The Long Game: Russia is bleeding NATO's supply of materiel

There is much speculation about why the proxy war in Ukraine is dragging out. Many supporters of the current thing want to claim that Russia is simply losing and can't make advances. There is much complexity to what's happening there and I don't think that any one simple answer is sufficient, but I do see something happening that is, IMO, perhaps an intentional strategy at this point or maybe just a serendipitous side-effect. I have not seen this thought explored anywhere, though I may have simply missed it.

Do you realize that the longer Russia drags this conflict out, the more it is bleeding the west, NATO, and especially the US of its critical military infrastructure. As NATO countries keep dumping their own materiel into the black hole known as Ukraine, its own capacity for both defensive and offensive actions is compromised as it is sending equipment, weapons, and muntions into that fray to be used or destoryed, but is unable to replace them at the same pace.

I hold that, given the west's inclination to keep gifting Ukraine with more and more toys for destruction, it behooves Russia to draw this thing out and watch NATO countries give away precious resources.

There was speculation about the Biden administration's decision to send cluster bombs to Ukraine, even against the protestations of NATO allies. It's widely believed that the reason they stooped to sending cluster bombs is because even the US is running out of materiel to send.

I'll leave you with a clip from the movie Hunt For Red October...



:

Oh come on, you should know the game. What should be your next paragraph:- Yeah, the US, UK and other NATO countries are sending their weapons, bbbuuuttt, the Military arms makers and suppliers in those countries are making very very big bucks "re arming" themselves. Plus they get to spring clean their arsenal by giving Ukraine all the outdated armoury.
It has never ever been about "helping" Ukraine. If Ukraine won that would have been a bonus, but they haven't won and people on ATS seriously think that Ukraine is still a viable fighting force. Well trained Ukrainian army BS. BS.. Even the Ukrainians are up in arms about the military roaming the country hoovering up all men and boys and even some women to fill the gaps of the lost men.

I found this interesting article :

When it comes to the EU’s pledge to provide ammunition to Kyiv, the lack of speed has consequences on the battlefield.

“If the decisions had been made last year, already now we would be supplying Ukraine with large quantities,” state-owned Polish Armaments Group CEO Sebastian Chwałek told POLITICO. “We are ready, we are more than capable to produce,” he added. “We are only waiting for a decision.”

www.politico.eu...

at this point none of them are that smart, but like everything else its turning into a gravy train as everything does with new liberalism.. we saw iit in the great war the vast wealth made by the corps from the new liberals running the war to the detriment of all countries.. Churchill went off into the wilderness because he was hated for his part in it..

a reply to: incoserv

Here is a recent comparison of the military strength of NATO vs Russia:

www.statista.com...

Some highlights:

NATO active duty military personnel: 5,817,100; Russia: 1,330,900

NATO total aircraft: 20,633; Russia: 4,182

NATO total helicopters: 8,614; Russia: 1,531

NATO has used up exactly ZERO of its military personnel, front line aircraft, or helicopters in the Ukraine conflict. Meanwhile, Russia has burned up substantial amounts of all of the above. Between NATO and Russia, Russia is the one doing the bleeding.

originally posted by: incoserv
I have not seen this thought explored anywhere, though I may have simply missed it.

Because no one would really make that argument, Russia trying to "drain" NATO is meaningless. Even they have acknowledged that in the past. NATO GDP and military budget absolutely DWARFS Russia. If NATO truly went into war mode they could probably produce more weapons in a week than Russia could do in a year.

But hey I'm also all for stopping this kind of support the instant Russia withdraws to their pre 2014 borders and Ukraine join NATO so Russia cant lie about not invading them again, so that the entire world can breathe a sigh of relief and this complete waste of a war end.

a reply to: incoserv

Do you realize that the longer Russia drags this conflict out, the more it is bleeding the west, NATO, and especially the US of its critical military infrastructure.

If that were the case it's been a pretty foolhardy endeavour by Russia as they've also bled themselves and shown their military to be outdated , as our Russian friend who has participated in the war has said the troops don't have enough food and are lacking in basic equipment.

Russia's economy has been propped up by the government but is suffering now as their domestic goods output has dropped because working age men are fighting and dying in Ukraine rather than working and producing in Russia.

Putin assumed he could go in and take Ukraine as the West trembled in fear , that was an assumption that proved to be very wrong and Russia rather than dragging this conflict out find themselves trapped in conflict along with the rest of us.

a reply to: gortex

i actually think putin thought he could have his own shock and awe hence the way Russia approached this and the attempt to secure the airport in the early days. without shock and awe its all just flatlined into trench warfare and we're back to great war tactics..

Biden sends F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine despite saying this would lead to World War 3

In 2022, Biden said of sending US jets into Ukraine, "that’s called World War III," rejecting Poland’s offer at the time to transfer 28-Soviet-designed MiG-29s after Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Poland had a "green light."

originally posted by: incoserv
I have not seen this thought explored anywhere, though I may have simply missed it.

Here's such a prediction: old.reddit.com... "Russia is purposefully losing in Ukraine, so it can be the first country to fully mobilize and get it's war machine going."

There was also this unusually detailed dream I came across:
old.reddit.com... "One of them was Joe Biden in the White House and he said that Russia is deliberately trying to drag the Ukraine war on, even if it means letting their own soldiers die by the thousands, because it is hammering inflation and making his problems worse." (This hypothetical scenario depends mostly on the inclination of the Saudi leader.)

Consider: Prigozhin made complaints about the lack of supplies and their delayed arrival; it seems Putin didn't want to take Bakhmut right away. Back in June, the Russian media spokesmen were boasting about achieving their goal of "demilitarizing Ukraine", making their enemies more dependent on weapons systems provided by the West. They were derided by Westerners for strengthening Ukraine, apparently it didn't occur to them that the Ukrainian forces aren't nearly competent enough to make full use of the equipment, hence reluctance from Germany and US to send better tanks and jets.

Also, in a timeline shared by a contemporary clairvoyant, three conditions for a hypothetical Russian invasion of western Europe are listed as: "western military stocks are depleted", USA not intervening because of problems back at home, and civil unrest throughout Europe (inflation, poverty/starvation, cold winter), which also matches another seer's warnings of USA being largely sidelined, EU/NATO putting down rebellions from member states, and Ukraine suffering from an unusually cold winter (severe summers are usually compensated for). Both seers have coincidentally predicted France and Germany making a non-aggression pact with Russia in secrecy. As a matter of fact, Russia regards these two countries as sufficiently independent negotiating parties.

One of them, by no means favorably disposed towards Russia, has warned:

Just recently I heard one of my ukraine war youtubers talk about the possible success of the ukraine counter offensive. He analysed the possible outcomes, and one thing that I found really interesting is, that the thought that if the offensive goes too well, Russia might do something stupid. That is the first time that I saw someone realizing this scenario might be a problem. That is what happened in my visions. Russia did everything out of despair, a wounded animal pushed to the wall is the most dangerous. The more desperate they get, the higher the chance that they fire a nuke. Although, I think they would first use other means, like chemical weapons. I've been studying the russian foreign affairs for more than 10 years, even before the crimea invasion, but no one else seems to be able to even remotely come to the same conclusions, at least not until now.

Putin considering the nuclear option if Ukraine counter-offensive scenario unfolds (or if revolution/ultra-nationalistic militaristic groups tear Russia apart), is also what the other seer warned about. This was the channel.

Similar prediction: old.reddit.com...

"So some pundits suddenly acting like Putin is suddenly some untouchable strongman again, is wrong, because Putin will get desperate, as Ukraine continues to push their counteroffensive. Desperation will cause Putin to do something completely desperate, like attempting to bomb the nuke plant near Kherson. This will scare the rest of the government into moving against him." (Predicts it'll happen in August or early September)

Actually, Prigozhin's coup/purge has ensured that the Ministry of Defense will follow his lead, more than willing to resort to nukes. They've already made preparations to take Kiev. But I think all eyes should be on Lviv... there is a third seer, a Hungarian, who shared a dream map of it, which corroborates one of the two aforementioned seer's prediction.

Yup. For every Russian tank blown up that's one less shell from the American arsenal. Great strategy seems to be working well.

originally posted by: merka

originally posted by: incoserv
I have not seen this thought explored anywhere, though I may have simply missed it.

Because no one would really make that argument, Russia trying to "drain" NATO is meaningless. Even they have acknowledged that in the past. NATO GDP and military budget absolutely DWARFS Russia. If NATO truly went into war mode they could probably produce more weapons in a week than Russia could do in a year.

But hey I'm also all for stopping this kind of support the instant Russia withdraws to their pre 2014 borders and Ukraine join NATO so Russia cant lie about not invading them again, so that the entire world can breathe a sigh of relief and this complete waste of a war end.

Ukraine is joining NATO?

Didn't NATO Chief say Ukraine may have to give up territory for membership, setting off a flood of criticism




Excellent video on why it's so difficult for Ukraine to gain NATO membership, sure it's from April 2022, but nothing has changed, and Zelenskky certainly didn't get open invitations at the NATO meeting in Vilnius.

To join doesn't it have to be a unanimous vote? 30 nations all voting for a more likely war with Russia

www.nbcnewyork.com...

I'm not understanding the logic here with the OP that is suggesting it is Russia trying to bleed NATO's supplies and equipment. If we looked at it overall, Russia is going through a good deal of material and equipment than what we see Ukraine is doing. One of the issues that Russia ran into with not taking Ukraine within the first month as planned was because of the sheer level of corruption involved in the past with their military industries. We also have massive sanctions on Russia covering much of the world and the Ruble is in a very bad situation of 100 to a dollar.

So with all that said, who is bleed who here? Is Russia bleeding the world, or is the world bleeding Russia? If I was a betting man I would suggest a country with a GNP less than Texas with massive corruption and sanctions will not outproduce America, EU, and many other countries around the world combined. For example, Russia is blowing through 25k Artilarty compared to like 7000. We are also seeing a much higher loss of equipment and personnel on the Russian side of it all, so I guess we will see where this all ends up, but we will move into the winter months with Russia getting nowhere throughout the summer while losing some ground and come next spring and maybe even in the winter the massive increase in flight support.

What I find interesting is how little talk about BRICS potential global impact there is. It seems like a game of Russian Roulette at this point.

If it's a proxy war with all players agreeing to the rules, no problem; if it's the real deal, BIG problem.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: incoserv

Here is a recent comparison of the military strength of NATO vs Russia:

www.statista.com...

Some highlights:

NATO active duty military personnel: 5,817,100; Russia: 1,330,900

NATO total aircraft: 20,633; Russia: 4,182

NATO total helicopters: 8,614; Russia: 1,531

NATO has used up exactly ZERO of its military personnel, front line aircraft, or helicopters in the Ukraine conflict. Meanwhile, Russia has burned up substantial amounts of all of the above. Between NATO and Russia, Russia is the one doing the bleeding.

Pretty sure the OP was referring to materials and munitions actually already sent to Ukraine.

Care to list how many of each category you listed have actually been sent to Ukraine, So far hasn't it been mostly MiG 29s did not see where they have received a lot of attack helicopters either

en.wikipedia.org...

NATO active duty military personnel:

NATO total aircraft:

NATO total helicopters:

www.nytimes.com...

www.theguardian.com... pport-for-f-16-transfer?page=with:block-64df0bd68f08af8aaccef038

More now on that F-16 news: A coalition of 11 countries is due to start training Ukrainian pilots to fly the F-16 jets this month in Denmark. Denmark’s acting defence minister, Troels Poulsen, said in July that it hoped to see “results” from the training in early 2024.

The US approval comes a day after Ukraine said that based on current timelines, it would not be able to operate the jets by autumn or winter.

“It’s already obvious we won’t be able to defend Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets during this autumn and winter,” Ukraine air force spokesperson Yuriy Ihnat told Ukrainian television late on Wednesday.

“We had big hopes for this plane, that it will become part of air defence, able to protect us from Russia’s missiles and drones terrorism.”

Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, said: “Ukrainian pilots will return from the training, and the planes will come back with them.”

Blinken wrote that the approval of the requests would allow Ukraine to take “full advantage of its new capabilities as soon as the first set of pilots complete their training”

originally posted by: putnam6
Ukraine is joining NATO?

I didnt say they would be joining tomorrow. Of course it would be when Russia has widthdrawn all the troops to the pre 2014 borders and part of the peace deal.

Because if it isnt, Putin will just pinky promise he'll never ever touch Ukraine and then spend 10 years building up the army so Russia can invade Ukraine again and we're back to a repeat of this. Is that what you would prefer?

a reply to: incoserv

NATO as a whole has vastly more men and equipment and better equipment than Russia. That is a fact. However, NATO with its current gay pride culture is slowly and surely turning its fighting force into not so much of a fighting force, but a force to police its own as well as to promote globalist agenda and so on. It definitely does not have a priority of fighting an actual war other than picking on smaller nations here and there that cannot possibly defend themselves, such as Niger.

I also do not see EVERY NATO nation going along with a war with Russia when it comes down to it. Maybe I am wrong, but I do think that even though leadership is all on board they must be noticing that their population is starting to grow tired of this. No matter, they never care what their citizens think anyway.

So, if a war with NATO went hot right now, Russia would lose. However, NATO would lose as well because I think that unlike the Iraq war which awed all of us into thinking we are unstoppable in military terms, invading Russia would be a bloodbath only comparable to WW1. Even worse it could very well end with nuclear warfare in which case EVERYONE loses. No matter to our leadership though, they will be in giant underground bunkers ya know?

Its no wonder that a red headed hillbilly from Virginia is the biggest musical phenom since I can remember. WE ALL KNOW THAT YOU GUYS AT THE TOP DO NOT CARE ABOUT ANYONE BUT YOURSELVES.

Really? Are you really going to peddle this nonsense as if Russia are military geniuses? They’ve lost so much of their own kit that they are bringing stuff out to use that is pre 1960’s. They haven’t been able to beat Ukraine. The Russian army is a pathetic shambles and getting degraded by the day.

Equipment gets used up and destroyed in a war, it always has, it always will. Russia is, though, losing through stupidity and arrogance - Putin’s. The ones suffering are the civilians and soldiers on both sides of this senseless madness.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I'm not understanding the logic here with the OP that is suggesting it is Russia trying to bleed NATO's supplies and equipment. If we looked at it overall, Russia is going through a good deal of material and equipment than what we see Ukraine is doing. One of the issues that Russia ran into with not taking Ukraine within the first month as planned was because of the sheer level of corruption involved in the past with their military industries. We also have massive sanctions on Russia covering much of the world and the Ruble is in a very bad situation of 100 to a dollar.

So with all that said, who is bleed who here? Is Russia bleeding the world, or is the world bleeding Russia? If I was a betting man I would suggest a country with a GNP less than Texas with massive corruption and sanctions will not outproduce America, EU, and many other countries around the world combined. For example, Russia is blowing through 25k Artilarty compared to like 7000. We are also seeing a much higher loss of equipment and personnel on the Russian side of it all, so I guess we will see where this all ends up, but we will move into the winter months with Russia getting nowhere throughout the summer while losing some ground and come next spring and maybe even in the winter the massive increase in flight support.

FWIW, I concur with your analysis. I would point out that Ukraine will eventually run low on combat personnel. I doubt Biden can get us involved in the war directly until after his re-election though.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: incoserv

Do you realize that the longer Russia drags this conflict out, the more it is bleeding the west, NATO, and especially the US of its critical military infrastructure.

If that were the case it's been a pretty foolhardy endeavour by Russia as they've also bled themselves and shown their military to be outdated , as our Russian friend who has participated in the war has said the troops don't have enough food and are lacking in basic equipment.

I would like to be understood correctly.

Our command provides us with insufficient food because they know that we are able to compensate for this by purchasing additional food (better and more varied) in the nearby villages.

If any platoon started to really starve, then (I'm sure) they would take compensatory measures.