www-us.org

Chapter 4: Ukraine: The Slow-Motion Slaughterhouse

The dawn breaks cold and grey over the Donbas front. A supply truck, slithering through a landscape of mud and shattered trees, arrives at Commander Serhiy’s artillery position. The delivery is not a bounty; it is a ration. A small, precious stack of 152mm shells. Serhiy supervises the distribution, his men handling the heavy steel casings like priceless jewels. He announces the day's limit, his voice flat with a weary disgust that has long since replaced anger. "Five shells per gun, per day. Make them count."

Across the valley, a sound like approaching thunder begins, a rolling barrage from a Russian position that will fire fifty shells in the time it takes him to walk back to his command post. The contrast is not just a tactical disadvantage; it is a statement of strategic intent, a world of difference measured in high explosives.

Later, Serhiy’s unit gets a target. They are operating a multi-million-dollar, satellite-guided howitzer donated by the West, a masterpiece of modern warfare. But to find their target, they are not using an encrypted military drone. A young lieutenant is piloting a commercial DJI quadcopter, purchased from a volunteer-run crowdfunding site, with a hand grenade crudely strapped to it with zip ties to test the wind direction. It is a war fought with 21st-century steel guided by volunteer ingenuity, a bitter testament to an army forced to improvise its way to survival.

That evening, in the damp cold of the bunker, Serhiy talks with his second-in-command. They speak of the dead not as heroes, but as ghosts created by delays. "Mykola's unit was still waiting for the Bradleys when the line broke at Ocheretyne," one man says. The other recounts a story from Bakhmut, where his brother’s unit was annihilated by phosphorus while they waited for cluster munitions that had been "promised" for months, held up by a political debate in a distant capital. They speak of these delays with a profound, bone-weary bitterness, as if talking about a cruel and distant god who answers prayers on his own inexplicable, lethal timeline.

The chapter closes as Serhiy reviews two messages that have just come in. The first is a news alert: a major NATO country has triumphantly announced a historic increase in its total defense budget to a colossal sum. The second is a battlefield report: one of his guns, its position exposed by the need to get closer to the fight, was destroyed an hour ago by a Russian Lancet drone. They had no shells left to fire back. He stares at the two messages—the promise of trillions in the future versus the reality of zero shells in the here and now. The gap between them is an ocean, and his men are drowning in it.

The Discourse 4: The Slaughter by Attrition: Calculated Insufficiency as Western Policy

4.1 Defining the Doctrine

The high casualty rate and slow, grinding nature of the war in Ukraine is not an unavoidable tragedy but the direct, predictable result of the West's core strategic policy of Calculated Insufficiency—the deliberate metering of aid to a level that prevents Ukraine's total collapse but intentionally withholds the overwhelming offensive capability needed to secure a swift and decisive victory. This doctrine is a conscious, if undeclared, policy choice. Its goals are threefold: a) avoid a politically costly total Ukrainian defeat, b) avoid the perceived risk of "uncontrollable escalation" that a decisive victory might bring, and c) bleed the Russian military over the long term. This policy, however, callously accepts an immense human cost to be paid almost entirely by Ukrainians.

4.2 Shell Hunger and Industrial Failure

Nowhere is this doctrine more evident than in the "shell hunger" that has crippled Ukrainian forces. Throughout much of the conflict, Ukraine's daily artillery usage has been a mere fraction of Russia's, with Ukrainian officials noting that at the height of battles like Bakhmut, the disparity in fire rate was as high as ten to one. [CITATION 1] This is not a force of nature, but a direct result of the West's failure of industrial foresight. As analysts from the Royal United Services Institute have detailed, the attritional, artillery-centric nature of the conflict was evident within months of the full-scale invasion. [CITATION 2] Despite these early warnings, it took Western governments over 18 months to place the long-term, large-scale industrial orders necessary to surge production of basic 155mm shells, a catastrophic failure to adapt to the realities of a new kind of war.

4.3 The Defense Spending Paradox

This failure is underscored by the great defense spending paradox. NATO countries have rightfully been praised for increasing their national defense budgets, with many meeting or exceeding the 2% of GDP target for the first time. [CITATION 3] Yet this macro-level success has consistently failed to translate into micro-level battlefield reality. The trillions of dollars in these new budgets are allocated over years, destined for next-generation fighter jets and naval vessels that will be delivered a decade from now. Only a tiny fraction of that colossal sum has been fast-tracked into the immediate, attritional hardware—shells, mines, drones, armored vehicles—that Ukraine actually needs to prevent its army from being ground down by sheer Russian mass.

4.4 The Sanctions Charade as a Parallel

This doctrine of insufficiency on the military front is mirrored by an identical doctrine on the economic front. Just as the West has metered the supply of weapons to "manage escalation," it has deliberately designed sanctions with loopholes to manage global energy prices. The gap between the hundreds of billions of dollars pledged in Western aid versus the far smaller amount actually disbursed in tangible, non-financial support further illustrates this trend. [CITATION 4] Both the military and economic policies are designed primarily for the comfort and risk management of the Western allies, not for the swift victory of the nation fighting and dying on their behalf. It is a policy of fighting a war by proxy, but providing the proxy with just enough resources to bleed, not to win.

References

1. Malyar, Hanna. Statement by Deputy Minister of Defence of Ukraine on ammunition expenditure, reported by Interfax-Ukraine, March 2, 2023.

2. Cranny-Briggs, K., and Dr. Jack Watling. "Russian Meatgrinder: The Efficacy of the Russian Encirclement Operation in Bakhmut." Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), Commentary, May 24, 2023.

3. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. "Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014-2024)." NATO Public Diplomacy Division, Press Release, March 14, 2024. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_223455.htm

4. Trebesch, C., Grimaldi, A., et al. "The Ukraine Support Tracker: Which countries help Ukraine and how?" Kiel Institute for the World Economy, continually updated dataset. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/