The Economist: Ukraine is suffering from missile hunger with speculations of a major Russian attack expected within months

The Economist said that the view that was prevalent earlier this year regarding the war in Ukraine reaching a stalemate after the failure of the Ukrainian counter-attack is now considered optimistic, in light of the worrying possibility of a new major Russian attack penetrating the Ukrainian defenses and reaching… Depth of the country.

Speaking about the reasons, the Economist magazine confirmed that Ukraine is suffering from acute missile hunger, after the direct consequences of the ban on the military support package for the administration of US President Joe Biden on the battlefield, in addition to the failure of the European Union’s plan to provide more than half a million missiles that had been planned; He promised to deliver it by this month.

The Economist magazine pointed out that Ukraine’s use of drones is only a partial compensation for the lack of missiles, pointing out that drones cannot concentrate fire in the way that artillery can do so.

The Economist magazine confirmed that Russia fires no less than 5 shells for every Ukrainian shell, as Russia now produces about 3 million artillery shells annually, while Europe expects to be able to produce only 1.4 million shells annually by the end of 2024.

The Economist considered that the support bill presented by the Biden administration remains hostage to electoral politics, while Europe didn’t rise to the challenge until late, noting that the best possibility for alleviating what Ukraine is suffering in terms of armaments is the initiative that the Czech government is working on since the start of the war.

The Economist magazine added that the Czechs traveled the world in search of supplies of ammunition for Ukraine, and have so far obtained about 800,000 shells, and Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Canada and other countries have allocated money to help pay for them.

The Economist magazine pointed out that there is a shortage of other types of ammunition, as Ukraine is suffering from a serious decline in the number of interceptor air defense missiles, and urgently needs more weapons to strike targets in the Crimean Peninsula, after it consumed a large percentage of the cruise missiles that it donated.

Britain and France, and in light of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s adherence to his position on the supply of German Taurus missiles.

The Economist magazine confirmed that Ukraine suffers from a shortage of tanks and other combat vehicles, as it’s expected that the United States will be able to send hundreds of parked Bradley combat armored vehicles without the need for more funds from Congress.

The Economist magazine believed that Ukraine must bear responsibility for its slowness in recruiting more soldiers, as the average age of Ukrainian forces working on the front lines is 43 years, and the new commander of the army, Alexander Sersky, is conducting an audit to find out the reason behind the participation of only 300,000 soldiers in the fighting out of an army of 900 thousand soldiers.

In contrast, Russia doesn’t have much difficulty recruiting contract soldiers, with a steady flow of about 30,000 new soldiers to the front every month.

Following the presidential elections, the Russian Defense Minister announced the formation of two new armies, which will require between 300,000 and 400,000 additional soldiers.

The Economist newspaper believed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has no excuse for delaying the construction of defensive fortifications, after the Russians demonstrated in the summer that defenders in this war have the upper hand when they operate from well-prepared lines.

The Economist newspaper concluded by saying, “At least for the time being, stalemate appears to be the best scenario for Ukraine”.