By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Russia and Ukraine flashpoint

Bofferbrauer2 said:
shavenferret said:

Copypaste of an article from a respected financial journal (the economist), which expands on Russia running out of the equipment


----------------------------------------------------------

Russia’s vast stocks of Soviet-era weapons are running out

The much-vaunted Russian offensive against Kharkiv in the north that started in May is fizzling out. Its advances elsewhere along the line have been both strategically trivial and achieved only at huge cost.


For a long time, it seemed that a war of attrition between Ukraine and a Russia with five times its population could only end one way.

But the much-vaunted Russian offensive against Kharkiv in the north that started in May is fizzling out.

Its advances elsewhere along the line, especially in the Donbas region, have been strategically trivial and achieved only at huge cost.

The question now is less whether Ukraine can stay in the fight and more about how long can Russia maintain its current tempo of operations.

The key issue is not manpower. Russia seems able to go on finding another 25,000 or so soldiers each month to maintain numbers at the front of about 470,000, although it is paying more for them.

Production of missiles to strike Ukrainian infrastructure is also surging.

But for all the talk about Russia having become a war economy, with some 8 per cent of its GDP devoted to military spending, it is able to replace its staggering losses of tanks, armoured infantry vehicles and artillery only by drawing out of storage and refurbishing stocks built up in the Soviet era.

Huge though these stocks are, they are not infinite.


Destroyed Russian tanks on display in Mykhailivskyi Square, Kyiv.

According to most intelligence estimates, after the first two years of the war Russia had lost about 3000 tanks and 5000 other armoured vehicles.

Oryx, a Dutch open-source intelligence site, puts the number of Russian tank losses for which it has either photographic or video evidence at 3235, but suggests the actual number is “significantly higher”.

Aleksandr Golts, an analyst at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies, says Vladimir Putin has the old Politburo to thank for the huge stockpiles of weapons built up during the Cold War.

He says Soviet leaders knew that Western military kit was much more advanced than their own, so they opted for mass, churning out thousands of armoured vehicles in peacetime in case of war.

Before its demise, says Golts, the Soviet Union had as many armoured vehicles as the rest of the world put together.

When the then-Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, boasted in December last year that 1530 tanks had been delivered in the course of the year, he omitted to say that almost 85 per cent of them, according to an assessment by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London think-tank, were not new tanks but old ones (mainly T-72s, also T-62s and even some T-55s dating from just after the World War II) that had been taken out of storage and given a wash and brush-up.

Since the invasion, about 175 reasonably modern T-90m tanks have been sent to the front line. IISS estimates that annual production this year could be approaching 90.

However, IISS analyst Michael Gjerstad argues that most of the T-90ms are actually upgrades of older T-90as. As those numbers dwindle, production of newly built T-90ms this year might be no more than 28.

Pavel Luzin, an expert on Russian military capacity at the Washington-based Centre for European Policy Analysis, reckons Russia can build only 30 brand-new tanks a year. When the Ukrainians captured a supposedly new T-90m last year, they found that its gun was produced in 1992.

Luzin reckons Russia’s ability to build new tanks or infantry fighting vehicles, or even to refurbish old ones, is hampered by the difficulty of getting components.

Stores of components for tank production that before the war were intended for use in 2025 have already been raided, while crucial equipment, such as fuel heaters for diesel engines, high-voltage electrical systems and infrared thermal imaging to identify targets, were all previously imported from Europe and their sale is now blocked by sanctions.

The lack of high-quality ball bearings is also a constraint. Chinese alternatives are sometimes available, but are said not to meet former quality standards.

Furthermore, the old Soviet armaments supply chain no longer exists. Ukraine, Georgia and East Germany were all important centres of weapons and components manufacture. Ironically, Kharkiv was the main producer of turrets for T-72 tanks.

The number of workers in the military-industrial complex has also fallen dramatically, says Luzin, from about 10 million to 2 million, without any offsetting step-change in automation.

Another major concern is artillery-barrel production. For now, with the help of North Korea, Russia appears to have enough shells, probably about three million this year – sufficient to outgun the Ukrainians until recently by at least five to one, and sometimes by much more.

But the downside of such high rates of fire has been the wear and tear on barrels. In some highly contested areas, the barrels of howitzers need replacing after only a few months.

Yet, says Luzin, there are only two factories that have the sophisticated Austrian-made rotary forging machines (the last one was imported in 2017) needed to make the barrels.

They can each produce only around 100 barrels a year, compared with the thousands needed. Russia has never made its own forging machines; they imported them from America in the 1930s and looted them from Germany after the war.

The solution has been to cannibalise barrels from old towed artillery and fit them to self-propelled howitzers.

Richard Vereker, an open-source analyst, thinks that by the start of this year about 4800 barrels had been swapped out. How long the Russians can carry on doing this depends on the condition of the 7000 or so that may be left.

Gjerstad says that with multi-launch rocket systems, such as the TOS-1A, eking out barrel life has already meant much shorter bursts of fire.

But the biggest emerging problem is with tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, which are still crucial to any offensive ground operations at scale.

Although IISS estimated that in February of this year Russia may have had about 3200 tanks in storage to draw on, Gjerstad says up to 70 per cent of them “have not moved an inch since the beginning of the war”.

A large proportion of the T-72s have been stored uncovered since the early 1990s and are probably in very poor condition.

Golts and Luzin reckon that at current rates of attrition, Russian tank and infantry vehicle refurbishment from storage will have reached a “critical point of exhaustion” by the second half of next year.

Unless something changes, before the end of this year Russian forces may have to adjust their posture to one that is much more defensive, says Gjerstad.

It could even become apparent before the end of summer. Expect Putin’s interest in agreeing a temporary ceasefire to increase.

https://www.afr.com/world/europe/russia-s-vast-stocks-of-soviet-era-weapons-are-running-out-20240717-p5juer

Here's a comprehensive video from Perun that shows just how much, or more accurately, how little Russia has still left in storage, and that what they still have is getting increasingly old, if not archaic for some, and also pretty rusty, meaning it will take quite some time to get those ready for service again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF-S4ktINDU

Interestingly, they're really emptying all their bases, including those directly in front of NATO countries. Really shows how much the Nato threat is just a talking point and propaganda piece but not an actual concern.

Also interesting is that Russia actually manages to keep up the production of BMP-3 with it's losses - but not for the losses of other BMP types, so they will run dry at one point, too.

Also, here's an assessment over the production of T-90M, which comes both from upgrading T-90A and from new vehicles. Currently Russia produces about 60-70 of them per year, with a potential upper limit of 90. But that's just about how many tanks Russia loses in a week, so this won't help all that much once the other tanks have run out. Plus, Russia is running out of T-90A to upgrade (roughly 50 in storage and 100 in active service), so soon they will have to make with just newly produced vehicles, which will certainly take more time to do than upgrading existing ones.

Thanks, I knew that this would be a good post when I saw it was you replying



Around the Network
shavenferret said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Here's a comprehensive video from Perun that shows just how much, or more accurately, how little Russia has still left in storage, and that what they still have is getting increasingly old, if not archaic for some, and also pretty rusty, meaning it will take quite some time to get those ready for service again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF-S4ktINDU

Interestingly, they're really emptying all their bases, including those directly in front of NATO countries. Really shows how much the Nato threat is just a talking point and propaganda piece but not an actual concern.

Also interesting is that Russia actually manages to keep up the production of BMP-3 with it's losses - but not for the losses of other BMP types, so they will run dry at one point, too.

Also, here's an assessment over the production of T-90M, which comes both from upgrading T-90A and from new vehicles. Currently Russia produces about 60-70 of them per year, with a potential upper limit of 90. But that's just about how many tanks Russia loses in a week, so this won't help all that much once the other tanks have run out. Plus, Russia is running out of T-90A to upgrade (roughly 50 in storage and 100 in active service), so soon they will have to make with just newly produced vehicles, which will certainly take more time to do than upgrading existing ones.

Thanks, I knew that this would be a good post when I saw it was you replying

Just one hint for the next time you post so much text: Maybe add some tldr at the end for those who don't have the time to read it all









Around the Network





Today at Blenheim, a place associated with Winston Churchill, I addressed leaders at the European Political Community Summit. I stressed the importance of unity, bravery, and decisive action in defending our values and ensuring a peaceful, secure, and prosperous future for Europe.

This palace is not solely connected to him, but it is he who adds grandeur to Blenheim. We hold dear Churchill’s jokes and remarks, even if we wouldn't want to be the subjects of such biting humor.

We return to his speeches and measure our principles against his decisions, aspiring to similar heights. Yet, it was not this that created his legend. It was his ability to be a steadfast barrier between history and cowardice. Bravery made Churchill – Churchill.

Bravery won the greatest battle of his life. It was the battle for Britain and for Europe. Will Europe be a continent that neither surrenders nor sells itself to tyrants? Will Europe be a continent of nations and communities, not a few führers and their hatred?

We see how much the bravery of previous generations has won for us —a peaceful Europe for so long. Now, our bravery and cooperation must achieve no less, so the children of our nations can someday look back at us and see the pillars of their peace, security, and prosperity.

I will focus on three points today. First, we have maintained unity in Europe, which means Putin has missed his primary target – he has failed to create division in Europe. The more decisive Europe is in preserving this unity, the longer-lasting peace we will ensure.

Putin cannot sustain relationships with truly strong leaders. This is our advantage, but it remains only as long as we are united. He may try to tempt or pressure you individually. Everyone chooses how to act and what legacy to leave.

If someone in Europe tries to resolve issues behind others’ backs or even at the expense of someone else, if someone wants to make shady trips to the capital of war – to talk and perhaps promise something against our common interests or at the expense of Ukraine or other countries, then why should we consider such a person? The EU and NATO can also address all their issues without this one individual.

Second, the reality on the battlefield is more convincing than any abstract deliberations. We have stopped the Russian advance on Kharkiv. Putin has sacrificed tens of thousands but has achieved nothing significant.

This was made possible by the bravery of our warriors and partners, who have lifted limitations on the use of Western weapons along our border. Did this lead to escalation? No, it blocked Putin’s attempt to expand the war. Did Putin have any response? No.

Even when a Russian missile strikes children with cancer, as happened recently, it only repeats the evil we have already seen from Russia in this war. We must act bravely to achieve results. We can steer this war towards its just ending with the power of our weapons and diplomacy.

The more effective our air defense, the more helpless Putin will be. The fewer restrictions we have on the use of effective weapons, the more Russia will seek peace. Military airfields from which Russian jets take off with bombs against our cities and launch sites of Russian missiles must be destroyed.

This will reduce Russia’s capability to continue the war. The missiles and drones are not bearers of state sovereignty, so there must be a collective will to shoot them down.

I appeal to all leaders who can contribute to the required bravery. These steps must be taken. I address primarily the United States, the UK, France, Germany, and Poland – your bravery can be decisive for peace.

Third, diplomacy. Everything that adds to our collective strength is useful for bringing peace closer. I am grateful for supporting the opening of negotiations for Ukraine’s membership in the EU.

This proved that even in the most difficult circumstances, the EU can keep its promises, giving Ukraine moral strength. The people fighting for Ukraine and for Europe should feel that Europe is becoming closer.

I also thank those who support Ukraine on its path to NATO. Although Ukraine’s membership has not yet united all 32 NATO states, we have achieved that the complete elimination of the security deficit in Europe through Ukraine’s accession to NATO has become irreversible.

This year, we must focus on Peace Summits. I am grateful to Switzerland and all partners who helped organize the first Peace Summit. It was a success for everyone who wants a just end to this war. Now we are preparing for the second Peace Summit.

Soon, working groups will begin on the points of the Peace Formula: energy security, food security, and a humanitarian group for the release of prisoners and the return of deportees. Later, there will be other groups.

I ask all to support these efforts, join the common work, and choose the points of the Peace Formula where the leadership can be shown. Convince partners around the globe to be brave regardless of threats and blackmail – their joint efforts are needed for peace.

When the aggressor loses – the world wins. This has happened repeatedly in human history. It must happen this time too, to stop Russia’s aggression.



Political chaos in Europe could have ripple effects in Asia, analysts said. The uncertainty in France, where recent elections effectively created a lame-duck government, could ultimately affect Europe’s support for Ukraine. And a Japanese security official told Nikkei that if Russia gains the upper hand over Kyiv, “it will inevitably impact Asia. North Korea, which has been deepening its military cooperation with Russia, may become more assertive as a result.”

Meanwhile, Asian powers have upped their military presence in Europe: North Korean and Chinese tech has ended up on the battlefield in Ukraine, while China held joint exercises in Belarus. “Whereas once-weak Asian powers used to be the object of Europe’s strategic calculations, it will now be the other way around,” a Foreign Policy columnist wrote.

Europe Chaos Reverberates in Asia | Semafor

In total, 103 MPs voted in favour of denouncing the Convention on Cluster Munitions, one was against, and three abstained.

The country’s authorities argue that the international legal restrictions limit the defence capabilities and combat power of Lithuania and its allies operating on its territory and reduce the effectiveness of deterrence.

“It would be very wrong for a country, when preparing for its defence, to immediately say what capacity it would not use for its defence. Now, we can neither buy cluster munitions, nor can we train, nor can we even allow the transfer to allies who have not ratified this convention,” Defence Minister Kasčiūnas told the Seimas on Thursday.

“I can assure you that nowadays, this capability is being used much more responsibly. There are much more modern technologies. It is much more efficient. They are much safer,” he added.

Lithuania’s plans to withdraw from the Convention on Cluster Munitions have been criticised by the Cluster Munition Coalition, and concerns have also been raised by Human Rights Watch, an international human rights organisation, and the Mines Advisory Group, a UK-based NGO that disposes of mines, cluster munitions, and UXO.

Of the NATO member states that share a border with Russia, only Lithuania and Norway are currently parties to the convention.

By withdrawing from this agreement, Lithuania intends to acquire cluster munitions together with its allies.

Lithuania Leaves Convention Banning Cluster Munitions - LRT

Russia Faces Artillery Barrel Shortage

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 18 July 2024

Class act. Bless Zelenskyi.

Ukraine sends humanitarian flour shipment to Palestinians

Ukraine says that it had sent flour to the Palestinian territories as part of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Grain from Ukraine initiative to ship free agricultural supplies to poor countries and regions.

“Palestine received 1,000 tons of wheat flour,” Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry posted on X.

“The shipment is the first of three deliveries intended for Palestine … It will support over 101,000 Palestinian families for a month,” it said.