They have started quoting this German professor who was basically criticizing Germany’s involvement in the conflict because they’ve decided to send their weapons to the Ukies. There’s a big change in the German media’s rhetoric. The level of verbal aggression is rising and they keep having all kinds of generals on their TV discussing warfare and weapons which is very different to the castrated Germany’s normal broadcasting.
Then they brought Ritter in, who Of course agreed.
“If you start supplying military hardware to one of the fighting sides you automatically become partial to it. There are no two opinions about it. The question is what is the other side going to do about it? For example the USSR and China were actively helping Vietnam during the Vietnam war. What did United States do in raction to that? Did we strike China or USSR at that time? no we didn’t. But we did use military means to interrupt those supplies from USSR in China. There’s nothing to say here, everyone who supplies military hardware becomes a part of the conflict.”
Other examples of the proxy wars- the Korean War, Angola, the modern conflict in Syria.
They describe the events, the actors, weapons suppliers.
Q: Scott, What lessons have we learned by now from this conflict in Ukraine?
Ritter: we have already known that the modern warfare is extremely lethal. both sides are using extremely effective weapons that bring significant amount of losses and destruction. That is confirmed.
But the main conclusion there’s nothing new about it. The basic military math is still applicable. Whoever possesses the superior firepower will be victorious on the battlefield. Perhaps the Ukrainian side may show some success on a tactical level, But strategically Russian forces clearly prevail, because of their superiority in artillery, missile systems and Air Force.
Q: But what about the experience In the other recent conflicts United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, Saudis in Libya (?). In those cases the total technological supremacy hasn’t brought any success.
Ritter: Right, but what you have mentioned are the conflicts of the low intensity – when one of the sides is superior technologically and militarily, and The other side are essentially rebels or partisans who can disappear blending in with the local population. But in every particular instance of the direct clashes in these conflicts the United States prevailed. Indirect collisions the technological superiority is a guaranteed factor for the victory. A conflict of the low intensity is essentially a political war, the struggle to win the hearts and minds so to say, Strong arguments are needed. If you have the locals see you as occupiers, invaders things will not go well. But when we speaking about the fight between the largest armies of Europe, professional well-trained and equipped that is a completely different conversation. In this case the result boils down to who has the better military equipment.

They describe what Ukraine has inherited after the fall of the Soviet Union all kinds of military hardware. That over time the best stuff got largely sold out abroad. Pretty much all of the manufacturers for the military industrial complex in Ukraine were closed. But after the 2014 coup things have changed and the new government took the course to build up the NATO-styled military force. They describe the pathetic mish mash of the ancient Soviet junk with random military aid that they have received from the West, that’s what Ukraine has now.

Ritter: What is the modern world like? Intense confrontations 24/7 with no rest. Sometimes lasting for months. Technology may have faults perhaps even the most complicated kind. In this case the personal equipment makes the difference that allows the personnel fight effectively for long periods of time. Russian army leads in this department because their equipment is reliable, durable and relatively simple.

Q: do you expect any change to the approach in this conflict, perhaps in American military planning, as you know Americans have really rely on the technology.

Ritter: we will continue to rely on the high technology, because we are sort of addicted to it. In my opinion it’s one of our fundamental weaknesses. An Achilles heel from the military point of view. For example we manufacture this new f-35 jet fighter that is supposed to be invincible according to the official specs. What turns out it can easily be shut down with the Russian air defense. Because the production was over complicated. But even without that this jet fighter is extremely expensive in exploitation.

The experts have revealed over 300 cases of critical dependence of the American military industrial complex to the imported components to their products. Electronics particularly. 15% of the supplied parts are the Chinese fakes.
High explosives are supplied from China
Fuel for most of the American missiles comes from Belgium, But the precursors to make that are still supplied from China.

Ritter: What we’re likely to see very soon is a growing interest to the artillery. We do have it but on much smaller scale than Russia does. We believe in high precision strikes when we have good intelligence, when we know for sure where the enemy is, when there’s time to get prepared for a strike. But such approach doesn’t work when the enemy responds back in kind with a strike. The weather and supplies make a big difference. In short the US (let alone Europe) is not ready to compete with Russia in the field of artillery. The mobility of the artillery is a key factor, even more important than the tank force. Because the tank breakthroughs don’t happen until after a good amount of the artillery work. If a tank regiment breaks off too far away from the artillery support they become very vulnerable. The modern warfare is a slow warfare no doubt. No blitzkriegs. Therefore I think the war of the future is the slow methodical grinding of the opponent in which the artillery plays much bigger old than anything else. Striking drones and the air defense will be of the particular importance as well, otherwise the losses of the advanced army will be significant.

Q: What about the Intel data, They say that makes the significant factor?

Ritter: certainly, the military intel that NATO passes on to Ukraine makes a big difference.
However we shouldn’t get fooled by the results judging by the current situation. If the NATO were to get involved directly You would not see their spy planes remaining in the air for very long – They would all be immediately shut down by the Russian air defense.

History of the American/other supplies to Ukraine.

Q: You have mentioned NATO, should we expect that the alliance will receive a new stimulus for modernization of its forces?

Ritter: so far I’m not observing any signs of that. There are 30 members in the NATO and the members have difficulties to coordinate. And we’re talking about military block that has been under financed for decades. European military power? Don’t make me laugh The United States is the only significant member that can put up any fight somewhat similar to how the Ukrainians are fighting now. The Europeans cannot offer anything serious. Britain has 80,000 troops which is not serious even for the peace time. The Polish army is not capable of the serious action. The Germans will not even leave the barracks. The French are completely exhausted with their African adventures.

Turkey perhaps?

The Turks certainly have a serious military but I highly doubt that they would want to get involved in conflict against Russia. The Americans could give a try but even they could not offer more than five armored brigades to be sent to Europe. Even the bigger question who’s going to pay for that? In the Congress they’re saying that the Europeans should pay for it. But Europeans are not thrilled about it. The Germans for example are speaking about allocating 100 billion euro for the rearmament. Where are they going to get this money especially now when the price of the fuel is through the roof. Perhaps it is time to rethink the idea of explaining NATO to the east, now it doesn’t seem like it was such a great idea. And then Finland should think twice before they make the decision to join the alliance. Russia has already showed that it’s not going to tolerate any further expansion of NATO. What is so hard to understand here?

Listed the countries who decided to stay neutral to the conflict.

History of the controversial relationships between the countries in the block.

Ritter: Where did this whole concept of the open doors to NATO come from? Article 10 states that the aspiring member need to fulfill the requirements before getting accepted. Then the alliance gets to decide whether the new member would be worth it to empower the block or will it weaken it. No automatic acceptance. What is the point of accepting Finland in if it’s membership may cause a direct continental war with Russia? It’s time for neither to realize that the current trajectory of the alliance only leads to war with Russia while the alliance is not ready to enter this conflict let alone win it with the conventional means. Europe needs a new system of security and it must be created in the agreement with Russia.