Russia-Ukraine War (continuing)

I don't think the US (or the EU for that matter) would be happy for this war to go on for another 5 years. All Western nations want peace in Europe and no one really wants to bring Russia to its knees, or at least no one wants to do that for its own sake, so much as doing so as a means to end the war.

There is a line of Russian propaganda that suggests that the US is running a proxy war in Ukraine and is happy to drag it out to cause maximum damage to Russia, to "fight to the last Ukrainian" etc. Like all good lies, it's based on a kernel of truth - that the US and EU have been consistently a day late and a dollar short in their aid to Ukraine. However, this is falsely interpreted as being demonstrative of a desire to drag the war out. But this is largely contrary to the other available evidence. At the start of the full scale invasion, the US made it clear that they were only going to provide a limited level of aid to Ukraine. It was only when Zelensky won over the hearts and minds of the people and governments of Western nations, and people saw them as a plucky underdog that the aid started to flow in.

It also ignores the fairly obvious US policy of escalation management. Going all in too quickly could lead to an all out war, so they have no option but to go through the phases and escalate slowly and cautiously. The EU is even more cautious, because they don't want Russia to attack them.

A Russia on its knees and humiliated is far more dangerous than a Russia that was quickly defeated but then moved on from Ukraine.

Finally, the US doesn't want a long drawn war in Ukraine because it really isn't interested in what Russia does. They are more concerned with China. It has been more of a political nuisance for them than a cause of great concern. The EU doesn't want a long drawn out conflict either. Most EU nations would be perfectly happy to normalise relations with Russia and continue to trade with them.

So tldr - America has no interest in 5 more years of war nor of bringing Russia to its knees.

There is political will to spend more money on defence. The number of NATO members who spent 2% or more of their GDP rose from 7 in 2022 to 23 in 2024. UK budgeted military spending has risen from €73bn to €77bn , France from €54bn to €64bn, and Germany from €53bn to €76bn:

https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2024/07/nato-defence-spending-a-bumper-year/

Skilled manufacturing is also exactly the type of employment opportunities that would prove very popular in nations who are struggling to maintain or increase their industrial base / employment e.g. Germany, Italy etc. Lower end products have the potential to employ more people than higher tech products which require greater skill levels and higher pay etc.

The EU has very publicly created funds for this exact purpose.

I know we've been through this before, but I just don't accept that the failure to match or increase Russian unguided shell production is due to a lack of political will. I think we are both agreed that it is not due to the EU being incapable of doing so.

We must look for answers elsewhere, and when we see large ammunition dumps being destroyed by precision guided weaponry, resulting in a narrowing of the amount of basic artillery shells fired at the front, despite the generally accepted view that Russia is out producing the West, tends to suggest that NATO countries would rather buy one GMLRS round at €150k than 150 unguided shells at €1k each. If the increased production of GMLRS results in economies of scale, and the reported cost of unguided shells is significantly higher than €1k each, then the maths further favours the guided weaponry.

Private industrial firms correctly perceive that there is a clear need for basic artillery shells right now for Ukraine. They also correctly perceive that there is unlikely to be a scenario where they will stop producing them either. But the bottom line is that they just do not see European Armies, or export approved armies, requiring the millions of rounds per year that they are expected to scale up to, once the war in Ukraine ends.

I suppose part of this could well be that the profit margins on such products are not as favourable as well.

But we are seeing a greater desire to invest in precision weapons in Europe:

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2024/strengthening-allied-deterrence-through-european-partnerships.html

I think that the view being taken is that it would be a mistake to fall into Russia's game and plan for an artillery slog fest when there are alternatives. Russia cannot fire any unguided shells in a future hypothetical war with NATO if NATO can successfully destroy their artillery pieces and ammunition stockpiles from afar.

Perhaps the ultimate conclusion is to seek out cheaper forms of precision longer range weaponry, between a basic unguided shell and an expensive GMLRS round.

But whether it is a mistake or not is one thing, and there is probably consensus that the amount of unguided artillery shell production should be increased, the reality is that European Countries are not willing to spend the money long term on unguided artillery, when there are other things to spend money on long term.