RUNNING ON EMPTY?

Turns out, “modern warfare” isn’t as modern as everyone thought.

Whatever euphoria the liberation of Kherson created has long ago faded. In the time since, autumn has arrived on the steppe, bringing cold and rain that presages winter, clogging battlefields with increasingly-impassable mud and filling trenches with dingy gray water. Russian missiles and drone attacks have pounded Ukrainian cities with almost-total focus on civilian infrastructure. So far, some 50 percent of Ukraine’s electricity grid has been knocked out, with much of the country now without heat or light as winter sets in. While electricity has been mostly restored to Kyiv, the city has dealt with rolling blackouts for weeks.

To top this all off, the Western press is now filled with reports that munitions are running low in the countries Ukraine relies on in keeping up its fight. Supplying Ukraine has become a challenge for its Western backers after nine months of intense land warfare.

At the recent Halifax International Security Forum, Admiral Rob Bauer, chairman of NATO’s military committee, called attention to the fact that, in turning over so many weapons and so much ammunition to Ukraine, NATO countries have dipped far into their strategic stockpiles, potentially compromising their own military readiness. Although Bauer added that the Russians have the same problems in terms of their stocks, NATO members have to think about how to balance the need to back Ukraine with their own security. According to Bauer, tt doesn’t help that in the years before the Russian invasion, many NATO countries kept their stocks low because they saw little risk of invasion or because they couldn’t afford to maintain more.

The risk that Russia invades NATO is quite low, but tosend more munitions, the Pentagon has to take what’s needed for other operations plans, like Korea. For weapons like HIMARS, supplying more right now means taking them away from fielded units.

The shortages stem from the fact the war has become largely an artillery battle. While Ukraine’s rocket attacks have been dwarfed by the Russian barrage, they are firing some 3,000 artillery shells a day, down from the 6,000 to 7,000 rounds Ukraine was firing last summer when the Russians reached 40,000 to 50,000 daily rounds. By comparison, American forces in Afghanistan fired perhaps 300 rounds of artillery a day.

This is a war of a totally different magnitude. These are almost World War I-like levels, and they dwarf the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, which was compared to Verdun at some points. Importantly, it’s not the type of conflict that anyone planned on fighting again. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union collapsed and the onset of the War On Terror, the U.S. and its allies concluded land war featuring massive artillery barrages was a thing of the past since neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda had formal militaries and air forces. American forces nearly ran out of artillery rounds fighting ISIS in Syria in 2018. Many American military planners followed the adage that a war would not last more than 30 days because that was when the on-hand ammunition stocks would run out.

The U.S. and its NATO allies have been bankrolling a war that is unlike anything that anyone, including Russia, expected. Ukraine is firing anywhere from 90,000 to 120,000 artillery rounds a month, including at the Iranian drones and Russian cruise missiles trying to take out Ukrainian power and water plants. The U.S. produces only about 15,000 shells a month and all signs are that Ukraine is going to need an amount of artillery in monthly usage that is well above what the U.S. can produce. Currently, the U.S. is pulling ammunition out of stocks, but this is unsustainable in the long term.

The issue is not that the U.S. is in danger of running out of weaponry or munitions any time soon. Rather, the issue is that the rapid burn rate of the war in Ukraine is forcing the Pentagon to move things around, taking the bet that the risk of North Korea invading South Korea is relatively low, and thus allowing some supplies allotted to that contingency plan to be sent to Ukraine and restocked later.

However, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal, shipments of weapons to Ukraine are exacerbating an already acute backlog of military aid promised to Taiwan, which is growing frustrated with the delay. The White House is working with manufacturers to ramp up production of both the weapons and ammunition Ukraine needs, but that such weapons as HIMARS, which were crucial in retaking Kherson, take two to three years to manufacture, as do Javelin anti-tank missiles, which helped repel the initial Russian invasion.

The companies producing these weapons and munitions have faced many of the same problems civilian industries have faced - Covid and the supply chain. It takes time to ramp up production, and even then, there are limits. With the current facilities, production of Javelins can be doubled, but if there is need for more than that, new production infrastructure has to be built, which takes years, Thus, while it would be good news for Ukraine and everyone else if a Russian-Ukraine armistice was announced in the next six months, this could catch the producers of armaments in the middle of building out their production capability. The companies want assurances there will be continuing demand. For instance, Lockheed had to deal with the government’s annual demand for Javelins dropping from 1,300 in 2009 to only 300 in 2013. So before a company like Lockheed commits the capital to build more rockets—building more factory space; hiring and training more workers—they need a committment that the government will replenish the U.S. and NATO stocks being sent to Ukraine. Additionally, the subcontractors who provide the components are all providing the same things; thus there is a lack of skilled labor and limited floor space.

Thought has been given to having the old Warsaw Pact countries restart production of some of the old Soviet-era munitions the Ukrainian military still uses. The U.S. has also asked South Korea to sell artillery shells to Ukraine, an ironic turn given that Russia is replenishing its depleted stocks from North Korea.

There are domestic political considerations to face. The U.S. has allocated $68 billion of aid to Ukraine in nine months of war and, on November 15, the Biden administration asked Congress for $38 billion more; and this total of more than $105 billion would likely run out by next May.

While the incoming House Republicans have said they want to shut off Ukraine’s “blank check, a good chunk of the “guv’mint money” given to Ukraine goes to purchase American-made weapons. Javelins are made at the Lockheed plant in Troy, Alabama, a place Trump carried by 18 points in 2020. If Lockheed surges production further, that’s more money and more manufacturing jobs for one of the reddest states in the Union. Both sides have their problem with maintaining financial support for Ukraine, regardless of whether their constituents are helped or not. There’s also the Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party, which has traditionally opposed taxpayer dollars going to the defense industry.

All this is just the beginning. The war will soon settle into months of slow-moving, muddy trench warfare before the ground freezes over and the spring fighting season arrives. This war is not ending anytime soon. But behind he scenes, these are the questions Biden and Macron are talking about today because it is what their military commanders are grappling with: We have to defeat Vladimir Putin, but at what cost?

Yes indeed. Clausewitz was right - war is politics by other means. And so was Tip O’Neill when he said all politics are local.

You can support That’s Another Fine Mess by becoming a paid subscriber for only $7/month or $70/year, saving $14.

Comments are for paid subscribers.