William A. Galston’s latest Wall Street Journal column is essentially a plea for the United States to start building a lot more heavy weaponry. I want to focus on this passage:
It is above all the artillery imbalance between Russia and Ukraine that is driving current results on the battlefield, and Kyiv is urgently asking Europe and the U.S. to expand and accelerate its deliveries of heavy weapons. Mykhailo Podolyak, a key adviser to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, has said that the country needs 300 multiple rocket-launch systems and 1,000 howitzers to combat the Russians, far more than its allies have considered providing.
1,000 howitzers is more than the United Kingdom, France, and Germany possess in aggregate. It is approximately half the number possessed by the United States. The enormity of the Ukrainian ask is among the reasons I have been skeptical of the Western confidence in the outcome of the war since the start. And what of the logistical and training requirements?
This will take time, and so will deploying modern NATO artillery and missile launchers. The problem is not only providing equipment, but also training troops to use them, which can take several months. American instructors are trying to shorten this cycle, but even in the best case it will be a long time (if ever) before Ukraine can attain parity in artillery and missiles.
Are we actually willing or able to supply Ukraine for the sort of war that is emerging in Ukraine? That’s a question. I don’t know the answer. We can’t wave the equipment the Ukrainians are requesting into existence. How long would it take us to build it?
An observation, US / NATO doctrine involves a critical role for air power; air is supposed to deliver the firepower that the Ukrainians want to deliver via artillery.
I speculate this mismatch is the source of many problems. NATO artillery isn’t designed for the role; it may not be produced / stockpiled in quantities Ukraine desires; even the training for these weapons won’t match how it is to be used.
As to whether US has the supply — an indicator is Taiwan was told last monthits existing purchase order for US artillery due to be delivered next year is delayed by at least 3 years. (Yes, it may sound strange for Taiwan to want artillery, but there is Kinmen and Matsu which are only a few miles from the mainland). Recall, the US is obligated to resupply most of Eastern Europe since their artillery was donated to Ukraine on the condition we supply them with replacements.
That was precisely my point. If it’s going to take three years to replace the small deliveries to Ukraine, how long would it take to make those replacements AND deliver 1,000 to Ukraine?
On the bright side, sort of, I think this is letting us see shortcomings in our plans for war fighting. We plan to sue airpower but that isn’t always feasible everywhere. That leaves us pretty limited. The military loves its shiny new (and expensive systems) but we also need to be able to wage grunt warfare.
Steve