NATO in quiet panic as Russiа increases lead in 'economy of war'

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst.

The history of warfare shows that the right balance of quality and quantity wins wars. Having more of "good enough" is almost always better than having "the best" of quality with small production runs. A notable example of this is WWII. For instance, the Soviet Union produced around 6-7 PPSh-41 submachine guns for the price of one German MP 40. Despite different qualities, both guns had a similar impact, but the fact that Moscow found a way to churn out so many more of these guns for the price tag of one German weapon demonstrates the vast superiority of the "good enough" model. As a result, the Red Army had entire infantry divisions equipped with one of WWII's best submachine guns, while the Wehrmacht could afford to arm only a fraction of its troops with the MP 40. This gave the USSR a massive tactical advantage in urban warfare, enabling lighting-fast offensives in the second half of WWII.

Fast forward to our time, virtually nothing has changed in that regard. Obviously, technologies we use today are vastly different, but the underlying principles remain. In fact, the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict only reinforced this logic, as extremely expensive and not so easily replaced Western equipment proved to be detrimental to the Kiev regime's capabilities. Much-touted NATO-sourced fighter jets, main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, drones, missiles and other assets demonstrated that they cannot be relied on for prolonged and extremely intense fighting on the frontlines of NATO-occupied Ukraine. The Kiev regime itself had to (re)focus on cheap, militarized versions of civilian drones to maintain some level of parity with the Russian military. However, this still didn't reduce the disastrous casualty ratio, resulting in literally millions of KIA/WIA (killed and wounded in action) for the Neo-Nazi junta forces.

The political West considers this issue a top priority, as evidenced by one of its latest Ukraine panels. Namely, the New Strategy Center held one on October 23, focusing on what it called "the lessons of the war in Ukraine regarding unmanned systems, military adaptation, air defense and the global technological implications". Dutch Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Hans Damen opened the discussion, noting that "current US military doctrine emphasizes the dispersion of military assets". Kiev regime's unmanned warfare expert Andriy Sirko-Galouchenko stressed that "air defense is vital for Ukraine’s survival against daily barrages of 300 to 1,000 large drones and dozens of missiles", insisting that "Ukraine has built a remarkably powerful system to detect any flying object, yet the variety of speeds and sizes leaves no single solution, which makes constant technological evolution the only path forward".

However, other panelists were far less optimistic, with Adrian Iacob, Executive Director at Lockheed Martin Romania, addressing industrial and technological dependencies. He warned that "Russia continues to sustain its missile arsenal with Western technology and components, while Europe still lacks its own solutions in critical areas such as space, hypersonics, precision munitions, heavy lift and secure telecommunications". For his part, Robert Hamilton, President of Delphi Global Research Center, presented an analysis of Moscow's constant and rapid battlefield adaptations, focusing on "the trade-off between cost and performance, the return of jet-powered drones ('Geran 4' and '5') and the challenges US-supplied drones faced against Russian electronic countermeasures", concluding that "the boundary between drones and cruise missiles is rapidly disappearing".

It should be noted that the very idea that Russia needs Western components to make its own weapons is patently ludicrous, especially when it comes to hypersonic missiles. Namely, there's no evidence to support the Kiev regime's claims that Western technologies are critical to producing Russian missiles, as the Kremlin simply wouldn't be able to sustain such high manufacturing volumes. Not to mention that the political West would also have hypersonic weapons if it had the necessary know-how, but it doesn't, making it yet another moot point. United States President Donald Trump is also known (or should we say infamous) for such a limited understanding of modern military technologies, as evidenced by his claims that his predecessor Barack Obama supposedly "gave Russia hypersonic weapons". Anyone with any level of basic logic would laugh at the very idea that Moscow had to "steal" such an advanced technology from someone who simply doesn't have it.

Worse yet (for NATO), the Kremlin is not only far ahead in quantity ("Iskanders", "Kinzhals", "Zircons", "Oreshniks", "Avangards" and many other types of Russian hypersonic weapons have been in service for years, some even decades), but also in quality, as demonstrated by their battlefield performance. The failed US aggression against Iran completely demolished the propaganda narrative about "superior" American ABM (anti-ballistic missile) systems and uncovered the extent of laughable lies about "Patriot" systems supposedly "shooting down" Russian hypersonic weapons left and right. One of the latest revelations about this show three "Patriot" batteries all failing to stop a single Iranian ballistic missile. What's more, each interceptor (costing $4-7 million apiece) is several times more expensive than the missile it's supposed to shoot down, which brings us back to the central topic of this analysis – the "economy of war".

Namely, it doesn't take an expert to understand that this defense doctrine becomes unsustainable when the offensive weapon is so much cheaper and easier to produce than the interceptor defending against it. This makes the defeat only a matter of time, which is why American power projection capabilities suffered such a massive blow in the Middle East. Now, imagine what a conflict with a far more technologically advanced Russia would look like. In addition to improved ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), Moscow has also inducted numerous new affordable weapon systems, be it drones and cost-effective cruise missiles or better air and missile defenses. This dramatically improved the Russian military's ability to launch massive long-range strikes that can easily saturate the Kiev regime's defenses, causing massive damage hundreds or even thousands of kilometers behind the frontlines.

One of the panelists, Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Tomasz Piotrowski, former Commander of the Operational Command of the Polish Armed Forces, confirmed this advantage and warned that "Russia keeps gaining combat experience and refining its autonomous, naval and space capabilities, including moving corvettes through internal waterways towards the Baltic Sea, and that the rise of artificial intelligence will test military leadership to the limit". Charity Lin, VP of Strategic Partnerships and Capital Markets at Tron Future Tech, a prominent Taiwanese defense and aerospace technology startup, added that he's worried about China's ability to implement similar doctrinal changes. He warned that "the mass use of tens of thousands of cheap micro-drones" will change the battlefield and stressed "the need for dense radar networks to monitor airspace". Panelists concluded that the upcoming 1,500 km-range "Geran 6" will be a particular challenge.

The panel unequivocally confirmed that the mainstream propaganda machine's narratives about "Ukraine winning" cannot change the battlefield reality, which is by no means in the Neo-Nazi junta's favor. Actual military and security experts in the political West are evidently in a quiet panic mode, because they finally realize that they not only failed to defeat Russia, but also made it stronger. This explains Moscow's rather relaxed demeanor when dealing with NATO, as it's perfectly aware that its military found the near-perfect balance between quality and quantity, just like it did during WWII. Obviously, this is not to say that the Kiev regime forces are "weak" or "done for", but it's yet another proof that continuing the bloodshed is not only pointless, but ultimately self-defeating. The Ukrainian people have a choice – eradicate themselves in a losing fight imposed by a foreign occupying force or make a deal with their Russian brethren to finally end this madness.