NATO Has Been Underestimating Russia’s War Machine, Estonia Says

Estonia’s top military commander said fresh intelligence on Russia’s ability to produce ammunition and recruit troops has prompted a re-evaluation among NATO allies and a spate of warnings to prepare for a long-term conflict.

Martin Herem, the commander of the Estonian Defense Forces, said predictions that Russian forces would reach the limits of their resources haven’t come true. President Vladimir Putin’s military has the capacity to produce several million artillery shells a year, far outstripping European efforts, and can recruit hundreds of thousands of new troops, he said.

The general from Estonia, which shares a nearly 300-kilometer (186-mile) border with Russia, joins a growing number of North Atlantic Treaty Organization military chiefs who have warned over the past month that the alliance should prepare for a war footing with the Kremlin. Herem referenced an earlier estimate that Russia could produce a million artillery shells a year.

“A lot of people thought they couldn’t go beyond that — today, the facts tell us otherwise,” Herem said in an interview in Tallinn. “They can produce even more — many times more — ammunition.”

Non-paywall link

someguy3,

NATO overestimated Russia’s actual war capability, but underestimated Russia’s willingness to grind.

MystikIncarnate,

The only thing I’m wondering is how long it will take them to run out of meat to throw at the conflict. When all the able bodied adults are used up, are they going full Nazi Germany and recruiting prepubescent kids to go and die for their war?

Last I checked, Russia’s population wasn’t increasing. I’m certain that sending a nontrivial number of their population to their deaths on the front lines isn’t improving that situation. So I’m not convinced that they’ve underestimated Russia so much as Russia has over estimated themselves. Who are they producing the ammo for? If the strong, young adults are filling the graveyards, who will fire those bullets?

I’m still unsure why the conflict is still going. I get that at first, Putin wanted to reunify former USSR territories back into Russia, but bluntly, after 2+ years of bombings and field combat between the two, they’re not going to reclaim the country. Even if they win, they’ll just be getting land that used to be Ukraine, since nearly the entirety of the Ukraine and it’s populous is now dead or have fled to somewhere where they won’t be killed.

I don’t understand this war. I’m not sure I ever did. I hope it ends soon and Ukraine can continue and become a peaceful sovereign nation. I think about Ukraine often, and I hope against hope that the people of the Ukraine are staying safe… at least, as safe as they can be given the circumstances.

Peace and long life to all of you. 🖖

nicetriangle,
nicetriangle avatar

I think this calculus mainly applies to a land war where numbers of bodies and a bunch of shitty artillery moves the needle. Their navy and airforce is a joke, comparatively and they apparently are very limited in anti air defenses, given how they keep having to shuffle it around to different places in the country.

Telodzrum,

Ukraine’s inability to establish complete air superiority is what is making Russia’s ability to sacrifice its own people in droves a viable strategy and tactic. NATO (and the US specifically) has spent decades ensuring that it can establish complete control of the skies within a few days of the outbreak of hostilities; when you have air superiority in a theater, waves of infantry and massive amounts of artillery just turns into targets for air-based weapons platforms which cannot currently operate in Ukraine due to Russia’s ability to maintain its AA systems. These AA systems are a non-issue in a NATO conflict due to the money and time which has been poured into developing stand-off munitions and stealth platforms designed to cripple AA and even detection systems.

Israel was able to execute the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot forty years ago because of NATO (US) weapons platforms and strategic vision. Ukraine is unable to establish air superiority because they don’t have enough of the former.

nicetriangle,
nicetriangle avatar

Yeah that's my thought as well. They need fighters in the air asap.

someguy3,

The USSR spent decades developing massive AA systems because they knew they couldn’t keep up in a plane manufacturing fight. So Ukraine needs very sophisticated targeted missiles to take out those systems (and all of them) if they want air superiority. They won’t get it.

BangelaQuirkel,

Keep in mind that the Nazis back in the day had sophisticated weaponry and a lot of high quality stuff, but they were beaten by cheap, mass produced, easy to use weapons and armor. Among other things - but the point still stands.

empireOfLove2,
@empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

And Winter. Don’t forget the winter.

gregorum,

The Ukrainians are not Nazis, nor are they invading Russia.

BangelaQuirkel,

This true but also irrelevant to the point that technological supremacy doesn’t equal a guaranteed win.

Deceptichum,
Deceptichum avatar

Keep in mind this is just a all too often rehashed myth and didnt reflect the sorry state of the German military where 2.75 million horses were the number one logistics transport, among many other shortcomings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II

BangelaQuirkel,

You’re not wrong. This is one of the ‘other things’ I mentioned. A shortage of natural resources is another. Winter, too.

But it is not a myth that Germany had many high quality, but incompatible weapons systems from different manufacturers (handguns and rifles) and that e.g. the tiger was impressive but unreliable.

The best example might be the Wunderwaffen they shot London with. Useless in the grand scheme of things, yet technologically impressive.

My point is that technological supremacy isn’t automatically going to secure the victory.

Wanderer,

The Germans were artisans.

They could build beautiful tanks in a beautiful way the west could only dream of. They kept skilled workers doing a craft that was the envy of workers around the world.

An American tank was fixed with replaceable parts punched out on a factory line by a women with 2 hours of experience. Germans tanks were unique and were taken back and repaired in a factory that had been bombed 3 times.

Red_October,

They’re just not doing that in their war with Ukraine because if they get their asses beat in this fight, nobody will take them seriously in the NEXT fight until it’s too late! It’s 4D Chess, not a complete failure!

Rapidcreek,

I think Estonia is just pointing out a reality. Russia can produce and buy far more artillery shells, for example, than the EU can produce. When the US production is added NATO pulls more even, but Russia still can present a workable line.

Deceptichum,
Deceptichum avatar

In a total war wartime economy Europe would dwarf Russias production and acquisition capabilities.

Rapidcreek,

Even the head of NATO has said this is the case. The ramp up of production must be done now, not when the shit hits the fan.

Caligvla,
@Caligvla@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Shhh, let them believe Russia is some helpless little country. That can’t possibly backfire on them…

DragonTypeWyvern, (edited )

One estimate has put Russian artillery shell production at 7x the combined production of all of NATO.

In practice this isn’t as bad as it seems for NATO, that production goes into other things like aircraft and naval armaments, but in terms of supplying Ukraine it’s a problem unless you want to loan them an entire air force.

And, of course, there’s the simple reality than 10 artillery shells at ~$800 a pop are still an order of magnitude cheaper than a single Hellfire at ~$150k.

Theprogressivist,
@Theprogressivist@lemmy.world avatar

Seems more like a meat grinder than a war machine.

Gigan,
@Gigan@lemmy.world avatar

Even so, historically it has been effective.

RealFknNito,
@RealFknNito@lemmy.world avatar

Horde tactics were definitely more effective back when we didn’t have laser guided 20,000 pound bombs that can turn the horde into pretty glass across the fields of Ukraine.

PugJesus,
PugJesus avatar

Yes, in WW2. With the support of the full industrial might of the USA.

What are the other victories of the Russian meat grinder strategy?

Crimean War? WW1? Afghanistan?

Vilian,

the URSS was effective, now russia…

JoMiran,
@JoMiran@lemmy.ml avatar

TL;DR: Russia can produce ammunition for trash weapons at great speed, and has vast amounts of untrained meat to throw at the front lines.

veganpizza69,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

Mass late-game zergling strategy?

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/944dae19-54a1-410e-8ed5-9c6382b914a3.jpeg

Anti_Face_Weapon,

This is the first screenshot of this game that has made me want to play it

ripcord,
@ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

Oh, man, RTSes are the best.

Anti_Face_Weapon,

What do you like about them? Just curious about your perspective.

32b99410_da5b,

NATO needs to research blue flame, stagger a line of siege tanks, and maybe pump out some liberators.

Burn_The_Right,

Putin’s keystrokes per minute is abysmal.

nevemsenki,

He’s a protoss main at heart.

dubyakay,

Did you mean APM?

someguy3,

Sir, this is StarCraft 1.

troyunrau,
@troyunrau@lemmy.ca avatar

Yeah, the real problem isn’t sending weapons to Ukraine, it’s the problem that occurs when Ukraine runs out of ammo, or people to operate said weapons.

The US (and NATO) has often measured its ability to wage war by spending (in dollars, or percentage of GDP). Spending on single high tech missiles that costs millions are included here. So those numbers look really impressive. But if those missiles aren’t being used (because they’re too expensive, or we can’t risk them being recovered and reverse engineered), and are kept in reserve indefinitely, then what remains is an ammunition gap.

Furthermore, I am of the strong opinion that Ukraine loses, eventually, unless NATO boots are on the ground in Ukraine, and NATO planes are in the air above. It doesn’t matter what the exchange ratio of casualties is once the available manpower in Ukraine is low enough. And without air superiority, Russia wins a ground war given enough time.

I realize that NATO boots on the ground constitutes an escalation. So we should do it slowly, like turning up the temperature on the pot of frogs.

Lastly, if we’re going to spend so many billions on missiles, they should be ABMs (anti ballistic missiles).

I am but an armchair general, sitting comfy in Canada. I’ve got a family map of Ukraine here with Melitopol circled that says “grandfather’s birthplace” – my family fled due to Russification 120 years ago. It seems Russia never changes.

PugJesus,
PugJesus avatar

It doesn’t matter what the exchange ratio of casualties is once the available manpower in Ukraine is low enough.

At current casualty rates, that would take a very long time. Much more likely is one side or the other deciding that the cost isn't worth it, not running out of material ability to continue the fight.

pennomi,

Furthermore, I am of the strong opinion that Ukraine loses, eventually, unless NATO boots are on the ground in Ukraine

I think you’re right, and there’s going to be dreadful fallout no matter what NATO chooses to do.

ryathal,

NATO likely isn’t interested in Ukraine outright winning. It’s far more beneficial for them that Russia is tied up in an endless stalemate and resistance conflict for a decade. Yes this means essentially sacrificing Ukraine, but it wouldn’t be the first time something like that has happened.

LibertyLizard,
@LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net avatar

I strongly disagree. The benefits of having Ukraine as an ally are much bigger and longer lasting than the effects of this conflict. That’s why neither side wants to compromise.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

Ukraine will lose because Russia has managed to turn up their war time economy to 1000 while the West has given away most of the stockpiles it was willing to commit and has failed to put their money where their mouhts are and actually start a real war economy.

We are giving Ukraine just enoth to not lose at this point. And with Israel taking away the spotlight and adding another nation that is in need of war supplies, Ukraine will run dry eventually.

All the big words of the west on the end will habe been but a lie. And the rest of the world will see this and see it very well, when it comes to who they pick as their allies.

Chainweasel,

I realize that NATO boots on the ground constitutes an escalation. So we should do it slowly, like turning up the temperature on the pot of frogs.

I slightly disagree with this point, I think the first time a single NATO boot hits the ground in Ukraine Russia will see it as an escalation and respond in kind. They’ve been posturing and playing a game of brinkmanship for decades and lately they’ve started probing NATO defenses in Poland.
Call me crazy but I think Putin wants this to escalate so he can draft every able bodied person and enact a “Total War” policy.
So if we’re going to put boots on the ground, we need to put as many as possible right away

QuinceDaPence,

I was thinking the same thing.

If we were to actually get involved, kick it off with an A-10 singing the song of it's people, and eliminate all russian forces in Ukraine in no greater than 24 hours.

If you're not willing to do that then just stay home, we've seen how the 'slow war' style goes.

Zron,

The A10 has a track record of friendly fire.

I don’t think it’s a wise use of resources to give the Ukrainians a bunch of tanks, only to send a tank killer aircraft that’s known for killing friendly vehicles because of old ass targeting systems.

cynar,

I’m reminded of a WWII slogan.

When the English bomb, the Germans run.

When the Germans bomb, the English run.

When the Americans bomb, Everybody runs!

The Americans particularly have a checkered history of joint operations. They seem to have a shoot first, identify the target later mentality.

Kidplayer_666,

Now we understand all the police violence. They’re just terrible at it

cynar,

British armed response officers are highly trained, and closely monitored (mental health wise). They’ll use precisely the amount of force needed, and very little more. Even then, every bullet fired in the field is a sign of a failure. It’s analysed to see what could be improved, in future.

American police seem to replace this all with volume of fire. Maybe also a few shots of whisky afterwards, to cover mental health.

I definitely see similarities between the police mentalities and the matching army mentalities.

Kidplayer_666,

Heck, it was a tradition that british officers didn’t carry firearms with them, and only special units had them (not sure whether it still is a tradition).

cynar,

Normal British police officers carry a Tazer at most. Even that requires additional training, including being on the receiving end of it. The UK generally uses “police by consent” rather than “police by force”.

The armed officers are part of the armed response units, roughly the equivalent of SWAT. Outside of emergency response, they often work in airports or high profile events. An armed officer, out on patrol would be seen as an extremely heavy handed response to something. While it does happen, I’ve never personally seen it happen.

grue,

Call me crazy but I think Putin wants this to escalate so he can draft every able bodied person and enact a “Total War” policy.

A “Total War” with Russia would be nuclear. Either you think Putin is suicidal, or we need a new term to describe “total except for nuclear” war.

Kidplayer_666,

I mean, it would be a general mobilisation, probably with the immediate nationalisation of all industry, and a formal declaration of war

partial_accumen,

I slightly disagree with this point, I think the first time a single NATO boot hits the ground in Ukraine Russia will see it as an escalation and respond in kind.

“Respond in kind” would be Russia putting boots on the ground.

Call me crazy but I think Putin wants this to escalate so he can draft every able bodied person and enact a “Total War” policy.

What good would that do Russia? He’d have more “meat waves”, but Russia is already destroyed half of its military in vehicles and aircraft. Its stripping distant military bases, but that leaves Russia’s back open. China would love a defenseless Russian border.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • world@lemmy.world
  • DreamBathrooms
  • magazineikmin
  • everett
  • InstantRegret
  • rosin
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • love
  • khanakhh
  • kavyap
  • tacticalgear
  • GTA5RPClips
  • thenastyranch
  • modclub
  • megavids
  • mdbf
  • normalnudes
  • Durango
  • ethstaker
  • osvaldo12
  • cubers
  • ngwrru68w68
  • tester
  • anitta
  • cisconetworking
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines
    •