Solving Ukraine's Munition Needs Won't Bring US Any Closer to Winning Proxy War

The US is seeking to double its output of 155 mm munitions by October, as per Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition Douglas R. Bush.

The Pentagon is seeking to dramatically ramp up the production of artillery shells for the Kiev regime, Army acquisition chief Doug Bush announced at a CSIS think tank event hosted by the Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group (DIIG) on February 5.

Per Bush, the US output of 155 mm ammo could rise from 28,000 last October to about 60,000 in October this year, and reach a whopping 100,000 in October 2025.

The hike in production could be achieved at least partially due to a new factory in Texas, which will "have an entirely new way of making the shell, using entirely new tech we've never used before," Bush explained. The US official noted, however, that reaching next year's goal of 100,000 shells per month would require American lawmakers to pass a Ukraine aid bill.

"The announced hike is entirely realistic, mainly because it has been steadily increasing its production over the last 18 months and the US military (USM) intends to continue that production growth for the next two years," Dr. Matthew Crosston, professor of national security and director of academic transformation at Bowie State University, told Sputnik.

"It seems obvious that the USM is estimating that the immediate conflict map for the United States is becoming more complicated, not less. Not only has the Ukraine war dragged on beyond any prediction, new events in the Middle East and specifically with Iran cause great concern in Washington DC. And, of course, hanging over all of that immediate conflict and potential immediate conflict is the likely future conflict involving China and Taiwan.

"So, when you realistically assess that the United States might end up involved in three simultaneous conflicts, old levels of munitions production are obviously going to be judged deficient," the professor continued.

To step up its production capacity, the army is pouring half a billion dollars into its Texas artillery plant with alleged new technology involved.

Nonetheless, Crosston doesn't believe that "there is some magical new technology that suddenly makes production 100% better." He suggested that the Pentagon should diversify and get more strategic corporate entities involved in its processes and projects to improve efficiency and reduce wasteful processes. "If that alone is taken seriously, then the increased production goals can be achieved. It is not so much about 'new technology' as much as 'new processes'," he explained.

The security expert went on to say that the planned increase in artillery shell output is quite realistic and won't require high-scale modernization. In any event, it won't be that daunting or intimidating for the US military, according to him.

Still, the Pentagon would need extra money from the US Congress to reach the goal of 100,000 shells per month, the professor admitted.

Meanwhile, the House Republicans have recently made it clear that the Senate's border security and foreign aid bill, which contains $60 billion for the Kiev regime and $14 billion for Israel, is a non-starter. Promising to nix the bill in the bud, House Speaker Mike Johnson, nonetheless announced an extended standalone package for Israel, while nothing of that kind was proposed for Ukraine. Earlier, some House members of the US conservative Freedom Caucus warned that they would oust Johnson should he try to ram a Ukraine aid package through the lower chamber.

"If this push is presented to Congress strictly as a 'Ukraine thing,' then I would expect the likelihood for success to be low," said Crosston, commenting on how the US Army may convince American lawmakers to allocate approximately $3.1 billion annually for ammunition purchases. "We will have to wait and see how agile and PR-deft the USM is with its presentations."

In case the US military manages to overcome these difficulties, they would be able to supply Ukraine with extra shells. However, one shouldn't delude oneself into believing that it would anyhow change the balance of forces on the battlefield, the security expert underscored.

"I suppose it can help Ukraine cope with its munition needs, but that is not the same thing as saying this measure will turn the tide in the Ukraine [conflict] and put Ukraine at a distinct advantage against the Russian Federation. I think the United States is slowly coming to terms with the reality that it is not going to be able to 'fully remotely' win a war by just shoveling weapons into another country but not really participating in the conflict actively," Crosston concluded.