Military Equipment

All you need to know about the apparatus of war, weapon systems, innovative gear, and how the belligerents square in this department

Jun 22, 2024

Languages: UA | RU || BG | CS | DE | EL | ES | FR | HR | HU | IT | PL | RM | TR |

Reading time: 50 minutes (58 minutes with footnotes)

Welcome to the peace initiative for Ukraine in which you can contibute by raising your awareness as well as your consciousness^[+] and spirit to the modes^[+] of neutrality^[*^], decency, respectfulness, wisdom^[*^], objectivity, mastery of the intellect, surrender (ego and mind to God’s will), and finally peace (inner then outer). To properly grasp everything, we recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative in the order that we^[*^] designed it, which is listed in the Contents. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we urge you to do it, please. Did you read the this “Reality Checks” segment from the beginning? Please, do so for a better grasp of the topic of this article: The Real Beginning of the War in Ukraine.

US military aid to Kyiv will not stop the advance of the Russian armed forces because Russia is ahead of the West in arms production. Ukraine's Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba implicitly said^[+] this in an interview with The Guardian

To debunk all Kyiv and NATO propaganda, here is a footage^[»]from an Ukrainian TV marathon with Ukrainian army officers who loud and clear say that the Russian army is stronger and much better equipped than the Ukrainian army, that it is wrong to underestimate the Russians as they are most serious army in the world.

When Ukrainian high officials praise Russian military equipment and say that “most Western systems performed poorly” like told by^[»]Maria Berlinskaya, head of the aerial reconnaissance support center, then you know that it is not Russian propaganda when we say it.

One of the most important facts to consider is the fact that the destruction of NATO weapons in Ukraine is faster than the NATO states can resupply and deliver them.

We already pointed out the military math, how the Ukrainian burn rate on the battlefields is much higher than the replenishing rate^[+], thus the losses on the Ukrainian side will be unsustainable for much longer (until November 2023). In May 2023, NATO has given six months to Ukraine to do or die by November^[+]^[+]. “Whatever is achieved by the end of this year will be the baseline for negotiation”, Czech President Petr Pavel, former NATO army general, announced on the first day of the NATO summit meetings in Vilnius. There is no more than a six-month window of opportunity because of the unsustainability of Ukrainian losses, both in manpower and weapons, but also because of the decline in support. Pavel said that after that, “we will see another decline of willingness to massively support Ukraine with more weapons.”

That is the point about the quantity but the quality is now also in Russian favor. Russia's military innovation^[+]^[+]^[+] is much greater than that of Ukraine and NATO as it rapidly comes up with new advanced and upgraded weapons all the time^[+]^[+]^[»].

While Ukrainian innovations include things like using drones to place their flag in areas that are not under their control^[+] to fake an advance and claim a media victory, Russia has been integrating novel force-multiplier technologies into established weapons systems, including nuclear and non-nuclear strategic weapons and general-purpose forces, as well as asymmetric non-military methods and means. Russian designers have shown an ability to identify shortcuts to innovation that are based on the creative adaptation of existing capabilities. Russia’s ability to manufacture and test deep-diving unmanned underwater vehicles presents one of the greatest challenges to Western and NATO forces. In artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies, Moscow excels in disrupting and destroying the adversary’s command and control systems and communication capabilities, as well as in establishing information superiority.

When it comes to using old weaponry in its military operation, it must be noted that Russia considers Ukraine a minor adversary, therefore it had been wisely using up all its old arsenal first (rather than just throwing it all into the trash) and saving all its advanced weaponry for later or for a possible direct conflict with NATO. Russians play a much larger game; they’ve got much bigger fish to fry as they are aware that this is a NATO or the US proxy war against them, so they are taking steps at a time rather than going all-in at the beginning. By now, it is clear how much more advanced the Russian military is. Russia is still not fighting a war but a special military operation (SMO). God forbid they declare war. They still have not declared full mobilization and use their best arsenal sparingly.

Ukrainians have been using Soviet-era weapons, too, but no one ridiculed them for it. In a sea of double standards flooding the West1, this one might be overlooked, thus we draw attention to it only to show yet another evidence of Western propaganda.

The fact that Russia has been using the old Soviet-era weapons, should tell the world that Russians haven't used up all its old arsenal all these many decades because they haven't fought any wars, unlike the US and NATO. This tells us how the pacifist Russian nation is, as opposed to the US, the UK, and some other NATO states.

Also, it tells us how human intelligence is more valuable than artificial intelligence (AI) because Russia is winning Ukraine despite all its NATO allies' advanced technology. It is a kind of humiliation of NATO with a Russian message: With all your advanced technology and AI, you cannot beat the human Russian spirit. Although they have advanced hypersonic weapons, Russians don't need them much (use them sparingly^[+] despite mass production^[+]) or all the other "advanced technology" because their non-artificial human intelligence worked out genius strategies such as inflatable decoys^[»] (to bypass satellites revealing their movements and fortifications) and semi-encirclements (to trap Ukrainian troops). That is not to say that, after Russians realized they were in a war with NATO, they invented some new weapons and started to make use of AI much better than Ukraine.

Thanks to NATO, Ukrainian troops had superior resources in terms of gathering intelligence via satellites in the first year but when they plugged that data into their ability to turn that into targeting, it didn't alter the ultimate outcome at all. Satellites and drones reveal all Russian fortifications and movements but often Ukrainians are just not capable of doing enough about that due to Russian strong defense systems; also, Russians use decoys^[»] to fool the satellites. Russians have, also, their own airborne intelligence-gathering capabilities with so-called ISR platforms^[+] (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) for the coordinated and integrated acquisition, processing, and provision of timely, accurate, relevant, coherent, and assured information and intelligence to support commander's conduct of activities, including the discovery of innovative ways^[»] to increase operational agility.

By seeing Russians fight with old weapons, NATO leaders were getting the impression that the Russian army was not strong and so were encouraging Ukraine to fight on, like in the case when a peace deal was probably going to be reached in the early weeks and months of this war but leaders of NATO states discouraged Zelensky to sign it even though the deal was to Ukrainian advantage rather than Russian as it allowed Ukraine to keep all their borders as they were before Russians attacked. Surely, Zelensky regrets listening to Boris Johnson and Joe Biden at the time. And Ukrainians must have regretted giving Zelensky the reins.

NATO leaders and their representatives in the mass media^[+]^[+]^[+] have been constantly ridiculing Russia for using the old Soviet-era weapons, which they characterize as obsolete museum pieces but to all of us who use our brain cells rather than just believe everything we read or hear in the press, this tells more about NATO weakness.

Because, if Russians use mainly outdated military equipment, how weak must then the Ukrainian military and NATO's weapons systems be when they are not able to defeat “weak” Russia (even with Russians being outnumbered^[*^] on the battlefields)?!

One such case is ridiculing^[+]^[+] Russian old T-55 tanks being used and interpreting reaching for those tanks as proof that “Russians have depleted their inventory of armored vehicles” and that “Ukraine has the upper hand”^[»] in the war. In other words, the US Senate and the Pentagon chief based their evaluation of waning Russian capability and Ukraine’s chances to win on the fact that Russia was using T-55 tanks! How insane is that?! Haven't they seen all the other modern weapons that Russia had been using as well? What should have Russians done with them instead – throw them into the garbage? Russians are not as squandering as their Western counterparts, so of course, they would never waste their old, effective arsenal, which can be put to great use in the right context. Considering the cost of storing, maintaining, and disposing of old tanks, rather than have them sitting around rotting away, Russians use them up. They didn't use the T-55 Tank as a main battle tank but as an anti-sniper tool in urban warfare where it reigns supreme. Its finest rifle bore matched up with impeccable scope optics provides excellence in a secure protective firing position. In almost any urban scenario it outclasses Ukrainian snipers 99.9% of the time. Also, in a nuclear war scenario, it is better than any other Western tank. According to a Serbian General, Russians using those particular tanks is the most gruesome message to the NATO pact: Russians are ready for nuclear attacks and you are not. The “fancy” Western tanks do not have a PNZ coating that protects the crew from nuclear radiation whereas the mocked Russian T-55 tank and all subsequent Soviet-era tanks have that lining inside the tank. Also, a nuclear strike would wipe out all software from the modern tank's electronics, fire control, navigation system, radio equipment, and other tank electronics, so those fancy Western tanks would become a pile of iron standing on the battlefield. An easy target. A nuclear strike cannot erase any software from a T-55 tank, because the tank doesn't have any. In the event of a nuclear attack, all tanks stop, except for the T-55 tanks which can continue their mission without any problems. In other words, Russians are equipped and ready for nuclear attacks while Ukraine and its allies are not.

Going by NATO's generals’ twisted logic, then they should have announced that Russians have the upper hand when Ukrainians were using Leopard 12^[+] vintage tanks (1960s) at the time when Russians were using modern T-90 tanks?! They are so desperate for tanks that some Leopards had to be taken out of Danish museum collections^[+]! If tanks are alleged by would-be-experts as the right measure of who has the upper hand in this war, are we still living by the last century standards?

Western MSM3 propaganda^[+]^[+] was keen and quick to point out Russians using the old T-55 tank but somehow omitted to mention to the public at large that Russians are also using the T-90M Proryv^[+] tanks, which are the best tanks in the world^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]. See here^[»]^[»]^[»] just a couple of examples of a seemingly invincible T-90 tank getting hit many times on the battlefield but kept on going.

As disappointed Ukrainian soldiers confirmed, all of the Western tanks given to Ukraine are equal to the lesser T-72 generation, including Leopards 2^[+]^[+]^[+]. According to a paper published in 2022 by the Royal Military College^[+], "the poor serviceability rate of the Leopard 24 main battle tanks is an endemic issue and a strategic-level concern since implementation." This was confirmed^[+]^[+] in January 2024 as too many of them were damaged not by Russian fire but by use only after a few months upon delivery. So, not much use of them when the Ukrainians are unable to use or service them properly, on top of the fact that they can't be used on rainy days in muddy terrain. Ukraine rejected many German Leopard tanks over repair issues^[»]^[+]. Here's^[+] another ungrateful Ukrainian citing Ukrainian TV by saying they are happy whenever Russians capture it because it is “old and not capable of anything”. There was never an incident with a T-55 tank disappointing but during Ukrainian 2023 counteroffensive in Zaporizhzhia, German Leopard 2 tanks became such an embarrassment that even Germans disowned them by claiming^[+]^[+]^[»]^[»] that they were not German but Ukrainian tanks! The Germans justify why their “world's best” Leopard tank is easily destroyed by a penny drone made from a plastic bottle. It turns out that it's the crooked Ukrainians who don't know how to use them! For some reason they send them to attack in an open field, instead of shooting commercials in the rear :) Here's funny video^[»] of German Leopard tank’s best usage. And here^[»] is footage of US “wonder” Abrams tank running into a tree, yes, tree!

Fearing that the problem with exterminating leopards would reach an intergalactic scale and further intervention^[»] of Greta Thunberg, we decided to stop this environmental damage with a wisecrack :)
Greta: "Putin, stop killing leopards in the Ukraine! How dare you!?^[ꚛ]

Other than Russian tanks' quality supremacy, Western propaganda is omitting to tell anything about Russian tanks' quantity supremacy.

In March 2023, Russia owned several hundred T-90Ms^[+]^[+], 350 T-90As, and an additional 200 T-90s, not to mention thousands of all the other tanks^[+], such as 3.480 T-80s, 9.000 T-72s, 800 T-62s, etc. Russia’s Medvedev informed^[+]^[+] that 1.500 T-90M tanks would be built in 2023 and as expected, after the year ended the Russian Defense Ministry reported^[+] that the Russian Land Forces received over 1.500 tanks, as well as over 2.500 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers in 2023. In contrast, the West could provide Ukraine only with 770 tanks^[+]^[+]^[+](85 Leopard 2s^[+], 14 UK Challenger 2s^[+], 31 US Abrams – which they started using only in February 2024; so far no French Leclercs^[+]^[+]), which makes it clearly insignificant in comparison, especially given the overall lack of artillery ammunition and air defense, nevertheless, Ukraine and their bloodthirsty, warmonger Western allies ignore these raw facts throwing Ukrainian troops like cannon fodder in suicidal missions.

By the start of the Ukrainian counteroffensive in June 2023, the Ukrainian army got^[+] only 14 UK Challenger 2s^[+]^[»]^[+], and 21 Leopard 2A6s^[+] (18 from German stocks^[+] and 3 from Portuguese stocks; plus 40 Leopard 2A4s from Canada, Poland^[+]^[+], Spain, and Norway^[+]), but Russia has destroyed or damaged 20+ Leopard 2s (245^[+] tanks in total) just in the first two weeks of the Ukrainian 2023 counteroffensive and 36^[+] Leopard 2s by the end of it. By the end, the Ukrainian military’s losses^[+] amounted to 166.000 personnel, 789 tanks and 2,400 other armored vehicles, and 132 aircraft. And for what? They made insignificant gains, all of which Russia recaptured in 2024.

Other than using the usual anti-tank devices, such as air and land mines, drones, bombs, and rockets, Russia has the most powerful anti-tank missile system such as Kornet-D^[+]that can annihilate all Western tanks and other armored vehicles on the way before they even reach Russian defense line.

With constantly ridiculing Russia for using old military equipment^[+]^[+]^[+], NATO leaders and mainstream media are in denial or concealing the fact that a paradigm shift occurred with Russians eventually starting to use their advanced weaponry such as guided bombs, glide bombs^[+], S-400 Triumf air defense launchers, Iskander-M missile systems, Su-35 fighter jets, Yars mobile ground-based missiles, and invincible hypersonic missiles^[+] – the new generations of weapons that Russia mass produces^[+], for which there is no defense yet, which even without the nuclear threat, makes now the Russian military a major threat to Ukraine despite all the NATO military aid. Iskander missiles and Daggers^[+] are equipped with containers with dipole reflectors and electronic warfare stations, and can also perform anti-missile maneuvers with overloads of up to 25 units, which makes their interception almost impossible.

Then there is electronic warfare, which disrupts the functioning of the adversary's communications and also does not allow the potential of their UAV5 to be revealed.

Russia’s industrial capacities in guided weapons are growing exponentially to such a rate that the West cannot keep up with, leaving Ukraine at a huge disadvantage.

“There are decades when nothing happens, and there are weeks when decades happen.” - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. Since Russia is a pacifistic country, unlike the US, it had no initiative to invest much in its military industry but when NATO started this proxy war against it, agile Russia ramped up its production and innovation capacity.

Russia's Su-35 and S-57 fighter jets have given Russian air forces a dominance of the skies. They have capabilities that Kyiv's forces can't neutralize. The newest Su-35s and S-57s are equipped with very effective radar and long-distance rockets, enabling them to attack Ukrainian jets and provide air support for Russian ground troops. Ukraine does not have the capabilities to counter this threat. Nevertheless, Ukrainian forces have claimed^[+] to have shot down several Su-35s, which even their allies doubt^[+] and is as credible as them claiming they shot down hypersonic missiles.

Nevertheless, Su-35 is not hypersonic and surely may be downed by “friendly fire” (by accident by Russians) or technical failure on rare occasions^[+] such as these6.

American F-16 may be lighter, more fuel-efficient, and allegedly easier to maintain than the Russian Su-35 but Su-35 has a greater speed, range, and maneuverability, as well as a more powerful radar system, superior sensors, and avionics^[+]. Besides, Ukraine will get only expired F-16s. Su-35 outperforms even the F-35 (which is the US unwilling to give to Ukraine and only a third of F-35s are operationally capable^[»]). On top of all of these superior combat features, Russian pilots are more trained in using Su-35 than Ukrainians in using F-16 – regardless of jets’ capabilities, it comes down to how skilled the pilots are to take advantage of them, which is why Russians have an advantage in both quality of their jets and their pilots, as well as in quantity.

As of April 2024, Russia had about 200^[+] Su-34 and Su-35 fighter jets, out of which only 50 were deployed in Ukraine. In May 2023, Russia had 110 Su-35s and 10 even more advanced Su-57s plus hundreds of other jets – in total over 700 Sukhoi combat jets and with MiG 29, 31, and 35 jets around 1250 fighter jets in service^[+]. In contrast, at the same time, Ukraine had only around 50 Sukhoi combat jets left^[+], plus a few dozen old MiG 29 jets and just a dozen old F-16s that would not be operable until 2024. (Remember, Western tanks were used first in June 2023, although they were promised half a year before and received 18 in March 2023^[+]). The US did not want to give their jets to Ukraine (preferred to give them to Taiwan) but some EU NATO countries (Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands) did.

When it comes to F-16s on which Ukrainians are delusionally and desperately pinning all hope, they have only eight pilots who could fly them and they need a long time to train to be able to operate such a very complex machine. Therefore, there is no use of dozens of F-16s if there are only eight pilots available (Ukraine called for retired foreign pilots but none is reported^[+] to join given Russia's air-defense systems that would get them surely killed, plus the US is holding back their available active duty pilots as it will need them for their planned war with China). All the time these pilots spend in training is the time lost using them in combat during the counteroffensive, which is a huge disadvantage. Due to Russian strong air defense, all that F-16 fighter jets may do is not fight but just carry out long-range bombardments, which is something that any other Ukrainian aircraft could do and even so, they have been shot down – as of mid-August 2023^[+], Russia has already destroyed 462 Ukrainian airplanes. And those F-16s are such high-maintenance jets that for every hour of flight time, they require up to 16 hours of maintenance. This is a lot of skilled technicians, mechanics, and engineers that need to be trained to do the jobs (instead of fighting the Russians on the battlefields) which also takes time along with establishing the whole logistics.

Russian Air Force, Su-57, Russian jet fighter

On top of all those hurdles, Russians have more advanced fighter jets, such as the Su-35 and the multifunctional, fifth-generation Russian monster jet Su-57^[+»], which is superior not just because of its ability to stealth, perform difficult maneuvers, and destroy several long-range targets together but it has a terrifying destructive electronic property.

Furthermore, according to overall statistics^[+], the Russian Air Force is increasing (more aircraft can be replenished than are destroyed) whereas the Ukrainian Air Force is decreasing (more aircraft are destroyed than can be replenished). On top of that Russian pilots are much higher in number, longer trained, and more experienced. All in all, Russian air superiority is so overwhelming that any aid to Ukraine in that regard would only result in more Ukrainian losses. Even Ukrainian pilots admitted^[+]^[+] that Ukraine's air force is so outclassed by Russia that it can "do nothing to them in the air."

In other words, Ukrainians are foolishly fighting a losing battle.

All this Russian military supremacy is further reinforced by Russia’s continual improvement of its ISR platforms^[+] (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) and particularly space-recon capabilities – some experts claim that to be the tipping point for Russian victory on top of all their other innovations and advantages in this war. In May 2023, a new Russian Kondor-FKA opto-electrical spy-satellite^[+]^[+] was successfully launched, which adds to the list of half a dozen new satellites launched in the previous months. You can't hide anything from the Russians anymore. With high-resolution radar, they are seeing everything right now – all the equipment the West brings in, including Patriot AD, F-16 fighter jets, tanks, you name it, as well as any buildup of armed forces. They are all detected now and getting programmed into the Russian target database. Russia can now hunt down all Ukrainian reserves and weapons and destroy them in their static storage locations. Russians created a new type of specialized air group composed of elite pilots, called ‘Storm’ (Shturm) with the mission to specifically hunt high-value ground targets

Besides, Russia has most of the world's nuclear warheads at its disposal, with approximately 6.000 in total, more than the US and its allies combined. But with all the other advanced weaponry, there will be no need for that.

Also, in the cyberwar, with Russian hacktivists conducting espionage and cyberattacks on both Ukrainian and their allies' infrastructures, Russia may be able to cause enough chaos and damage to force negotiating a settlement in Russia's favor.

Peace in Ukraine can be restored through talks, not tanks.

In WWI the decisive weapon may have been the tanks (that is why Russians were ridiculing all the Ukrainian hype over the Western tanks as if they would have any power whatsoever to determine the war winner in this day and age), in WWII the decisive weapon was probably aircraft, in the Yugoslav-Croatian war, it was the drones in the end, and in this war, due to strong air defense and electronic warfare units that disable drones and air strikes in general, the decisive weapon has been artillery, particularly, the amount of artillery ammo. It is estimated^[+]^[+] that almost 90% of losses have been inflicted by artillery. Russians are winning the artillery war!

Moreover, as soon as the Ukrainian air defense got depleted, Russians were able to take advantage of their air strikes (missiles, drones, guided bombs, aircraft attacks) and so gain even more advantage over the Ukrainian military. Despite all the NATO aid, the Ukrainian air force’s failed to establish air superiority. With Ukraine’s depleted air defense and Russia’s air superiority in terms of numbers of fighter jets, guided bombs, missiles, and drones, Russians are winning the air war!

Hereere is a proof^[»] that Russians are also winning the drone war, as well as the admission^[+] from Ukraine’s “drone czar” (Ukraine’s head of the Unmanned Systems Forces), Vadym Sukharevsky, that Russian “drones outnumber Ukrainian ones six to one”.

An extract from The Economist article^[+] citing Ukraine’s “drone czar”, July 2024

Nevertheless, NATO propagandists^[+] keep trying to spin it spouting falsehoods how “Kyiv is winning the missile-drone war” by pointing out what they presume as evidence being the fact that in the over two years of war, Kyiv has managed to hit just a dozen of Russian ships with drones or missiles! As if striking a dozen ships declares the victory in a missile-drone war! How retarded one must be to either spout or fall for that?! Never mind that Russia hit thousands of more significant Ukrainian military targets with their missiles and drones, and never mind that ships have absolute no significance in the outcome of this war, but this is how they attempt to deceive us all. However, only those not using their brains can fall for that, which is, unfortunately, a great number of people in the West.
What Kyiv and NATO propagandists omit to mention is that Russians also manage to down most of Ukrainian missiles and drones with either electronic warfare or air defence systems. How is that winning them the missile-drone war?!
Those spin doctors also omit to mention the biggest failure of them all, the fact that in all these years, Ukraine has failed to destroy the Crimean Kerch bridge which has been their primary target from day one, as this is Putin's pet project, his pride and joy! This punches a big hole in the “Kyiv is winning the missile-drone war” narrative.
Besides, the West needs to get their stories straight because they constantly contradict each other like, for example, already in August 2023, an American pro-Ukraine outlet, The Wall Street Journal, ran an article^[+] titled “Why US Drones Don’t Cut It for Ukraine” and Big News Network ran an article^[+] titled “Ukrainian expert admits Russian drone superiority.”

And, not to mention Russian hypersonic weapons^[+] such as cruise and ballistic missiles that may be a game-changer. Since WWII, military technology has naturally advanced, thus air defense has become so strong that air strikes are considerably incapacitated but hypersonic missiles are so developed that they are capable of overcoming foreign missile-defense systems and reaching their targets undetected. They are now mass-produced^[+]. Expensive drones are overly vulnerable due to strong air defense and electronic warfare on both sides, so this is no war of drones and has been more of a war of artillery, not tanks (thus all those hyped Western tanks have not made any difference on the battlefronts).

Artillery is the biggest killer^[+] in the Ukraine war, accounting for perhaps 80% to 90% of casualties on both sides^[+]^[+]. Ukraine is running low on ammunition whereas Russia is not. Russians have much more superior artillery and much more ammunition for it, thus Ukraine has no chance of winning this war.

Artillery is heavy weaponry designed to fire shells far beyond the capability of infantry units. There are generally three types of artillery: mortars, howitzers, and rockets. Not one size fits all. Different situations call for different types of artillery. If the task is supporting infantry moving across the open country against an entrenched enemy, take a mortar. If the task is supporting infantry going against mechanized infantry, take a howitzer. If the task is to indiscriminately obliterate everything in an area, take the rockets!

Despite all military equipment and several dozens of billions of dollars provided by NATO, Ukraine is significantly inferior to the Russians in the amount of artillery, as reported by many Western prominent sources, including the American Veterans Forum West Point Academy^[+] in July 2023.

In mid-2022^[+]^[ꚛ], Ukraine was believed to have about 1.000 howitzers and 200 MLRS (rocket launchers), both shooting a total of about 4.000-5.000 rounds a day, while Russia was believed to have about 3.000 howitzers and 1.300 MLRS, both shooting between 20.000 and 50.000 rounds a day. According to data from the European Commission in March 2023^[+], Russia fires between 40.000 and 50.000 artillery shells per day, compared to 5.000-6.000 Ukrainian forces expend.

In other words, as also confirmed^[+] by Ukrainian Defense Minister Umerov in January 2024, Russia has numerical superiority of shelling 10 times more than Ukraine does, which means that Ukrainian casualties are also 10 times higher. Even if the ratio of shelling and casualties is lower, it will still be in Russian favor.

“Artillery decides battles. Who has more wins,” said^[+] Capt. Vladyslav Slominsky, the artillery commander of AFU7. They all admitted^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+] that Russia has more, therefore he was indirectly admitting Russia winning the war.

These numbers beg a question: why the US and other NATO allies are not providing Ukraine with more weapons and ammunition?

The RAND Corporation, a highly influential elite national security think tank funded directly by the Pentagon, has published a landmark report^[+] stating that the highest priority is minimizing escalation risks so as to avoid a protracted conflict in Ukraine and getting directly involved in a hot war with a country that has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, especially given that the intensity of the military assistance being given to Ukraine by its Western backers is already approaching an unsustainable level, with US and European weapons stocks running low. The half-hearted commitment on the tanks, F-16 jets, and ATACMS missiles shows that this has affected policy.
For instance, US officials said one reason not to provide Ukraine with fighter jets was that intelligence showed Russia would view the move as escalatory. That was true but it was also true of Stinger missiles, which the Biden administration did provide anyway. NATO has the history of not caring how Russia viewed their moves, so the truth behind it is that NATO can't afford to escalate it due to depleted stockpiles and other wars. For instance, Russia viewed NATO's expansion to Russian borders as escalatory but NATO did not care, even when Russia viewed admitting Ukraine as a “red line”! This proves such claim to be just an excuse not to give it for another covert reason. The Biden administration and Pentagon knew they were sending weapons to Ukraine that would be perceived by a nuclear superpower as a provocative escalation but sent them anyway. It is therefore not going to end well for both NATO and Ukraine.

For some reasons (operational concerns, too few to spare, and fear that they might end up in Russian hands who may obtain secret components, fearing Russian retaliation for escalating the conflict), the US refused to provide Ukraine with fighter jets^[+]^[+], warships, and even (Abrams) tanks8 as well as long-range missiles^[+] until late in the game. NATO has^[+] air defense Patriot missiles but refuses^[+]^[+]^[+] to give them to Ukraine! Besides, NATO states have supplied Ukraine with the military equipment that is mostly malfunctioning, out of order, expired old stock, and unfit for battlefield service.

Regardless of the NATO leaders’ excuses, having trained and militarized the Ukrainian Armed Forces since 2014, it is clear that NATO is NOT fully standing with Ukraine and failing to support Ukraine properly.

British Telegraph blamed^[+] the West for the failed Ukrainian counteroffensive, claiming it has forced Ukrainians to fight with their hands tied behind their backs: Western powers forbid the Ukrainians from operating on Russian territory which forced them to attack along a very limited front (lame excuse because AFU is supposed to defend itself and retake its lost territories rather than make offensives in Russia – what would be the point of it anyway?), dithered for months to supply tanks (lame excuse because AFU could not use the tanks before June due to the mud season as Leopard and Challenger^[»]^[+] Battle Tanks were delivered already in early April 2023), due to Western delays in military aid (lame excuse because those tanks proved to be totally useless as most of them were destroyed even before they reached the combat zone, on the way to it, which was a great embarrassment), Russians had lots of time to build the heavily fortified Surovikin Line (lame excuse because AFU has not even reached that first line of fortified defense, so it didn't matter if they built it or not or if they had plenty time to build it or not).

Waging a war by 100% relying on handouts from other countries has its own risks. Ukraine has been relying on the West for everything but it seems not enough as the country is getting poorer and smaller as time goes by – the bitter truth no one wants to hear is that Ukrainians had it much better when they were in the Russian sphere of influence than in the Western one (before the Orange Revolution in 2005, when the trade deficit started^[+]).

The Lack of Artillery Ammunition

Christopher Cavoli, commander of NATO forces in Europe said^[+] in mid-April 2024: “In a few weeks Russia will have a 10 to 1 artillery advantage on Ukraine”.
“If one side can shoot and the other side can't shoot back, the side that can’t shoot back loses,” said Cavoli.
In April 2024, Zelensky confirmed^[»] that artillery shells ratio is 1:10 in favor of Russia.

When it comes to lack of ammunition, NATO officials’ excuse is that their production capacity of artillery shells and air-defense missiles is much lower than Ukrainian needs but why? NATO's production capacity is not just much lower than Ukrainian needs but much lower than Russian. As Western officials and media reported^[+]^[+], Russian manufacturers are making up to 7 times as much ammunition as Western arms makers – Russia is outproducing NATO by 7 times! And that is despite all the draconian sanctions that were meant to slash Russia's military strength.

So, how come nearly 30 countries^[+] that provide military aid to Ukraine are no match for the production capacity of vastly sanctioned Russia?

This seems very weird, especially knowing how much the US military spending is – the US military spending in 2022 reached $877bn^[+]^[+] a year, whereas Russian was $86.4bn (in 2021 was only $65.9bn)^[+] – the US wastes 10 times more money on weapons or defense than Russia, nevertheless they can't supply enough military aid to Ukraine to match the Russians – weird!^[ꚛ]

Western allies declared^[+]^[+]^[+] they were running out of ammunition. NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg said in February 2023^[+]^[+]^[+] that the rate of Ukraine’s ammunition expenditure (even though it is much lower than Russian) is many times higher than NATO’s rate of production, which puts Ukraine in very dire situation, of course. The Ukrainians expend more 155mm shells in a month than NATO produces in a year, which is not sustainable.

Until September 2023, the US had supplied Ukraine with only 2 million^[+]^[+] artillery shells, which is the amount Russia expends in a month or two, and the EU just 223.800 shells^[+]^[+]. From 2022 until November 2024, the US had supplied Ukraine with altogether just 3 million 155mm artillery shells^[+]. The total US monthly production of 155mm shells was only 14.000^[+] per month in 2022 and early 2023 (it increased to 24.000 rounds by the end of 2023 and to 36.000 per month by March 2024^[+]) and in the EU is theoretically 50.000^[+] but Ukrainian armed forces need a minimum of 180.000 artillery shells per month. In March 2023, the Ukrainian Defence Minister, Oleksiy Reznikov, asked the EU for 250.000 155mm shells per month. Ukrainian forces used approximately 110.000 155mm shells per month^[+].

At the same time, Russia fired more than a million^[+] or even two million^[+] shells some months (60.000 to 70.000 artillery shells a day). Ukrainians^[+] and Brits^[+]^[+] report that Russia used 10-12 million shells in 2022. In September 2023, Business Insider9 reported^[+] that Russian manufacturers are making 7 times as much ammunition as Western arms manufacturers – this means that they are able to inflict 7 times more casualties and damage on Ukraine. By April 2024, this estimated worsened to 10 times more^[+]. Not to worry though, because Russia’s willingness to buy North Korean ammunition^[+] is a sign of desperation on Russia’s part, believe it or not :). Surely, this can't have anything to do with the West’s inability to stop North Korea due to overused sanctions on it to the point of them being meaningless. With the statistics we just run with you, it is clear that Russia will not be first to run out of ammunition and that if anyone is desperate, it is Ukraine with NATO.

As some people find it hard to believe that a much huger NATO can't keep up with military production^[+] of Russia, let us explain^[»]. Two leading causes of the military industry production delay are ongoing supply chain issues and workforce shortages. It comes down to the difference in military production being run by profit-driven companies (as is the case with NATO states) vs by a state (as is the case with Russia with Rostec). There are no profit-driven arms manufacturers who are prepared to do the short-term contract that is necessary to provide the weapons and ammunition that Ukraine needs because their job is not to care for the defense or security of Ukraine but to make money. The profit margin is only sufficient for long-term contracts.

Russia does not have that problem because whatever Defense Minister Shoigu or President Putin orders, the defense industry does it without question or being concerned about profit margins because they work for the State and they care for the defense and security of the State. US defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman do not care about the defense of America, let alone Ukraine, as they only care about the bottom line (profit). They refuse to do the short-term contract to supply the requirements of Ukraine because to rump up production, they would need to invest in acquiring and training the newly qualified production workers, new factories, etc., which is all very expensive and only profitable if it is used long-term.

Sustaining an elevated output of arms and ammunition (maintaining expanded capacity) needed to aid Ukraine is a problem for a profit-driven industry because of fluctuating budgets and uncertainty about future military needs (no one knows how long the war in Ukraine will last; the US usually doesn't fight artillery wars, so it won't need many shells in the future). And when there are budget issues, the US Congress10 must weigh in on that, to debate whether it is the right thing to do. This is a complicated bureaucratic and longish process, which goes against Ukraine's immediate needs, plus the US Congress would most likely not approve covering those extra huge costs, especially given that the Congressmen disagree on the whole issue of arming Ukraine further.

The bureaucratic scramble at the Pentagon is an additional problem. The Pentagon is planning an increase in artillery shell production for Ukraine, from 14.000 a month in early 2023 to 70.000^[+] or 90.000^[+] a month by 2025 but by then the war might be over and anyway, Russia uses that much in just a day or two^[+]^[+]. In April 2023, it was reported^[+] that the total US monthly production of 155mm shells was only 14.000, which is 168.000 annually – by contrast, Russia produces two million^[+] shells annually plus it has large stockpiles and also gets millions of shells from North Korea^[+]^[+].

And when it comes to supply chain issues, the biggest problem is the lack of critical materials, such as scarcity of TNT^[+], which the US doesn't produce so it relies on others for it, which complicates production plans. Manufacturers face issues over supplies of raw materials and electronic components, delivery of machinery that could take up to a year, and finding trained labor. As if all that is not troubling enough, rising ammunition prices^[+] set back NATO efforts to satisfy Ukraine’s demand for weapons and equipment.

The EU has all the same problems as the US including the lack of critical materials^[+] and the problem of the increased energy costs, which wrecked all industries that were relying on cheap Russian gas, including the arms industry. German Rheinmetall with the Spanish manufacturer Expal could theoretically produce 600.000 (155mm) shells per year (50.000 a month)^[+]^[+] but the huge problem is the lack of materials and the increased cost of the production (due to a spike in the energy costs). NATO 155mm shells cost about $3.000. France is able to supply only 2.000 shells per month^[+].

Other countries with large weapons arsenals are Greece and Turkey but because of the age-old tensions between them, they need their weapons and thus can't transfer much to Ukraine. In May 2023, the EU Council approved^[+] the provision to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of one million rounds of 155-mm-caliber artillery ammunition within the next 12 months, so they delivered 223.800 shells by mid-August^[+], which came from ready supplies while the rest was impossible to produce in agreed time (they admitted^[+]^[+] they are unable to reach the delivery goal; only 30% delivered due to the collapse of industry in EU countries and the lack of chemicals, needed for explosives and powder), which is why they postponed^[+] the final delivery date by the end of 2024. One million shells for 19 months means that the EU provides Ukraine with only around 1.700 shells per day.

For comparison, Russia fires 40.000–60.000 artillery shells per day^[+]^[+]. Guess who is able to liquidate more troops then and so win? In February 2024, Defense Minister Rustem Umerov said^[+] that Ukraine was unable to fire more than 2.000 shells per day. Estonia's Foreign Intelligence Service reported^[+] on 13 Feb. 2024 that Russia produced as many as 4 million shells in 2023. Even though the Czech President (former NATO General) Pavel managed to find^[+] 500.000 155mm (plus 300.000 122mm) shells in February 2024, but Europe lacked^[+]^[+] the funds to buy them for Ukraine until June.

Britain delivered only 200.000 altogether until July 2023^[+] (in 2022, the UK supplied Ukraine with only 16.000 rounds of artillery ammunition). Overall production capacities of 155-mm artillery shells in the UK is only 100.000 per year or 8.300 per month^[+].

Here is report^[+] with production capacities of individual countries but note that production does not mean delivery to Ukraine.

Additional problem is that somehow, the 155mm NATO caliber artillery ammunition is not interchangeable between cannons of different NATO countries of same caliber^[+].

Furthermore, Ukrainians lack Soviet-era ammunition for the artillery that makes up a large part of its arsenal. The main problem is that the calibers of shells used by the NATO weapons differ from those used in Ukrainian Soviet-era artillery, and are not interchangeable. NATO’s standard shells are 105mm and 155mm. Ukraine’s own weapons fire 122-152mm shells, which NATO doesn't produce but only Russia and China.

Apart from NATO's lower ammunition production capacity than that of Russia, there is another unfortunate fact for Ukraine that reduces their ammo stockpiles even more – almost every day and on some days several ammo depots get blown up by Russians. In other words, Ukraine is running out of ammunition to keep on fighting.

Considering all that, there would be also no use of NATO troops on the ground as NATO doesn't have enough equipment and ammunition for them. If the West would find means to invest in increasing production capacity, this would take years. Another problem would be to find men willing to die for Ukraine. "Europe doesn't want to send its people to die for Ukraine," said^[+] US presidential candidate R. F. Kennedy Jr.

NATO’s spin doctors are spinning^[+] all this disadvantageous data to their advantage by making ridiculous assumptions of Ukrainians using artillery much smarter than Russians and assuming Russians have higher casualties based on dubious premises such as the modified Pentagon leaks^[+] and the fact that Russians are on the offensive (which normally causes more casualties) although Russians are not on the offensive since March 2022, but no matter how you slice it, just looking at the numbers or facts, even a kid could see the outcome of this war in Russian favor. Therefore, it is a crime to use Ukrainian men as cannon fodder, knowing Ukraine cannot possibly win it, given Russian artillery superiority along with overall manpower and air superiority.

The US is allegedly superior to Russia when it comes to air and navy warfare but in terms of both quality and quantity of artillery, Russia has no equal, and (artillery is the biggest killer^[+] in this war, accounting for perhaps 80% to 90% of casualties on both sides^[+]^[+]) since this is an artillery war, Russia is more likely to win it. Given what the NATO chief^[+]^[+]^[+] and the UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said in June 2022^[+] about NATO's production and supply capacity, it is clear that NATO is no match for Russia.

When it comes to artillery, undoubtedly, Russia is superior to Ukraine and NATO.

The artillery imbalance is more than 7 to 1 in the Russians’ favor – this has massive consequences. But it is not just quantity but also a quality imbalance in Russian favor.

For instance, Russia prides itself in using the TOS rocket artillery system, a.k.a. 'flamethrowers', for long-range, large-scale bombardments using rockets with thermobaric warheads for which Ukraine has no defense. Each launcher carries 24 rounds.

It is one of the most unique weapons in the Russian arms inventory. Its rounds disperse gaseous clouds of chemicals into the air which are then detonated by vacuum explosives to release high-pressure shock waves, sucking the air out of confined areas with tremendous force and destroying buildings, trenches, caves, and other fortifications. The system is particularly prized for its ability to neutralize infantry in well-fortified positions. The latest version TOS-3^[»]^[»] have an increased firing range of 15 km, which makes them harder to find by drones.

In terms of artillery, Ukrainians mostly rely on American M777 howitzers with the GPS guided Excalibur artillery shells and 155mm munition but the problem is they don't have enough ammunition for it, which means that they are unable to shell Russians as much as they get shelled, which means they take much more casualties.

Nevertheless, with Ukrainian air defenses having been depleted so much that they are almost non-existent, guided bombs may end this war militarily. They are much cheaper than drones and missiles and very effective and much more powerful than the American HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, the US has officially supplied only 16 launchers to Ukraine and many of them are destroyed) with GPS-guided missiles, which, by the way, became useless as soon as Russians learned to jam them^[+]^[+]^[+]. HIMARS were the most revered and feared piece of weaponry in Ukraine’s fight, hailed as a game changer in the conflict and expected to play a key role in defeating the Russians, but smart Russians have been thwarting those US-made mobile rocket systems more frequently with time, using electronic jammers to throw off its GPS-guided targeting system to cause rockets to miss their targets or even hit Ukrainian rather than Russian objects. The same goes with Russian anti-drone technology^[+]^[+], which neutralizes Ukrainian drones more effectively than Ukrainians with all their NATO equipment are able to do with Russian drones. And the same goes for long-range Storm Shadow missiles that the UK gave to Ukraine, which got intercepted by Russian air defense most of the time^[+]^[+]^[+]^[»]^[ꚛ]^[+]^[»] – so far, there is not one report of that missile hitting any significant target while there are Western mainstream media reports^[+] on how ineffective they are, including ATACMs.

Wreckage of a downed British cruise missile Storm Shadow

The incessant firing of artillery shells that aren't hitting the targets is both expensive and wasteful of time and money effort and, of course, soldiers' lives. But precision in war (as in other things) is key: continually gaining more accuracy than the opponent with the weaponry will eventually win the war. With the Russian guided bombs and hypersonic missiles not being challenged and American rockets being jammed, one does not have to be a genius to predict how this war is going to end in Russian favor, especially given that Russia has a population and artillery advantage over Ukraine.

Russian “Wonder Weapons”

When it comes to weaponry, Russia never praised itself to be one of the best military powers in the world, because, unlike the US, Russia sees itself as a pacifistic, not a military country. Therefore, military spending and innovation were never a priority. But what Russia lacked in advanced weaponry, it surely made up in military strategy, which seems to prevail because Russia is winning the war despite all NATO's advanced military armory from as many as 30 countries^[+], including the military superpower US.

However, within a year of its SMO, Russia managed to boost its military production and invention, causing a major headache for the NATO HQ (a comparison here^[+]):

✅ FAB glide-bombs^[»] are a “miracle weapon” as admitted by Ukrainians and Western MSM^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]

✅ Kalibr and Iskander long-range missiles destroy every given target

✅ Kinzhal hypersonic missiles are deadly and unstoppable

✅ S-400 AD11 missiles weren’t even used/wasted as S-300 are reliable enough

✅ Lancet and FPV drones^[+] became mass killers of AFU artillery, and superior S-70 Ohotnik drone has not been used yet

✅ SU-25 aircraft are kings of low-altitude ground target attacks

✅ SU-27, SU-34, and SU-35 fighter bomber jets dominate the skies and easily attack multiple ground targets. As of April 2024, Russia has about 200^[+] Su-34 and Su-35

✅ Ka-52 Alligator^[»] attack helicopters bomb all their targets^[+]

✅ T-80s and T-90s tanks are the best in the world not to mention T-14 Armata tank^[+]

✅ BMPT "Terminator"^[+]– an armored fighting vehicle (AFV) – is a real killer

✅ TOS rocket artillery system, a.k.a. 'flamethrowers', burns all targets

✅ Kornet anti-tank system easily destroys Leopards and any other tank

✅ Minelaying equipment is state of the art causing mass mine destruction of tanks, other armored vehicles, and troops during the Ukrainian 2023 counteroffensive

✅ Top 25 Newest and Deadliest Weapons^[»]

✅ NATO's proxy war against Russia in Ukraine has spiked up the innovative spirit in the Russian military industry, so besides all the technological advances or upgrades of existing types of weapons, equipment, bombs, and missiles, here are some military innovations or inventions (or “emerging or disruptive” new technologies, as NATO calls them): world's first portable thermal guided interceptor drone^[»], ground-based kamikaze robot “Depesha”, ground-based FPV suicide drones^[+], robot minesweeper MGR-4^[»], turtle tank^[»], remote-controlled mobile assault robot armed with AGS-17 firing grenades^[+]^[+]^[+], robotic equipment “Prometheus”^[+] incl. unmanned armored vehicle "Zubilo"^[+]^[+], the Bee drone^[»] carrying and airdropping FPV drones as a repeater increasing the range of drones, interceptor drone^[»] catching drones with a net, portable anti drone EW system^[+] (a wearable electronic warfare system supplied to assault units for combating UAVs), kamikaze drones with night vision^[»]^[»]^[+] (soon afterwards Ukraine got them too), the Krasnopol and Kitolov-2M advanced guided artillery projectiles, counter-drone systems, robotic mine-clearing systems, a high-precision robotic rifle^[»], the AU-220M 57 mm multipurpose remote weapon station, evacuation & transport robots^[»]^[»]^[»], cyber defences, AI, AI-altered or generated videos (deepfakes to sow confusion12)...^[+]

✅ Russia's defense sector has been developing state-of-the-art weapons based on a "new physical principle"^[+] – new types of arms whose destructive effect is based on processes and phenomena that have not previously been used for military purposes: directed energy weapons13, electromagnetic weapons14, non-lethal weapons15, geophysical weapons16. Russia eschewed the use of radiological17 and genetic weapons18, which also belong to that category of weapons.

Western “Wonder Weapons”

On top of all that, Russia has largely incapacitated all of NATO's “wonder weapons” that were supposed to be a game-changer and hailed as Ukraine's saviors. How ludicrous the notion of a “wonder weapon” is, it is evident in the fact that none of those highly advertised weapons did anything for Ukraine and NATO, let alone turn the tide of the war in their favor. In particular, Russia has waged a major electronic warfare campaign against Ukrainian weaponry and forces. Russian jamming seems to be affecting Ukraine's communications and NATO-provided weapons. Here^[+] is an official list of all the weaponry the US provided Ukraine with and here we feature those deemed as wonder weapons at some point only to be debunked soon afterwards:

➡ Javelins19^[+] (portable anti-tank missiles) have 20% combat effectiveness, a poor hit-to-miss ratio, and technical malfunctions^[+]. The US gave 10.000^[+] of them by December 2023 and no more in 2024^[+] (proof of its ineffectiveness).

➡ Drones^[+] – First, all hopes were in Turkish Baryaktar Drones but nearly all of them were shot down by Russian forces^[+]^[+] as Russians use electronic warfare to intercept them since July 2022 rendering them ineffective (and Turkey has completely cut off Ukraine from any new deliveries). After that, AFU got Phoenix Ghosts, Switchblades, Black Hornets, and Skywatch drones, which did much damage but did nothing to stop Russians let alone turn the tide of war. Russia’s new Volnoreza^[+]anti-drone EW systems are being used on real tanks^[»] on the frontline^[ꚛ]^[+]

➡ M777 howitzers^[+] since April 2022 (with GPS-guided Excalibur20 155mm artillery shells since September 2022) – effective and precise artillery but by no means a game changer^[»] as Russia can intercept the shells with their fine-tuned Tor-M2U air defense system^[»] and jam them with electronic warfare but they are also destroyed with strikes at ammo depots as well as wear out after months of overuse, get damaged by shrapnel or demolished in combat. Statista^[+], Forbes^[+], and WSJ^[+] reported that Ukraine received altogether up to 170 M777 howitzers and lostarmour counted 164 M777s^[+] being destroyed in combat by mid-January 2024. But the main obstacle is the tight supply of 155 mm artillery ammunition^[+]. By mid-June 2024, Lost Armour concluded^[+] that the number of supplied M777 howitzers was significantly higher than officially announced. They had evidence for the loss of over 200 M777s while officially Ukraine received 196 by then. Some of them may be decoys or are using spare parts to make more. In November 2024, US Defense Department reported^[+] providing 200 155mm Howitzers and more than 3 million 155mm artillery rounds.

➡ US HIMARS21^[+] (since August 2022) – The US gave 39 HIMAR systems^[+]by December 2023 and just one or two more in 2024, altogether around 40 as US Defense Department reported^[+]^[+]. Some say HIMARS played a key role in recapturing a part of Kherson back in November 2022 (choking Russian supply routes supporting its forces on the right bank) but pretty soon Russians rendered them ineffective by jamming them^[+]^[+]^[+], which is probably why the US stopped providing them.

➡ JDAM22 precision-guided bombs^[+] (since Feb 2023) were supposed to defeat Russian troops but they have failed as Russian AD easily jam^[+] them and shoot down^[+] the carrying aircraft (MiG-29); there were no reports of them hitting any significant targets or doing any wonders

➡ Western tanks^[+] (since March 2023) that were making headlines but, in the end, did nothing but embarrassed their producers and caused them lose sales. Since when are 1970s tanks^[+]^[+] wonder weapons or game changers anyway? When they have nothing better or innovative, media buzz^[+] is there to fictitiously compensate for the lack of better, modern weapons.

➡ US Patriot air defense systems^[+] – Each Patriot battery consists of 6 launchers, along with a command center and radar. Ukraine got two systems from the US and Germany in April 2023 of which one was already disabled (5 launchers and a radar) in its first month in a missile attack on Kyiv on 16 May^[+]^[+]. They got more such as two from Germany in December 2023^[+] and in May 2024^[»] but several launchers were destroyed^[»]^[»]^[»]^[+]^[+]^[»] on three locations in February, March, and May 2024, and 5 launchers were destroyed^[»] in just one day in August 2024. In November 2024, US Defense Department reported^[+] providing altogether just 3 Patriot air defense batteries by then. Despite the Patriot, Russians stroke^[+]^[+]^[+]^[ꚛ] HUR23 HQ in Kyiv on 29 May 2023 and 25 March 2024, many other targets^[»]^[»]^[+], and even Patriot itself^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]; Patriot can’t intercept Russian hypersonic missiles^[+]; it is inferior to Russian S-400

➡ UK Storm Shadows24^[+] long-range missiles (11 May 2023, the amount undisclosed) managed to hit only a few targets in rear areas^[+] and all others were largely (90% of them^[+]) jammed and shot down by the Russians rendering them ineffective^[+]^[+]^[+]^[»]^[ꚛ]^[+]^[»] (29 were shot by the end of the first month^[+] plus the storage facility was hit^[+] with who knows how many missiles being destroyed along with 5 aircraft that were supposed to be used for launching them) Also, the problem is the lack of aircraft that can launch them. Reznikov revealed that Ukraine had just 6 Storm Shadow launch platforms (jets) in service. Russia reportedly shot down 3 of them by 18 May^[+] and on 28 May, a Russian missile and drone strike against Starokostiantyniv Air Base destroyed at least five Su-24s and a warehouse. One missile was even captured intact (fell without exploding) in July 20233. Then there were also problems with supplies of Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine due to a strike by workers at a UK Defence Ministry facility^[+]. Western mainstream media reported^[+] on how ineffective they are, including ATACMs.

France gave 50 SCALP cruise missiles in July 2023 but they got no significant results and pledged 40 more in 2024. The US gave 20 ATACMS ballistic cluster missiles in October 2023, which also made no difference whatsoever, did not destroy anything much, except expectations. First three^[»] were used on 17 October, one was shot down and other did some minor damage^[»] that amounts to nothing other than serves propaganda for ATACMS sales, especially given that Russia inflicted much more damage on Ukraine and intercepted^[+]^[+] many of those missiles. Ukrainians allegedly destroyed 9 helicopters in that one-off rare attack but that week Russians destroyed 16^[+]^[+]^[+] Ukrainian combat aircraft and 24^[+]^[+] in five following days, for instance.

➡ US cluster munitions (given in mid-July 2023)

Western military aid to Ukraine – statistics & facts^[+]
Military equipment delivered to Ukraine from the US – statistics^[+]

➡ Also Ukraine alleged it possesses a “wonder weapon”, which turned out to be rubbish, unfit for combat duty. The ‘Azovets’ heavy armored fighting vehicle that was supposed to be a revolutionary innovation of the Ukrainian military has been found by Russian troops broken down and buried^[+]. Advertised as a breakthrough in urban armored design, the $5 million vehicle did not make it into serial production. It vanished from the factory in October 2016 and was never seen on the battlefield.

What else is there to turn the tide of the war? How many “wonder weapon” narratives do we have to sit through before its hollowness gets through? The only hope or “wonder weapon” left to allegedly change the tide of the war is the promised old F-16 fighter jets, which is a sign of desperation because the US swore not to give them to Ukraine. Kyiv's appetites are growing by leaps and bounds. They keep on demanding evermore aid from the West as if the West owes Ukraine. First, Ukraine wanted four squadrons of F-16s, for a total of 48, to be comfortable. Now they’ve already doubled that and are begging for over 120^[+]. However, by July 2023, Ukrainians lost already 449 fighter jets overall and 10 of them in just the first couple of weeks of the counteroffensive, which further indicates how insignificant F-16 fighter jets would be with strong Russian air defense systems. Also, air-combat experts^[+]^[+], as well as American global policy think tank and research institute RAND^[+] and US Congressmen^[»] have said that these aircraft would have little battlefield impact, and the pilots need at least 4 months training^[+] for it, but if Ukraine makes no advances by September deadline, the West will pressure Ukraine to peace negotiations, as reported by European officials.^[+]^[+]

Truth be told, no wonder weapons could turn the tide of this war and make Ukraine win or defeat Russia. All the products in the world are sold this way as some kind of wonder solution. You’d be hard-pressed to find any difference between this scheme and the release of newfangled cellulite creams.

Notice how they like to promote all these wonder weapons that turn out to have no real strategic value. But they sure look ‘pretty’ on camera, with them cinematically filling the sky or any other frame. They might provide some morale booster for the demoralized Ukrainian troops but it is all short-lived. Maybe that is why they post these “magic” deliveries in sequence at certain time intervals – otherwise, one may wonder why didn't they give all these wonder weapons from the start (obviously because they are no game changers and their best service is a PR campaign). This is all theater simply to give the semblance of capability and forward motion. Russian air defense has already quickly adapted to these weapons and they pose very little real danger.

Not mentioned is how much of the military equipment supplied to the AFU is malfunctioning, out of order, expired old stock, and unfit for battlefield service. There are countless pieces of evidence like the videos with malfunctioning mortars^[»], faulty drones^[+], dysfunctional rocket launchers^[»], anti-tank grenade launchers^[»], anti-radar missiles^[ꚛ], air defense missiles^[»]^[»], and Javelins^[+] (portable anti-tank missiles) having a poor hit-to-miss ratio and technical malfunctions^[+], as well as other military equipment^[»] fit to fight only civilians not army, or the reports^[+]^[+]^[+] about faulty, misfiring Leopard tanks and other German armored vehicles^[+]^[+]. Germany and Denmark acknowledged^[+] supplying outdated or nearly non-functional military equipment to Ukraine. Providing them with Western junk helps the Ukrainians live up to their genocidal "to the last Ukrainian” deal as it surely endangers their lives. In other words, as it turns out, NATO states have used the war in Ukraine to dump and sell their overpriced old, dysfunctional weapons under the pretense of providing military aid. All this scrap metal deliveries have been understated in the Western mass media and instead the hype has been built over and over again about one or the other new alleged Western “wonder weapons” to coverup for the fact that NATO authorities have been just using naïve Ukrainians as cannon fodder in NATO’s proxy war against Russia.

On top of all that, in February 2024, the US Department of Defense admitted that essential supporting elements for sustaining US weapon systems transferred to Ukraine were never provided, thus deterring the effective use of US arms by Ukrainians. The US Department of Defense Office of Inspector General finally admitted^[+], what many independent military analysts like Brian Berletic (from the New Atlas^[»]) have been saying all along, that the US set Ukrainians up for failure (just like they did with the Afghans^[+]) by providing with the complex weapons that they are not properly trained to use successfully and by not having developed or implemented a plan to maintain and sustain all those “wonder weapons”. As they admitted:

“without deliberate and planned sustainment support, including proper spare parts, ammunition, and maintenance support, the Ukrainians would not be capable of maintaining these weapon… The DoD provided Ukraine with armored vehicles and air defense systems without a plan to ensure their long-term usefulness… the lack of foresight in this matter is concerning… While conducting these evaluations, the DoD OIG also found that the DoD has provided limited spare parts, ammunition, and maintenance support following the transfer of these weapon systems to Ukraine and did not coordinate or tailor those efforts into a comprehensive sustainment plan. The absence of such planning puts at risk Ukraine’s ability to fight effectively using the U.S.-provided equipment.”

US military equipment is especially complex to sustain and maintain on the battlefield, which is a fact evidenced^[+] by US purchases of Russian helicopters for Afghan forces because US helicopters were too difficult to fly, maintain, and sustain.

The only Ukraine's advantage was in the ISR capabilities of finding targets, as they have all of NATO’s considerable satellite powers at their disposal.

When the “wonder weapon” narrative got old, they started using other rhetoric but saying the same thing. So, when the US decided to supply Ukraine with controversial cluster munitions^[+], a US official said^[+] sending them “could give Kyiv an edge.” According to military experts, Ukraine does not need an “edge” … it needs a new army. Kyiv command propagates cluster munitions as the next “game changer”^[+] or “magic bullet” in its battle against Russian forces, only to get disillusioned again. Further proof that cluster munitions can't change anything is the fact that Ukrainians have been using them all along since 2014, as reported by Human Rights Watch^[+]. Also, Turkey delivered cluster shells to Ukraine already in January 2023^[+], so nothing new. Cluster munitions are widely stigmatized weapons for ethical, legal, and humanitarian reasons25.

All this constant hype or talk of yet another Western “wonder weapon” given to Ukraine is clearly nothing but a means of propaganda and to suppress the fact that NATO authorities have been selling to Ukraine their overpriced, malfunctioning, expired old stock unfit for battlefield service, as well as to cloud the fact that Kyiv regime26 uses banned anti-personnel mines^[+], whereby Ukraine violated the Ottawa Treaty! Ukraine is party to that Mine Ban Treaty whereas Russia is not (therefore Russia did not violate it but Ukraine did). Human Rights Watch, in a presentation of the Landmine Monitor 2023 report^[+]^[+] to the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), accused Kyiv of violating the 1997 Ottawa Convention on banning anti-personnel mines. While Russia is constantly portrayed as evil for all kinds of reasons, including using mines and killing civilians, hypocritical NATO authorities and media do not call out Ukraine for doing the very same to the n^th degree.

We will close this segment with proof of how delusional or irrational is Ukraine's leadership also in matters of military capabilities. Even though Ukraine has been evidently struggling with the lack of equipment and ammunition and even though the Western military aid is distinctly decreasing^[+], and although NATO leaders made public about their insufficient production capabilities^[+], as opposed to Russia's Defense remarkable industrial base^[+], not to mention West's support drying up, Ukraine's Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said in August 2023^[+] that time was on Ukraine’s side “for the simple fact that our military capabilities are growing, while Russia’s are decreasing.” The scale of irrationality among top Ukrainian leaders is alarming. With such leadership, Ukraine is ill-fated.

Thank you for reading this article and participating in this peace initiative by raising your awareness and, hopefully, your consciousness and spirit. To properly grasp everything, we^[*^]recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative for Ukraine in the proper order, which is listed in the Contents. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we recommend that you do. This article is part of the “Reality Checks” segment debunking NATO & Kyiv propaganda. When you are ready, proceed to the next article in this series: Foreign Fighters

Ukraine Peace Initiative Substack

Discussion about this post