Russia: Logistics and War
[Opinion] Russia's new minister of defense and the long war
The Battle of Gallipoli: Bayonets Only
KNOWING death was imminent, they scratched last letters to loved ones ... then went over the sandbags into a storm of lead.
Few places invoke the utter despair, senselessness and courage of war like The Nek at Gallipoli.
One of the most heart wrenching stories of bravery I have ever heard comes from the ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) forces during World War I. On August 7, 1915, hundreds of men climbed over a trench wall to run across the length of 3 tennis courts. Their guns had no ammunition in them. Their only weapon was their bayonet. They ran into a hail of machine gun fire. These soldiers sacrificed all and gained no ground. They killed no enemy soldiers. They ran into the killing fields to die. This is what they were ordered to do. It was a crushing defeat.
Last notes were scratched on scraps of paper and their final thoughts of home and loved ones no doubt accompanied their fearful yells as they leapt from the trenches on a virtual suicide mission.
Warfare in 1915 was waged by generals who still believed that victory could only be accompanied by vast casualty rates.
Most men of the 3rd Light Horse Brigade did not shirk their duty and no doubt went to their maker with their blood up and voices raised.
Incredibly, the men were told to charge with bayonets fixed but no bullets in their rifle chambers — meaning they could not even return fire until ordered.
Logistics of World War II
It is not enough to have trained fighters if our warriors have nothing to fight with. Soldiers cannot march into conflict defenseless. You can have the best trained troops and the deadliest special forces. But without the equipment and supplies to keep them on the field fighting, they would be ineffective.
“An army, like a serpent, goes upon its belly,” Frederic of Prussia used to say. “Few men know,” Marshal McMahon is reported to have remarked, after one of the late Italian battles, “how important it is in war for soldiers not to be kept waiting for their rations; and what vast events depend upon an army’s not going into action before it has had its coffee.” I have read somewhere that Napoleon, on being asked what a soldier most needed in war, answered, “A full belly and a good pair of shoes.”
HathiTrust Dot Org: Life of Andrew Jackson, By James Parton (Pages 457-458)
To destroy an army, all you need to do is destroy the supply lines. Take away their ammo, their weapons, their food, and other miscellaneous supplies and they become easily conquered. You don't always have to outmaneuver the enemy. Sometimes a war is won by out producing them or destroy their supply lines. One need only look at past wars to such examples.
In 1941 and 1942 during World War II, there was a huge German offensive taking place on the African Front under the German General Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox. Hitler, at the time, was fixated on destroying the Soviet Union and gaining land for Germany. Rommel, on the other hand, wanted to gain access to Iran. But in order to do so, Northern Africa had to be secured. The problem came down to one of logistics. To take an advance footing in North Africa would require more logistics and supplies than Rommel had.
Against Hitler's wishes, Rommel launched the offense. From the very beginning the campaign was troubled with logistical nightmares that almost saw Rommel defeated time and time again. Rommel though was a brilliant tactician and made good use of his supplies, armaments, and men. Until Tobruk, Libya.
Rommel had taken a port in Libya named Tobruk. It would seem that his logistical nightmare was at an end. The bombing of Tobruk and other Libyan ports by Allied Forces soon changed that. Any advantages that the Germans and Axis Forces had gained were soon lost.
British Wellingtons and American B-24s bombed Benghazi and Tobruk nightly. The RAF destroyed the fuel storage depot at Tobruk in July. On August 6, a particularly effective attack reduced the port capacity at Tobruk from 2,000 to 600 tons; the port never handled more than 1,000 tons of cargo afterward. On the night of September 22-23, having learned of the arrival of the freighter Apnania at Benghazi with tanks and ammunition, the Allies mounted a particularly effective air attack that destroyed the freighter and seriously damaging the port.
Warfare History Network: North African Campaign: WWII’s Ultimate War of Logistics
With the port damaged and less than half of the supplies coming in, Rommel was in trouble.
With or without Malta in Axis control, during midsummer many ships going to Tripoli and Benghazi got through, while those sent to Tobruk came under heavy bombing. Although he had only 8,000 out of the 30,000 tons of fuel he claimed he needed for August, Rommel decided to stake everything on a final attempt to break through British lines. He was supported by Kesselring, who promised more tankers for Tobruk. When these were sunk he said he would fly in 500 tons of fuel a day, but the planes failed to arrive.
The British only managed to sink a dozen ships from late June through July. In the first half of August, they only sank three ships—all by submarine attacks. But on August 21, things began to change as British Beauforts hit the large tanker Pozarica, carrying fuel for the Italian Army, forcing her to beach on the island of Corfu. On August 26, Ultra interceptions disclosed a plan to sail no less than 20 ships between August 25 and September 5. At least 16 of these ships were either tankers or were carrying barrels of fuel. Thanks to British efforts, only seven reached Libya with very little fuel. As a result, in August, a third of all Rommel’s supplies and 41 percent of his fuel had been lost en route to Libya.
Warfare History Network: North African Campaign: WWII’s Ultimate War of Logistics
Ultimately, with little supplies and due to many bitter battles, Rommel was forced to retreat. He was a brilliant statistician. Tactics weren't the problem in this scenario. His issue came from lack of resources. Logistics.
The first essential condition for an army to be able to stand the stress of battle is an adequate stock of weapons, petrol and ammunition. In fact, the battle is fought and decided by the quartermasters before the shooting begins.
— German General Erwin Rommel, The Rommel Papers
The same thing would happen when the German army turned its sights on the Soviet Union during Operation Barbarossa. Despite what seemed to be certain victory, the German forces lost. Why? They couldn't keep their troops in fuel and ammo.
Logistics was another hugely important factor in the German defeat. No matter how fast or far the fighting formations advanced, they were dependent on timely supplies of fuel and ammunition. This became an ever greater problem as the army progressed deeper into Soviet territory and further away from its own railheads. Not only were the distances much greater than they had been during the French campaign, but the Soviet transport infrastructure was much poorer. German engineers struggled to convert the Russian railway gauge to one which their own locomotives and rolling stock could use.
IWM: Operation Barbarossa And Germany's Failure In The Soviet Union
American Superiority
One could argue that the only reason Allied Forces won World War II is because we vastly out produced the Axis production capabilities.
Everywhere one looks there are very impressive American production statistics throughout World War II. The war on the ground in Europe was often tank warfare. Between 1918 and 1933, the United States produced only 35 tanks, and no two of them the same model. In 1940, after witnessing Germany’s Blitzkrieg in Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France, the United States produced 309 tanks, versus 1,400 in Britain and 1,450 in Germany. In 1943, however, the United States manufactured 29,500 tanks, more in 1 year than Germany produced in the entire war from 1939 to 1945. In all, the United States manufactured 88,430 tanks during World War II versus 24,800 in Britain and 24,050 in Germany.
And when you look at US production versus other countries during World War II, you can see an enormous difference in numbers.
One of the reasons why America did so well in World War II wasn't because our military equipment was necessarily better. (Although, military buffs may argue me on the finer points of that statement.) It is because of the production line. We had more of it. We had more ships, tanks, bullets, and bombs to throw at the enemy — an almost inexhaustible supply. Part of that supply was resources to make military equipment. The other is money. We had more money and a higher GDP to fund what it took to sustain a war. With the devaluing of the American dollar and equipment being sent to other countries, our ability to sustain a war is questionable.
Our current situation is this. In the last week, the US State Department moved $1 billion of military weapons aid to Israel. This includes tank rounds, mortars and armored tactical vehicles. Last month, a military assistance package was signed in Congress which would give Israel an additional $26 billion in supplemental funding.
The US and its allies has committed to more than $95 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since February 2022. On April 26, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin confirmed that the US allocated another $6 billion in military aid under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
The actual total of US aid that has gone to Ukraine may be much higher than this since US funds also go through globalist organizations such as the World Bank. The World Bank reports that:
Since February 2022, the World Bank Group has mobilized over $42 billion in financial support to Ukraine, of which nearly $36 billion has been disbursed to date (May 17, 2024). 95% of this financing was provided by development partners.
In 2023, rumors and confirmation of those rumors came in. The US Army, Navy, and Air Force were failing to meet their recruitment numbers by the thousands and tens of thousands. The only exception was with the US Marine Corps. They met their goals.
The Army, with roughly five months left to meet its FY23 goal, is projecting to bring in about 55,000 active duty soldiers, well short of its 65,000 target.
The Navy expects to fall about 6,000 short of its goals, Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti said.
“On this path, about 10,000 short,” Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin said, though his numbers included the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.
While the services have pointed to low unemployment and the COVID-19 pandemic as roadblocks to recruiting, some pundits and lawmakers have argued that DoD policies ― including diversity training and efforts to tamp down on violent, domestic extremism ― have deterred many Americans from conservative communities from signing up, while advocates on the left say a lack of progress on those issues impacts recruiting as well.
Military Times: Army, Navy and Air Force predict recruiting shortfalls this year
Recruitment shortfalls in the military was so pronounced it required a Department of Defense hearing to address the issue in December of 2023.
The Defense Department's acting undersecretary for personnel and readiness and senior manpower officials today testified about shortfalls in Army, Navy and Air Force recruiting in the fiscal year that ended in September at a hearing of the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee.
Ashish Vazirani said that during fiscal year 2023, the military services collectively missed recruiting goals by about 41,000 recruits.
US Department of Defense: DOD Addresses Recruiting Shortfall Challenges
Retention during COVID was an issue as well. Many soldiers decided they didn't want to take the vaccine — over 8,000 of them to be exact.
Only 43 of the more than 8,000 US service members who were discharged from the military for refusing to be vaccinated against Covid-19 have sought to rejoin eight months after the vaccine mandate was officially repealed, according to data provided by the military branches.
Many Republicans argued that the vaccine mandate hurt military recruiting and retention efforts, which was part of the rationale for forcing the Defense Department to cancel the vaccine requirement. The military mandated the vaccine between for only 15 months from August 2021 through January 2023, when it was rescinded by law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. It marked perhaps the first time in US military history that a vaccine requirement was reversed.
But since the repeal, only 19 soldiers have rejoined the Army, while 12 have returned to the Marines, according to service spokespeople. The numbers are even smaller for the Air Force and Navy, where only one and two have rejoined, respectively, the services said.
CNN: Only 43 of more than 8,000 discharged from US military for refusing Covid vaccine have rejoined
Meanwhile, both the US Army and the US Air Force is looking for more creative solutions to solve their manpower shortages. Both are asking for retirees to come back into the service.
Our soldiers decided to no longer be soldiers. Can you blame them?
The view of the United States and its military is deteriorating overseas. To date, President Biden has partially or totally evacuated 11 US embassies in total. This more than any US president in history. They include:
Burma, 2021
Chad, 2021
Afghanistan, 2021
Ethiopia, 2021
Ukraine, 2022
Belarus, 2022
Russia, 2022
Nigeria, 2022
Sudan, 2023
Niger, 2023
Haiti, 2024
Speaking of Niger, the US military was kicked out of the country.
With the US troop withdrawal from military-led Niger underway and due to be over by September 15, Washington is preparing to abandon its strategic position in the Sahel where Russia and Iran are gaining ground.
The demand for US troops to exit came after French soldiers were also given their marching orders last year by Niger's new ruling generals following a July coup.
Niger announced in March it was ending a military cooperation agreement with Washington, claiming the presence of US soldiers was now "illegal".
The country has been a key base for counter-terrorism operations in West Africa, with a major US drone base near the northern city of Agadez that cost a reported $100 million to build.
Then we have the destabilization of the US dollar and the Central Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. BRICS was formed by 5 countries who lost their faith in the US dollar — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. This year 6 more countries will be joining BRICS and ditching the US dollar — Argentina, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
This trend is important for more reason than just the banking system. Russia, India, and China make up 3 of the top 4 largest militaries in the world.
It is also important to note that some of these countries are geopolitical rivals.
Yet grounds for skepticism over BRICS+’s capacity to become an effective institution remain. This grouping includes countries that are very diverse in terms of political systems, institutional frameworks, economic models, and cultural backgrounds. It even includes geopolitical rivals; for example, relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as between China and India, remain strained. A so-called “China shock” of low-cost exports of everything from steel and chemicals to machinery could also raise trade tensions within the group. The expansion, moreover, is heavily tilted toward the Middle East, so further regional balance may be required as the group grows.
That these countries are working towards a new financial system while being geopolitical rivals shows a shift in the worldview that we know and have come to understand. Things change. These countries and their goals are changing as well.
The history of US military production and available resources show what our once great nation is capable of achieving. Today's present situation in contrast to year's past is a startling contrast even when you look at what was being produced decades ago during peace time. And with today's geopolitical turmoil one could hardly call this peacetime.
Three of the world's four largest militaries seems to understand this. President Putin seems to understand this. What's more. With them moving away from Western controlled banking systems, they seem to understand the New World Order, globalization and where the world is headed, perhaps better than we do.
The New Russian Minister of Defense
Recently, Putin replaced his Minister of Defense with an economist named Andrey Belousov.
Vladimir Putin appointed economist Andrey Belousov, a little-known first deputy prime minister, to be his new defence minister on Sunday. For the past four years, Belousov, a civilian with no military connections, has been tasked with balancing the government’s books. Novaya Gazeta Europe spoke to military analysts and army sources in an attempt to predict what effect these changes at the top of Russia’s military-industrial complex could mean for the war in Ukraine.
Fixing what’s broke
“The name Andrey Belousov means almost nothing to specialists in the field,” military analyst Kirill Mikhailov told Novaya Europe. “He was most likely appointed to fix the Russian Defense Ministry, where problems have piled up under [former Defense Minister] Sergey Shoigu.”
The Russian military-industrial complex is struggling to keep the army supplied, with some units forced in the absence of infantry fighting vehicles or tanks to use trucks and vehicles that are ill-suited to conditions at the front, Mikhailov says. “It’s not all that clear how the new minister will be able to solve the problem. Perhaps he’ll aim to ramp up production and purchase more materiel from China. But it remains to be seen whether it’ll be possible to expedite the supply of arms to troops. The military-industrial complex is in emergency mode as it is,” Mikhailov added.
“Shoigu oversaw a system of corruption centered on military-industrial tenders,” says a Russian military expert who asked not to be named. “All major orders went to corporations controlled by Putin’s friends. I don’t see how Belousov can force the CEO of state-owned defense conglomerate Rostec, Sergey Chemezov, to reduce the cost of tanks and other equipment, which are currently bought and sold … at above cost price. Reducing costs means reducing the profits of companies within the military-industrial complex, which their owners won’t like. Nobody knows how much power the new defense minister will have to temper the greed of the country’s ever-hungry large arms manufacturers.”
To say it was met with criticism in the Western world would be an understatement.
Belousov, a Putin loyalist known to back government spending to stimulate the economy, has taken up the Kremlin’s biggest challenge: overseeing the defense ministry as military spending soars above 7% of Russia’s GDP and the Kremlin prepares itself for a long war in Ukraine.
The appointment of highly trusted technocrats to manage the ballooning military and industrial budgets was “a sign that the war is the top priority for the Kremlin and that Putin truly believes that a war footing is sustainable for the Russian economy and we’ll … deal with structural problems later”.
The Guardian: Andrei Belousov: Putin picks trusted technocrat to run defence ministry
While both these articles go into a war of finances (and some over-the-top commentary regarding Belousov by The Guardian) I believe that they are both shortsighted. Here is why.
“The military operation in Ukraine has revealed the many shortcomings of the modern Russian army,” says Lieutenant General Romanovsky — not his real surname — a teacher at a Russian military university. “It seems the Kremlin and the army were counting on a sort of blitzkrieg and troops meeting little to no organised resistance in Ukraine, but the Russian army did meet resistance and it wasn’t ready for it. First, this was due to a lack of ammunition, which ran out quickly. Sergey Shoigu organised an urgent transfer of ammunition from Siberia and the Russian Far East and switched military factories to emergency mode and supply problems were resolved within weeks. But by that time, the tactical advantage had already been lost and the Russian army began losing territories it had seized.”
The military had a "tactical advantage" before it ran out of ammunition due to supply issues which was lost. As a result, the "Russian army began losing territories it had seized." It all comes back to logistics.
There is nothing more common than to find considerations of supply affecting the strategic lines of a campaign and a war.
— Carl von Clausewitz
Kherson: Logistical Nightmare; Strategic Importance
One such are that has proved to be a logistical nightmare is Kherson. On November 10, 2022, Al Jazeera, wrote this about the city:
Defense minister Sergei Shoigu on Wednesday announced Russia would pull out its troops from the southern Ukrainian city of Kherson, the first and only regional capital to be captured by Russian forces since they invaded Ukraine in late February.
The decision, Russian officials said, was taken to save the lives of Russian soldiers in the face of a Ukrainian counteroffensive and difficulties to keep supply lines to the strategic city open.
On February 24, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a “special military operation” in Ukraine, with his troops invading from four fronts.
On March 2, Russia said Kherson city was under its control. By March 15, it declared that the entire region had been taken.
Kherson is one of the four Ukrainian regions in which Russia staged “referendums” and formally “annexed” on September 30, a move that was condemned as illegal by Ukraine and its allies.
Al Jazeera: Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine’s Kherson city explained in maps
They go on to explain that Kherson holds strategic relevance because it is a land bridge between Russia and the peninsula. If Ukraine were to take it, it would place the "Crimea within the reach of long-range Ukrainian artillery."
However, the area has repeatedly come under the constraints of supply issues. CNN reported this issue when a couple of bloggers took to social media to discuss this.
Moscow's forces in the Kherson region lack artillery and ammunition support, according to several prominent Russian military bloggers.
Roman Saponkov, a Russian blogger who has more than 70,000 subscribers, wrote Friday that troops in the Kherson region had told him about their lack of artillery support.
Visioner’s Channel, another Russian blog, posted Sunday that Russia’s 205th brigade is facing “an alarming signal of crisis in the army and the country.”
“The main problem of the Russian Ministry of Defense is well known,” the blog said, referencing the lack of ammunition.
“After the disaster with [Yevgeny] Prigozhin, there was confidence that now, at any rate, things would start to move forward and that changes would begin. But the third month has gone by, yet there is still nothing,” the blog said, referencing the incident when the late Wagner chief slammed Russian officials over the lack of ammunition months before his death.
Another Russian blog, Republic, discussed “the growing problems in the Russian army” in a Telegram post on Monday.
“The 205th brigade of the Russian Armed Forces that is fighting in the Kherson region was ordered to occupy islands on the Dnipro River; the servicemen responded by saying that they lacked ammunition, food, artillery support and reconnaissance,” the blog post said.
CNN: Russian troops in Kherson lack artillery and ammunition, military bloggers say
Other reports state that Russia is out producing Ukraine's ammunition supply. When you realize that Ukraine's ammunition supply is what Europe and America are producing in total, that is a pretty impressive feat.
American officials estimate early sanctions forced Russia to slow its production of missiles and other weaponry for at least six months, according to The Times.
But since then, Moscow has managed to mostly circumvent the West's sanctions, exploiting loopholes and importing US technology through neighboring states, online retailers, and a network of fake companies, Insider previously reported.
Such smuggling has allowed Russian military production to not only recover but increase beyond pre-war levels. Before the country invaded Ukraine, a senior Western defense official told The Times that Russia could make 100 tanks a year; now they're averaging 200.
Western officials told the outlet that Russia is on track to manufacture two million artillery shells a year, which is twice as many as Western intelligence originally estimated it could make before the war.
Russia, in fact, is now producing more ammunition than the US and Europe, with one senior Estonian defense ministry official telling The Times that Russia's current production is seven times that of the West.
If there reports are true, what is happening to the military equipment and ammunition? Why aren't they making it to the front lines?
More importantly, what does President Putin know that we don't? Why does it look like he is fixing his logistics, putting an end to Russia’s military industrial complex, and creating a stockpile for a long war?
Russian Lies
Keep in mind that the American MSM has been horribly misinforming the public about what is going on between Ukraine and Russia. The MSM calls it a war. Russia labels it as a "special military operation."
We are told that Western interests in Ukraine wasn't about NATO expansion. Ukraine is on its way to becoming a member of NATO.
We are told that there were no Nazis in Ukraine.
“Putin has the gall to say he’s ‘de-Nazifying’ Ukraine. It’s a lie,” Biden said. “It’s just cynical. He knows that. And it’s also obscene.”
Then we find out that there are indeed Neo-Nazis in Ukraine called the Azov Battalion.
Russian President Vladimir Putin referenced the presence of such units within the Ukrainian military as one of the reasons for launching his so-called “special military operation … to de-militarise and de-Nazify Ukraine”.
So what is the Azov regiment?
Azov is a far-right all-volunteer infantry military unit whose members – estimated at 900 – are ultra-nationalists and accused of harbouring neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideology.
The unit was initially formed as a volunteer group in May 2014 out of the ultra-nationalist Patriot of Ukraine gang, and the neo-Nazi Social National Assembly (SNA) group. Both groups engaged in xenophobic and neo-Nazi ideals and physically assaulted migrants, the Roma community and people opposing their views.
Al Jazeera: Profile: Who are Ukraine’s far-right Azov regiment?
And then the MSM and corporate interests engaged in gaslighting the American people into supporting Neo-Nazis.
In fact, if you haven't been keeping track of the lies told about Russia and Ukraine, here is a short checklist of the lies told about Russia. I am pretty sure that I am missing a few items on here.
RussiaGate: Trump and Russia rigged the election and were engaged in treason.
Trump's Servers connected to a Russian bank known as Alpha Bank.
Russia placed bounties on US soldiers.
Russia decided to declare war on Ukraine in order to take over the country.
Russia was going to launch tactical nuclear warheads on Ukraine.
There were no US funded bio labs in Ukraine.
CIA and US intelligence agents were not operating in Ukraine.
Ukraine does not have a group of Neo-Nazis. The Azov Battalion are just a group of militant patriots and not an extremist group.
Ukrainian fighter jets were defeating Russia.
Ukraine wasn't interested in becoming a member of NATO. There is no NATO or globalist expansion.
Russia bombed a hospital.
Russia blew up its own pipeline.
Russia bombed Poland.
FTX did not cooperate with Ukraine.
DNC elite were not embedded in Ukraine.
There were no shady corporate dealings with Hunter Biden in Ukraine.
Russia was losing the war with Ukraine.
Russia was engaged in crimes against humanity in Ukraine.
Ukrainians were not selling American military equipment on the black market.
Russia was on the verge of economic collapse.
Footage of the Russian/Ukrainian war was actually real and didn't come from a video game.
If we were told this many lies, what else were we lied to about? President Putin spoke about many of these topics. The US government and the MSM crucified him for it. Months down the line, people found out that President Putin was actually telling the truth. What else was he telling the truth about?
Liz...please repost the article you wrote on paid substack smear masters...I'm starting to see an emerging pattern that people need to be reminded about..or was it you or 17th ops??
Napoleon is known as the grandmaster of war logistics, but I would also point to Rommel. Rommel derived his strategy from Robert E. Lee. Lee derived his from Hannibal.
We so often say "follow the money", but in war, it's "follow the logistics."