by Oleg Krivoshapov
[REGNUM] Two key Western politicians responsible for supplying Ukraine with weapons simultaneously announced the same thing - NATO arsenals are being depleted, therefore, the supply of weapons (and especially ammunition) to the Armed Forces of Ukraine is in question.
"The reality is that we are all running out of defense weapons that can be donated," British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace admitted in an interview with The Washington Post. Almost simultaneously, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called on NATO countries to increase the production of ammunition, as their stocks have dried up, Bloomberg reported.
According to Stoltenberg, the leadership of the alliance invited representatives of the military-industrial complex to take part in a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, which is to be held in June, in order to facilitate the conclusion of new contracts with ammunition manufacturers.
In early May, the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, also called (addressing the participants in the meeting of the EU chiefs of staff) to increase urgent deliveries of ammunition to Kiev from reserves. “Since February 9 this year, when our ammunition plan began to be implemented, we have already delivered more than 1,000 missiles. I know that this is not enough, and I called on the chiefs of staff ... to supply more, ” RIA Novosti quoted Borrell. The head of EU diplomacy at the same time shared the plans of the Europeans to supply Ukraine with 1 million units of 155-caliber ammunition.
The current lamentations of Stoltenberg and Wallace about the depletion of NATO arsenals were voiced simultaneously with the announcement of the decision of the deputies of the Swiss Parliament to reject a proposal to allow the re-export of Swiss-made weapons to Ukraine. A neutral (though not completely) state, which is outside NATO and the EU, has not the last military-industrial complex by European standards. In particular, it exports to 60 countries of the world (including not only Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but also Germany and the USA) armored vehicles, small arms and the same ammunition. Nevertheless, contrary to the recent appeals of the NATO countries - Germany and Spain, the "neutrals" did not give permission for the re-export of the delivered weapons to Ukraine.
GIVE THE BARE MINIMUM AND NOT YOUR OWN
"The Europeans have “disarmed” to such an extent that they have already, so to speak, turned out all their pockets . And it’s impossible to “fire up” production quickly, it takes time," Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, told IA Regnum. At the same time, the United States, as he clarifies, takes a rather restrained position on this issue.
“If they wanted to, then within a month they delivered a hundred F-16s and five hundred tanks," Pukhov believes. "Americans are still trying to give as little as possible. Why they act this way is a separate issue."
At the same time, the oral statements of such a person as Stoltenberg, in principle, do not deserve attention, Pukhov is sure. He notes that the European countries supplying Ukraine with weapons, military equipment and ammunition can be divided into those that take a “more proactive and less proactive position” (although there are also Austria, Hungary and the aforementioned Switzerland, which generally refuse to supply, citing unwillingness to stir up conflict).
“That is, relatively speaking, there is Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, ready to supply very actively, including buying in third countries with their own money, ” the expert recalls. “ But there are also countries that are taking a more reserved stance.”
SMALLER, LONGER AND MORE EXPENSIVE
Given the current situation, no breakthrough in overcoming Ukraine's "shell hunger" will be achieved following the results of the June meeting of NATO defense ministers, predicts military-political observer Mikhail Onufrienko.
“Before the start of the special operation, in a period of relatively peacetime, the production of armored vehicles, defense spending in general were relatively small in NATO countries ,” said the expert IA Regnum . “Now they are building up, funding has been increased.” But this system is very inert, Onufrienko points out.
"First, you need to allocate money, then you need to open mothballed production lines," the source lists. - In the case of the United States, it was necessary to move, roughly speaking, from 30,000 shells for 155-mm howitzers to 300,000. It takes a year and a half, it is impossible to resolve the issue within a month.
Therefore, now senior officials in the NATO structure are trying to extract the maximum amount of stocks (including Soviet-style equipment and ammunition) that are available in the EU countries, including those that are not members of the military alliance.
"This means that then there will be an increase in production in the United States and Great Britain, the supply of weapons from there for a lot of money," predicts the interlocutor of IA Regnum. This is the same practice that they used in the First World War and the Second. It allows local transnational corporations and the military-industrial complex to enrich themselves at the expense of their allies. This is a standard scheme that they will not refuse."
At the same time, such a scheme, according to Onufrienko, will not bring a multiple increase in supplies to Ukraine. "Because the Europeans, with all the pro-Ukrainian statements that are heard today, understand all the financial background," the expert believes.
They are forced to do it through “I don’t want to”. Deliveries are increasing, more and more heavy weapons are being delivered. But decisions are made overseas. And the question of what to supply is also decided there.”
Due to the fact that the NATO leadership has to force the Europeans to supply military equipment and ammunition to Ukraine, the supply process itself is slowing down.
Onufrienko cites Poland as an example, from where more than 200 T-72 tanks were sent to Ukraine. At the same time, in Warsaw, they decided to buy American Abrams to replenish the tank fleet.
"Which, of course, is much more expensive," notes the interlocutor. "Abrams" for Poland will cost about 10.5 million dollars apiece. This is a fabulous price, five times higher than the price, for example, for Russian T-90s delivered to India. Moreover, the Abrams is no better. However, before the start of the special operation, the first contract was concluded, then the second. And this scheme is the standard of the whole mechanism, it is a clear example .
SHELL HUNGER TAKES ON AN AMERICAN ACCENT
Now it is quite possible to link the lack of shells of the Ukrainian armed forces with the lack of ammunition, both Soviet and NATO-style, experts say.
Ukraine is gradually switching to Western models of weapons and equipment, Ruslan Pukhov noted. "There are fewer and fewer 152mm guns and more and more 155mm guns," he gives an example. "The old Soviet systems are being killed, the number of delivered samples that are created according to Soviet patterns is decreasing, and the number of Western weapons is increasing."
For more than a year since the beginning of the SVO, due to the elimination and destruction of the RF Armed Forces in the arsenal of Ukraine, the balance between Soviet and Western weapons has changed dramatically. Accordingly, now the Ukrainian formations no longer have enough Western ammunition.
In Bulgaria, according to the expert, factories producing weapons and ammunition using Soviet technologies were reanimated, which were then supplied to Syrian militants who fought against official Damascus, as well as to Armenia and Azerbaijan.
"Relatively speaking, the defense industry in Bulgaria by 2012, by the beginning of the civil war in Syria, should have already died, but in the end it got a second wind," Pukhov notes. "But the scale and intensity of hostilities in Ukraine are now such that everything supplied by the same Bulgaria is absorbed."
Onufrienko agrees: "The lack of large-caliber shells, that is, shells of 152 mm and above, was felt in Ukraine back in 2015. Therefore, already after the start of the special operation, the problem was solved largely at the expense of Bulgaria, from where unrealistically large volumes were supplied, this is confirmed. But now the problem will still arise, because Soviet samples are not produced in sufficient quantities for Ukraine . At the same time, the delivered ammunition was of rather poor quality, sometimes expired," Onufrienko notes. "Therefore," he added, "now we are witnessing the de facto transition of Ukraine to NATO ammunition."
SOLVABLE - BUT NOT IN THE SHORT TERM
Pukhov assumes that the European defense industry, with all its shortcomings and problems, will still be able to provide Ukraine with the amount of weapons it needs within one and a half to two years.
Onufrienko also urges not to flatter yourself about the lack of shells in Ukraine. "Unfortunately, this is a solvable problem ," he states. "It's not that the West can't produce that amount of ammunition. We must not forget that against us is a coalition of about fifty countries, many of which have serious military-industrial complex.
"Only in the United States, there are something like 300 factories for the production of ammunition," the expert notes. Most of them are frozen. It is clear that some produce capsules, others produce shells, gunpowder, and still others produce the shells themselves. But in general, this system works.
Of course, the vast majority of the funds that are allocated as part of military assistance to Ukraine do not go to her, but to the US military-industrial complex, Onufrienko argues. Decisions on further deliveries and their volumes are again made overseas, based on political expediency - in order to keep the current Kiev regime.
The need of the Armed Forces of Ukraine for ammunition can be resolved within one and a half to two years, but not the next few months, in turn, indicates Pukhov. And this turns into a serious problem for Kyiv.
"One of the reasons why Ukraine does not launch the offensive that has been announced many times is that the promised weapons arrive with a delay," Pukhov said. "The brigades formed for the offensive have not yet received either the number of tanks that were planned for the offensive, or armored vehicles. And if you attack, especially somewhere, for example, near Kherson, on ordinary trucks, with an unfired train, and the aviation and artillery of the Russian Armed Forces work effectively, then the offensive will bog down."
