European Nato support may be enough for a defensive stalemate, but total victory against the Russians will prove to be far costlier
2 May 2024 •
After two years of the Russia-Ukraine war with still no end in sight, Nato members have begun asking what it will take to turn the tide in Ukraine’s favour.
A discussion paper published by the Estonian Ministry of Defense tallied the materiel likely required. Ukraine needs defense against missiles and aircraft most of all: the Estonian plan states that 4,800 anti-air missiles are needed annually. Meeting that number would require the entire annual production of anti-air missiles from the United States (3,600) and the remaining Nato production (estimated at 1,000).
That’s not all – even more air defenses are needed to defend Ukraine’s cities and troops: At Russia’s current attack rates, that’d be roughly 7,500 additional missiles per year. That’s attainable, eventually. Western arms manufacturers may have the capability to annually double their output to achieve such numbers, but Nato would still dip into its stockpiles and have to look for external sources of armaments to backfill until production matched the need.
Ukraine’s offensive needs are more difficult to quantify. Estonian analysts pegged the artillery demand at about 2.4 million shells, which Nato can eventually meet with some additional US support and external sources.
The annual demand for long-range rockets was estimated to be 8,760. That was, however, “the minimum to defend”; going on the offensive could easily require triple that number. The United States is the only Nato country that builds these long-range rockets, called the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System. American production will exceed 14,000 in 2025, which is sufficient to meet Ukrainian defense demands. Nato has substitutes, but those require fighter jets to deploy.
Deep-strike munitions such as cruise missiles fall into a separate category. Ukraine has been given limited numbers to strike key targets. Further, many high value targets are inside Russia’s borders. Until sufficient quantities of deep-strike munitions are used in an unconstrained manner including into Russia, it is impossible to judge the level of need. But in terms of supply, we do know that Nato has previously procured thousands of long-range cruise missiles and the US procures 400 to 700 per year.
A rough annual cost estimate for all these munitions ranges from £16 billion to £28 billion to fund a Ukrainian defensive posture, and £43 billion to £57 billion when on the offensive. That doesn’t account for the cost of procurement, operations and sustainment of platforms.
It also doesn’t include the training and equipping of the massive manpower required if Ukraine is to push Russia back to the 2014 borders. Recent RAND reports determined that it would take between 14 and 21 Nato-trained and equipped brigades to expel a Russian force from the Baltics. Training and equipping a force of that size or larger over a two-year period is possible – if Ukraine can recruit the manpower.
With new Russian troops arriving at a rate of 25,000 to 30,000 per month, Ukraine needs to inflict 1,000 casualties a day to prevent any build-up in Russian forces. That is the current daily average, and were it not suffering from munition shortages, Ukraine likely would already be degrading the Russian presence in Ukraine.
Long-term materiel support for Ukraine from Nato along the lines of what the Estonian paper proposes is feasible, under the right conditions. Indeed, if the plan is to push for a defensive stalemate akin to Korea, the Estonian plan is sufficient even without US involvement, so long as European Nato has no restrictions on stockpile drawdowns and purchases what it needs from any global source.
But the path to victory is far more costly. If you wish to fully expel Russian forces by putting Ukraine on the offensive in the next two years, US support and broad Nato investments exceeding the Estonian plan will be required.
Michael Bohnert is an engineer at RAND, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute. His research focuses on defense technology, acquisition policy, and industrial base management.
“After two years of the Russia-Ukraine war with still no end in sight, Nato members have begun asking what it will take to turn the tide in Ukraine’s favour.”
Everything the West has done and is doing is simply not enough. They’ve stumbled from one mistake to the next. There is no unity, there is no plan, and no idea for a final goal. It has sent too little too late and some things not at all. It does not want to send troops or close the skies. Its sanctions are more symbolic than highly affective. It’s afraid of empty threats and the collapse of the mafia state. And, it still mostly disallows Ukraine to attack mafia land with their material.
The Three Stooges act more sanely than the collective West.
Selected DT readers’ comments
Amongst the kremtroll vermin, there were some good comments:
Edward Hogan
Maybe the West needs some of spirit that JFK displayed in 1962 at the time of the Cuban missile crisis? US citizens were not prepared to tolerate Soviet nuclear missiles just a few minutes launch-time from Key West. Should the West be willing to tolerate the enormous number of missiles and drones currently raining down on the Ukraine’s energy capabilities and civilian targets?
Clearly Saturday’s April 13th’ s missile exchange between Israel and Iran demonstrated that you can have a ‘bloodless war’ of machines without casualties to servicemen:sadly the only casualty was a non-combatant. If anti-missile systems of the quality of Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ are capable of distinguishing unmanned from crewed aircraft then NATO should seriously consider its installation in countries bordering the Ukraine. This should be followed by an ultimatum to Russia that unmanned drones and missiles targeting Ukraine will be destroyed-in effect a limited ‘machine no-fly ‘zone.
JFK’s naval quarantining of Cuba in 1962 and RMN’s mining of N.Vietnam’s ports in 1973 showed that the US has the resolve to face down aggression and the exclusion of service casualties gives Russia a means of ‘saving face’ during a climb-down.
Troll reply :
Ross Whithorn
Reply to Edward Hogan
You have inadvertently shown why Russia is fighting this war. If the US should not tolerate the USSR put missiles so close to the US mainland in 1962, why should Russia tolerate why they see as a hostile power (NATO) controlling the Crimea? Bearing in mind a third of Russia’s trade goes through it, and closing it poses an existential threat to Russia. It was of fundamental importance for the collapse of the Tsarist state in 1917, the last time it was closed. That is why Russia wants a neutral Ukraine. That is why they invaded. Until the west realises that countries other than the US (or Israel) have legitimate security concerns, wars like the Ukrainian conflict will continue.
Steve Fisher
Reply to Ross Whithorn
Time and the world have moved on. Russia has not. Ukraine is a democracy and has the right of self determination. Putler’s actions are criminal and in breach of treaties signed by Russia. Don’t rationalise evil.
Mystery Silver
Here’s a question – if it took 3,000 tanks to defeat Sadam. How many tanks would it take to push back the red army. Let’s say double that to 6,000 tanks probably. So far the allies have sent 280…… we are just hoping ! Ha ha what a joke.
Put an SAS officer in charge along with top USA General , let them order what is needed. Just like sir Peter in gulf war. Politicians clearly knew then when to leave it to the professionals.
Let’s get this war wrapped up.
M Swain
The biggest weapon Ukraine needs is for The West to sanction China. War will end yesterday.
Gwyn Davies
But the alternative of a defeated Ukraine and a confident Putinesca convinced like Hitler of his own military genius compared to the faint-heartedness of his generals, would be FAR more expensive for the West.
Deraine LeSwamp
Reply to Gwyn Davies
Hey Gwyn sorry to disagree but Russia is simply not capable of holding Ukraine if it took it, let alone expanding anywhere else. They don’t have enough young men to defend their current borders let alone expand. Defeating Putin would be great but militarily everyone loses out with the butchers bill being beyond imagination (it already is). Putin and his set up need to be ousted by other means but there also needs to be a considered and effective alternative to enable Russia to stabilise. There are so many factors to consider for every option. A straight defeat isn’t a good outcome. In some ways holding the Russians to stalemate and then an agreed freezing of the front line is the safest bet for everyone.
A random User
Also, cluster munitions really proved their worth last winter when they were grinding up assaults on Advika. They have been banned by most European countries, but not by the USA (nor Russia).
Deployed sensibly one cluster shell is probably worth several normal shells.
malcolm scoggins
Michael, thank you, an excellent analysis. Can you please send a copy to the Republicans in America. We had 8 months of delay which has really hurt Ukraine.
S SO
This is an article based on lunacy.
Jim Cameron
Reply to S SO
No, it’s clearly set out, just doesn’t agree with your Russian narrative!
SJ
Simon Jones
Whether by design or accident NATOs drip feeding of arms and ammunition to Ukraine at a rate that will prevent it from losing, but never at a sufficient rate for it to win, is genius.
From NATOs point of view this gives the ideal outcome. Having your main military opponent eternally tied up in an economy sapping “forever” war, where none of your own troops are at any risk, must be the NATO commanders dream.
Of course, it’s not so good for the Ukrainians.
Many others besides us are criticizing the West for its spinelessness. That’s nice to see.
Kudos to Estonia, a rather small but very modern EU countries, for doing the smart thing, which much more powerful nations failed to do: Establish facts about the necessary requirements for victory! Enough already with all the guesswork, it was high time to put strategic reasoning on a solid basis. The results aren’t very surprising – it’s quite obvious that especially the EU fails to produce enough arms and ammunitions to meet demand – but now there’s a sharp picture of what needs to be done. The next step needs to be to have a major Nato meeting and to give all members clear numbers and deadlines for production increases. That additional burden isn’t too heavy at all and in any way unavoidable, if the West wants to defend freedom and democracy.
Without doubt, there will be attempts at cherrypicking the most attractive parts of the plan, but if the major powers unite in a coordinated effort, there should be reasonable results. Make 2024 the year when western democracies set the course for a real era change, not the phony “Zeitenwende” that’s more talk than action! ✊😠🇪🇺