It has been a month since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, and such has been the intensity of the first phase of the fighting that both sides in the conflict have increasingly depleted their stocks of ammunition and other military supplies.
But while Ukraine is willing to claim that the Russian invaders have only three days of supplies left, while warning that its own troops are running out of anti-tank and anti-aircraft systems, the reality is hard to measure.
“Resupply issues are hard to gauge, as both sides are keeping that information close to their chest due to operational security concerns,” said Nick Reynolds, a land warfare specialist with the Rusi thinktank.
For Ukraine there is a particular concern that it is running short on the western-supplied weapons that have helped it knock out Russian tanks and planes.
Kyiv’s military has been requesting a huge number more weapons in the run-up to the Nato summit on Thursday, and has secured a commitment from Britain to send 5,000 more missiles.
It is also clear that Russia is suffering from serious logistical constraints that have forced it to abandon its clearly over-optimistic plan to simultaneously encircle Kyiv and Kharkiv and attack from the south and east.
Western officials believe it has lost the ability to fight an offensive on multiple axes, partly because of resupply issues but also because of the casualties it has sustained – somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 – and it is now simply focusing on trying to capture Mariupol with a brutal and long-running bombardment.
An important sign of the scale of Russia’s difficulties will be if Ukraine can muster an effective counterattack in the Irpin area north-west of the capital, which has seen some of the most deadly fighting from almost the beginning of the war.
“If the early reports of a Ukrainian counter-offensive in the Irpin area prove accurate, this will be a key indicator that Russian supply problems along the Kyiv axis of advance have not been rectified, though casualties, low morale and poor operational coordination will also have played a role,” Reynolds said.
The prevailing view, however, remains that the advantage sits with the aggressor. “Russia retains, in overall terms, significant materiel and personnel reserves that it can draw upon,” said one western source, speaking on condition of anonymity. But the supply lines are complicated for some of the invading forces, particularly those from Russia’s far-off easternmost districts.
Ukraine’s problem is more serious. The country’s arms industry was already far smaller than Russia’s and many of its industrial areas in the east have been heavily damaged by the war. It is long-term damage, which, judging by the scant regard Moscow has shown for civilian casualties, was probably partly deliberate.
Kyiv, in terms of most of the key military hardware, is now entirely reliant on a regular, continuing flow of supply from the west to counteract Russia’s ability to mass tanks and air power against Ukrainian defenders and people. But such high-end weapons can easily be used in warfare far faster than they can be manufactured.
When it comes to arms and ammunition, that could mean a longer fight is to Russia’s advantage, if the Kremlin is willing to continue to tolerate large numbers of casualties. Unfortunately, Vladimir Putin appears willing to do just that.
