to ensure that they can sell ammunition for their guns, the way printer manufacturers make their money on ink cartridges.” – let that sink in too – in other words, despite producing shells of the same calibre, it is often impossible to use across multiple weapons systems – as the shells are designed to fit a particular type of weapon.
“”For NATO countries that have given large amounts of weapons to Ukraine, especially front-line states like Poland and the Baltics, the burden of replacing them has proved heavy.”
“The European Union has approved €3.1 billion to repay member states for what they provide to Ukraine, but that fund, the European Peace Facility, is nearly 90% depleted.” – I guess you don’t need me to explain what 90% depletion actually means. Well, you can read the entire article to see the sad state of affairs, and to realise that Romegas has been saying the truth all along.
That second article is from German media – “German army has enough ammunition for barely two days of fighting” – yep that’s right, you read well, and the German army is only a mirror for the sad state that the entirety of NATOs fighting force finds itself in.
“The German military is facing severe shortages of ammunition, the Bundestag’s commissioner for the armed forces, Eva Hoegl, warned on Sunday. She also highlighted the lack of certain basic personal equipment needed by the army“.
In an interview with the Bild am Sonntag newspaper, Hoegl revealed that it would cost the Bundeswehr €20 billion to refill its ammo stocks. (Conveniently it was not mentioned by when).
The MP called for the military’s ammo depots to be fully replenished during the current legislative session, claiming that the government had dragged its feet on the topic for years.
“Without munitions, it’s all nothing,” Hoegl concluded. Wow really?
She also pointed out the sorry state of affairs when it comes to the basic equipment needed by German troops. She cited a case when the nation’s military personnel deployed in Lithuania had to take part in drills without bulletproof vests.
Moreover, according to Hoegl, “with sick, parental, and education leaves, many units reach the staffing level of only 60% of what they have on paper.”
You can thank the former defense minister and now EU commission president Ursula Von der Leyen for the sorry state of affairs in the German Army – and that would be accurate but the problem is chronic. This implies that NATO is not geared up to fight a peer.
You may think, we’ll step up production – indeed perhaps we will – but it is difficult to see how we can manage that without energy, and I mean real energy, and without industry and even if we did it would still take years.
But more on this in due course. I find great difficulty in persuading all and sundry that the war is already lost simply because NATO has nothing to fight back with.
But what about nuclear war you might say? Indeed what about it? Other than mutually assured destruction? Much has been spouted by idiots in the Western media about Putin’s so-called nuclear threats which were nothing other than restating Russian military doctrine. But even if, it had to come to this – if there’s something as a nuclear victory, it would be Russia that achieves it. Given its superb air defense and unparalleled offensive strategic weapons, the matter is not even worth discussing.