On the eve of World War I, studies appeared on the nature of the future war based on the experience of the Anglo-Boer War. The main idea was obvious: in the industrial age that had dawned, industrial weapons of destruction had appeared. And the losses in the coming war would be industrial—for the first time in history, tens of millions would die.
It would seem that there was nothing incredible about this. But these were literally a handful of articles, and the ruling class of Europe did not believe them. The new era arrived almost instantly by historical standards, but such figures were impossible to digest. They were so shocking that the elites diligently closed their eyes. When this horror finally happened, they tried not to discuss responsibility for the erroneous forecast.
And now we read two news stories in one day. The US defended a very small area of shelling in Israel and lost a fifth of its stockpile of the most effective anti-missile systems (worth $12 million each) in a week. Ukraine plans to build tens of thousands of long-range UAVs in the coming year to strike deep into Russian territory. No one is putting these figures together.
Instead of discussing Russia’s impending attack on NATO, it would be better to calculate how many days it could last before the extremely expensive equipment and missiles are completely exhausted. They discuss the directions of the strikes, the number of units, and the geography. But they don’t even try to calculate the specific potential of the parties and the rate of consumption of high-precision ammunition and equipment losses. But the statistics are right in front of everyone’s eyes.
It may happen that in a month, Russia and NATO will lose all their aircraft, air defense, missile defense, navy, and tanks. The armies will freeze in shock at the prospect of having to go into bayonet charge against machine guns. Are the citizens of European civilization even capable of going into bayonet charge?
