There seem to be contradictory reports about arms kicking around the media,only a few weeks ago on the Beeb's Unspun World,John Simpson was interviewing a military specialist who quoted a Nato source that as well as the Ukraine, Nato themselves were low on basic stockpiles of small arms ammunition whereas Russia had huge reserves. And that the US are playing catch up with hypersonic missiles that both Russia and China already have in operation. Very surprised that the Beeb ran that as they normally only run with the pro Nato anti Russia China narrative. Sad to say this more and more appears to look like a long drawn out slog with Russian resources being drained by manning the new borders that will be drawn when the Ukraine inevitably has to give up land for peace and will carry on a hit and run strategy between ceasefires.
There are issues with NATO stockpiles, but to say that is quite linear; most NATO weapons use 7.62mm ammunition, which allows mutual logistics.
This can be pugged relatively quickly, but the real strength is how NATO can bring to bare it's considerable resources of artillery, bombs and whatnot.
Whereas, Russia having millions and millions of 5.45mm rounds, APMs et al. will not fill the gap in their depleted PGM munitions and ageing equipment.
The state and efficiency Russian hypersonic missiles (Avangard, Zircon and others) is also up for debate as some may believe they're not yet ready.
China on the other hand is another matter, and the consensus is we're behind there but then again we'd had this with their supposed stealth jets.
But back to the point at hand, this is going to be hammering Russia's resources and do they have the capability to rebuild them efficiently - we'll see.
I doubt the slow methodical approach is coming at a significant expense. They couldn't stall the offensive for the last 2 months or bring them to peace talks.
It's also strategically unwise to flaunt your success as it might erode public support in the west.
Zelensky mocked Russia's problems with ageing equipment. Not very wise as the brunt of the sanctions, with gas prices set to go through the roof, is yet to hit western Europe. If anything, concentrate on their cruel treatment of the local population and their barbaric ways of waging war.
It's good to see western contributions making an impact but don't boast about it. Keep it low key and hit them where it hurts.
Typically, FIBUA is very costly in terms of manpower and resources. It may be slow and methodical, but it's not came from choice but rather neccesity.
Their initial tactics were seen to be inherently flawed, so they've swapped to a broader front with artillery and bludgeoning; this will cost them in men and resources.
Sadly, it's going to be costing the Ukranians too in terms of men, resources and their country being raised to the ground.
