The Realities of Peer to Peer Modern Warfare: Back to the Future

A Future That The West Is Incapable Of Fighting Within

The Lessons of Ukraine

In the past decades Western militaries, especially the US military, have been able to disappear into their own version of a technologic dystopian post-modernism after the disappearance of their peer competitor; the Soviet Union. Wars, including proxy wars, were fought against far inferior enemies and the Western militaries could celebrate one “victory” after another. Whether it be the breaking apart of Yugoslavia, the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, or the destruction of Libya. But even here there were markers of trouble for the hegemon, with the inability to subjugate the resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq, the quick destruction of the Western-trained and equipped Georgian army by Russia, and the inability of Saudi Arabia (and its Western backers) to subdue Yemen. Then there was also the utter failure of the Israeli army against the Hezbollah resistance in Lebanon in 2006, and the resolute survival of the Syrian nation in the face of a proxy war funded and supported by the West, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Israel.

But none of this got in the way of the technological utopian profiteering of the Western military industrial complexes (MIC), as they dreamt up more and more expensive toys which lead to less and less actual weapons. Fewer and fewer more expensive and more complex toys that were never tested in real battle, and even then many of them failed and were cancelled. All while the MICs were consolidated into lesser and lesser corporate players hell bent on maximizing profits at any expense, including extensive corruption (albeit partially of the legalized sort). And then especially from the 2010s with the adoption of DEI precepts lead to the flagrant ignoring of the reality of physical differences between male and female bodies, even in elite organizations. Who cares about delivering a well-equipped elite fighting force when profiteering and corporate imaging are at the core of the corporate objectives?

But this could only continue as long as a true peer competitor did not show its face, and instead of one the West got two; Russia and China. Together with the lesser but still very strong competitor Iran, especially for Israel. With the ongoing realities of Western aggression forcing these nations closer and closer together, and adding the heavily militarized North Koreans. Something that all these nations have shown is the ability to produce massive amounts of military hardware at very reasonable prices, while in the West the cost of expanding the production of even basic artillery shells has run into one issue after another while costs escalated from the expensive to the ridiculous. Even in supposed manufacturing powerhouse Germany.

What the conflict in Ukraine has shown is that the high tech toys, the wunderwaffe, of the West can be relatively quickly combated and that a relatively peer-to-peer conflict produces absolutely colossal amounts of materials usage and equipment loss. In the case of Ukraine, the vast amounts of Soviet-era equipment and munitions were destroyed and used up, then a wave of new arms and munitions sent by the West, then another wave of new arms and munitions sent by the West. With Western inventories, and even in many cases the equipment being used by their actual militaries, significantly depleted. While the West struggled to ramp up their corporate-profiteering and image conscious MIC, the Russian MIC rapidly ramped up production to massive levels and then even added the Iranian and North Korean MICs as suppliers. With China in the background rendering any attempts to restrict Russian access to critical components an utter failure. At the same time, Russia has also carried out a west to east logistics revolution which may very well further reduce the influence of the profiteering oligarchs that have been losing power since Putin came to power.

With respect to the sheer intensity of the Ukrainian conflict, which most probably has not been equalled since the Korean War of the 1950s, the testimony of many mercenaries who fought in recent Western wars before fighting in Ukraine is informative.

Western troops have never experienced a war where they did not have air supremacy, and overwhelming firepower supremacy. Drones add a new dimension, as all movement and positions can be surveilled. With a relatively static war, with a slow steady Russian mode of advance, artillery and guided bombs become a core determinant. Even here, the Russian ability to cheaply repurpose old “dumb” bombs with guidance kits has easily overwhelmed the Western supply of expensive purpose designed guided bombs and missiles; with even these Western wunderwaffe being heavily combatted through Russian GPS jamming and anti-missile defences. The overwhelming majority of losses are due to artillery shells and bombs, mirroring the faceless grim reaper of WW1 trench warfare.

The sheer scale of the Ukrainian losses, averaging 60,000 casualties a month as reported by the Russian military, equal to the equivalent of all serving soldiers in many Western countries; such as the United Kingdom. Even the much bigger French army would be wiped out in two months, and three months for the German military. The US military, eight months but in reality many of those troops would have to remain stationed in Asia etc., and the logistics of moving such a massive force during hostilities is highly questionable. In reality, Ukraine is being bled white as the only source of a major military that can fight Russia for any length of time; and that time is rapidly diminishing given the escalating scale of losses and the increasing resistance of the Ukrainian population to conscription. Turkey is the only other NATO nation with a large military, but it will never engage in a war with Russia. To add insult to injury, recent Western military exercises have shown very significant shortcomings in the readiness of especially European nations’ militaries. As was the case in the 1980s, any European war with Russia would rapidly escalate to the nuclear level as the Western militaries were rapidly depleted; and that was when the Western militaries were much larger and more ready for action.

The Lessons Of The Gaza Conflict

It is the same with the Israeli army that has not fought a “real” war since the early 1970s, and has instead become an army of occupation which is suffering significant casualties taking on the much less equipped Hamas while enjoying overwhelming air and artillery supremacy. It also suffered an unexpected bloody nose in its 2006 invasion of Lebanon. There are only 7 million Jews in Israel, half a million plus of which have already fled abroad and 1.5 million who generally refuse to fight on religious grounds; so more like the 18-40 age segment of 5 million Jews are available to fight. Among these of course there will be many reserved occupations required to keep the economy and society functioning, The population does have excellent demographics, as Jewish Israeli’s have an average of three children per woman, but the population of its neighbours and the occupied people’s has outgrown them.

Four and a half million Palestinians in the occupied territories, and an additional 2 million Arab Israelis. Then 5.5 million Lebanese, 22 million Syrians, 44.5 million Iraqis, 88.5 million Iranians, 11.3 million Jordanians, and 111 million Egyptians. Also, the Israelis live a pampered existence, aided by US subsidies and incoming Zionist immigrant wealth, while the Arabs that surround live much less wonderful lives; especially those in the occupied territories. This makes Israel much more casualty averse than the Arabs, especially the Palestinians and Hezbollah. Any major conflagration would then, as with Europe, threaten to escalate into a nuclear one as Israel becomes rapidly overwhelmed. It is now in a conundrum, as the Gazan genocide has lead to a slow economic strangulation and any further escalation would lead to disaster; while the population has become riled up into pure genocidal hatred.

A further problem for the Western militaries is that the access to cheap air and sea drone technologies, in many cases off the shelf electronic components from China, has rendered Western seaborne power relatively useless. As shown in the Red Sea where the massed ranks of the Western navies have been unable to stop the Yemenis from completely disrupting the sea traffic of nations facilitating Israel. Cheap drones have been used to rapidly deplete the arsenals of expensive missiles of Western ships, paving the way for very cost-effective surface to surface missiles. The Yemenis may in fact have even damaged Western military vessels, forcing a retreat. They have also become very good at shooting down the very expensive US surveillance and attack drones, as well as continuing to sink cargo ships.

The Israeli “Iron Dome” anti-missile defence system has also been shown to be significantly flawed as Iran overwhelmed it with drones and hit Iran with missiles in a limited show of force. Both Hezbollah and the Yemenis have also been successful in attacking Israel with drones.

The last blast may not have caused many casualties, but it helps remove the bubble within which the Zionist occupiers live in which they could lie to themselves that they were living in the equivalent of “Brooklyn By The Sea”. With such attacks, and a contracting economy, the viability of the Zionist dream fades away while there is no obvious resolution short of surrender to the reality of a multi-faith and ethnic future state or eventual annihilation. The most recent bombing of Yemen by Israeli aircraft can only lead to further escalation and increasing attacks upon Tel Aviv, removing any delusion of “Brooklyn By The Sea”.

The Challenge of The South China Sea

The Yemeni embarrassment of the Western navies would be but a small-scale rehearsal for what would happen to the US Navy if the US engaged in a war with China over Taiwan, with thousands of Chinese supersonic and hypersonic missiles launched against US vessels and bases while Chinese submarines hunted the same ships. With China, the workshop of the world, fighting from its own territory being able to easily out-logistic a US force supplied from easily destroyed bases in South Korea and Japan, and Hawaii and the US mainland. There would also be 80,000 plus US military personnel at risk in bases in South Korea and Japan for a nation highly casualty averse, with North Korea quite possibly entering the conflict. China is already far outstripping the US ability to produce ships, submarines, missiles, aircraft and drones as well as land based military equipment and munitions.

And the Chinese ships tend to work, unlike the expensive disasters that the US has produced. Such as the Zumwalt and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). Even when the US Navy learns its lessons and takes a proven French design (the FREMM), the first ship that was supposed to be delivered in 2024 is now delayed until 2029! The next generation DDGX destroyer (to replace the ageing and limited Arleigh Burke class destroyers) is not slated to be delivered until 2032.

With a ship building industry now overwhelmingly focused on building military vessels, US ship builders lack the discipline, efficiency and experience gained from building commercial ships; things the Chinese possess in spades. The US has only four public shipyards and seven private military ship builders to service the whole US fleet, modernize current ships and build new ones. China has twenty large shipyards, with some dwarfing their US equivalents, that produce both naval and commercial vessels; China has five of the ten biggest shipyards in the world, and none of the ten are in the US. In addition, with the run down of the US ship building industry and manufacturing in general, and the degradation of the teaching of relevant skills in US schools (e.g. wood and metalworking) and the lack of trade schools, the US ship building skilled workforce is rapidly ageing; causing significant skills shortages which will only get worse. Covered from 16 minutes and 30 seconds in the video below.

China already has the biggest navy in the world, designed to defend the South China Sea and the Chinese coastline as against the US global mission, and is regularly and reliably pumping out new ships like the powerful type 055 destroyer (which some consider to be a cruiser-class ship).

In addition, the US Navy would have to be very cognizant of the possibility of the Russian navy entering any such conflict.

The primary attack aircraft utilized by the US airforce and navy, the F35, has many, many issues including the urgent need of a new engine, as Force Index notes:

A new engine for the F-35 is considered an urgent priority for multiple reasons, among them the aircraft’s perceived wholly insufficient range and flight performance for operations over the Pacific. The only closely competing fifth generation fighter, the Chinese J-20, has over double the range and overwhelming superiority in all aspects of its flight performance, with its thrust/weight ratio set to be further improved through integration of the WS-15 engine. Perhaps more pressingly still, the F35 is already working at over double its intended cooling capacity at 30 kilowatts, where it was designed to provide just 15, forcing it to pull more bleed air from the engine to run through heat exchangers. This is set to become totally unfeasible as the upcoming Block 4 upgrade for F-35s across the fleet will raise requirements to 47 kilowatts or more. If not addressed, this cooling deficit is expected to cause $38 billion of additional costs for the Pentagon over the F-35’s lifetime, including greater maintenance needs and a much faster wearing out of the engines. 

So the F35s main Chinese equivalent J-20 has “double the range and overwhelming superiority in all aspects of its flight performance”, advantages to soon be further enhanced. The current F35 engine will also be unable to adequately provide cooling for the upcoming Block 4 upgrade, leading to higher maintenance and reduced engine life! The new engine will not be implemented in the F35 fleet until about 2030 (planned), so that provides another six years for China to build up its strength. The J-20 also carries air to air missiles with a longer range than the US ones, with the planned US equivalent being delayed by years and having no announced delivery date.

The US military currently has about 630 F35s while China has about 250 J-20s, but most of the F35s are the “A” variant utilized by the US air force (requiring easily interdicted landing strips in nations that may not be willing to become part of a war with China; such as South Korea, Japan, India and the ASEAN nations); a total of 1,763 are planned to be operated by the USAF by 2044. The US marines currently have over 100 F35B (the vertical takeoff capable variant) and F35C (the carrier variant); increasing at a rate of 20 a year to a final total of 353 F35B and 67 F35C in 2044. The US Navy plans to have a total of 273 F35C (carrier) variants by 2044, but is very early on in their procurement and operationalization with less than 50 in service. Total production of F35s is 156 per year, which also has to supply US vassal militaries, hence the slow build up. China currently produces about 50 J-20s a year.

But lets remember that an attacker (the US) usually needs a significant numeric superiority and that not all those 630 will be available in the South China Sea, for example a good number will be in Europe facing the Russian air force, while pretty much all of the Chinese J-20s will be in theatre. There are also extensive issues and delays with the TR-3 hardware and software upgrade for the F35 that have left many of those 630 delivered aircraft not capable of active duty. In addition, a number of the US aircraft carriers are undergoing maintenance at any given time. So we end up with a much more limited F35 force, some possibly flying from highly exposed air bases and the rest from highly exposed (to submarine, surface to surface missile and air attack) aircraft carriers. In addition, not all the F35s on a carrier can be used in an attack, as some have to reman to protect the carrier. Plus the F35s would be attrited by Chinese sea and land-based anti-aircraft defences.

To make matters worse, the F35 is known as a maintenance queen - requiring significantly more maintenance per flight hour than an aircraft such as the J-20, for example:

• DOD's planned use of the F-35 and its availability have decreased. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps project they will fly the F-35 less than originally estimated on an annual basis. The F-35 fleet's overall availability has trended downward considerably over the past 5 years, and none of the variants of the aircraft (i.e., the F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C) are meeting availability goals.

Together with shortages of spare parts etc., this means that many of the F35s spend significant periods as “hangar queens” and even when well functioning require 5 man hours (the A variant) and 7.5 man hours (the B and C variants) of maintenance for every one hour of flying time. Then there is also the problem of the F35B and F35C variants suffering damage if flown at supersonic speeds for any length of time, so they become sub-sonic attack aircraft! Altogether, China currently has 1,900 fighter jets, of which 1,300 are fourth or fifth generation. The remainder of the US Navy and Marine fighter aircraft are the fourth generation F/A-18 Super Hornets (421 and 76 on order), first introduced in 1995 with production ending in 2027; which are about equivalent to the SU27 and SU30. The remainder of US air force fighter aircraft include about 300 of the fourth generation F15 first introduced in 1976 (supposed to be replaced by the F22 before its planned numbers were radically reduced) which is the equivalent of the Chinese SU27/J-11, J16 and SU30 of which China has 1064. So 1064 SU27/J16/SU30 vs 721 (and 76 on order) F/A-18s and F15s.

Then in addition, there are 850 of the fourth generation F16 first introduced in 1976 (equivalent to the Chinese J-10 which are of about the same in number). And finally about 120 of the fifth-generation F22 first introduced in 2005. The F22 suffers from high operational costs and maintenance challenges, as well as being too costly to modernize. With one third of the fleet allocated to training that only leaves a total of 80 on active service. The Chinese have 42 SU35s that are superior to the F22.

The fourth generation US aircraft may be open to a very high rate of attrition by Chinese (and possibly Russian) air defence systems, with no possibility of replacement given that their production has to all intents and purposes ceased. The F16 was designed as a cost effective somewhat limited jet, so may be less capable of surviving in the dense anti-aircraft zones that it will be attacking than the F15, F18 and F22.

The whole global fleet of US fighter jets is about equal in number and capability to that of China; while the former will only have access to a portion of the total due to its global responsibilities, the latter will have access to all of its aircraft. In addition, the former will be flying from a limited set of at risk air bases and carriers while braving Chinese air defences, while the latter will be flying from the Chinese homeland in a defensive capacity. Simple attrition would be on the side of the Chinese, and quite possibly the Russians (who have 912 fighter jets and the world’s most advanced anti-aircraft systems) if the US moves aircraft from one theatre to another. The Chinese will also be able to rebuild losses and replace used munitions much more quickly given the sheer scale of their manufacturing capabilities, which is multiples of that of a Russia which is outproducing the Western MICs, together with their short supply lines.

The US airforce also have a limited number of long-range bombers such as 76 of the aged B52, first introduced in 1971, 45 of the B1-B that was first introduced in 1986, 20 of the B-2A first introduced in 1997, and one of the new B-21. Given the small numbers available and lack of new production apart for the B-21 (10 per year), together with the lethality of Chinese air defence systems (and quite possibly Russian and North Korean), their use would have to be sparing at best. The B52 can only act as a stand-off weapon carrying 20 AGM 86 or 12 AGM 129 sub-sonic (i.e. able to be shot down by mainstream air defences) cruise missiles with a range of up to 2,400km and 3,700km respectively; otherwise it would be a suicide mission. Chinese missiles can easily reach as far as the US air bases on Guam and the Solomon and Mariana islands.

Modern Warfare Requires Mass Manufacturing & Produces Mass Casualties

Whether it be artillery shells, missiles, drones, armoured vehicles, electronic warfare complexes, aircraft, ships etc., modern peer to peer warfare requires colossal levels of supplies and replacements for attrited systems at reasonable cost. The Russians, Iranian, North Koreans and Chinese have displayed their ability to meet this challenge. The US and UK MICs, focused on profiteering above all else and operating within heavily de-industrialized economies has not shown any such capability. Neither have the European nations, an example is the French CEASAR self-propelled howitzer that can be produced at a rate of 12 per month while Russia is destroying 900-1200 pieces of Ukrainian artillery per month. Lucas Leiroz sums up the realities of the US MIC with respect to the Russian MIC, although I would put more emphasis on the oligopolistic, profiteering and corrupt nature of the major US MIC corporations:

What was once a tightly controlled network of state and private agents connected within the framework of the so-called “military-industrial complex” has then become a decentralized market of technological startups controlled, not by military engineers experienced in combat situations, but by young investors from the Silicon Valley. The mentality of hyper-valuing technological modernization – which seems consistent with the ambitions of a country whose “wars” were against primitive guerrillas in the desert – led the American military industry to become a kind of university “science fair”.

An arsenal of high-tech products was then created, all of them being extremely expensive and unreliable for field situations. The choice for the “most advanced” and the most expensive guided the Pentagon’s weapons purchasing policy during the unipolar era, which explains how a country that spends trillions of dollars on defense can be losing a proxy war against an emerging nation that it is only mobilizing 15% of its military apparatus.

On the other side of the world, the Russians never adhered to the belief that military equipment should have its quality associated with the level of technology. The neoliberal mentality has had little space in Russia – at least since the rise of Vladimir Putin – and has not been strong enough to infiltrate the defense decision-making process. For the Russians, manufacturing weapons has a single purpose: to provide troops with safe, efficient and lethal equipment, regardless of the technological level or the price of the final product.

This does not mean that the Russians stopped investing in technology in the defense sector. On the contrary, Moscow today has, without a doubt, the most sophisticated military technology in the world. However, contrary to the American mentality, the Russians submit technology to tactical-operational purposes. A technologically advanced weapon is only interesting if its combat power benefits from the technological progress. There is no point, for a Russian, in having a drone with an advanced geolocation system and high recognition and launch capabilities, if this same drone can be hit down with a stone.

The confrontation between the two defense industry mentalities is definitely happening in the current conflict. American weapons are being tested for the first time in a real war situation – no longer in massacres against guerrillas in poor countries in the Middle East and Africa. And the Western fiasco is clear to the world.

Above all, the special military operation is a call to reality. Russia is teaching the U.S. how to make war. After years worrying about woke agenda and financial capitalism, the Yankees forgot basic military principles – and now there is no way to remember them in time to preserve U.S. hegemony.

There is also the extensive reliance of Western MICs on Chinese-produced components, which will not be removed for many years; with each year increasing China’s advantage over the West.

The rate of Ukrainian casualties, currently at least 60,000 per month, are of a scale that Western nations could not politically sustain; even the images of sinking aircraft carrier groups would cause consternation at home. This is why Ukraine is being used as a proxy, fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian. A war with China could be at an even higher intensity than that of Ukraine, as US and allied military concentrations in South Korea and Japan are targeted with massed artillery, drone and missile attacks. Taiwan has a population of only 26 million people, and is only 100 miles off the Chinese coast. Any US attempt to defend it would be suicidal, as the US Navy would have to approach the Chinese coast close enough to expose itself to the whole arsenal of Chinese aircraft, missiles and submarines. The Pentagon’s war games have shown for years that the US military would lose a conflict over Taiwan, with the scale of loss becoming greater as the years have passed; even with the Pentagon possibly using optimistic assumptions.

There is also the question of the readiness of both South Korea and Japan to risk their shrinking working age populations in a war with China, let alone their general populations, and the Philippines readiness to allow US planes to attack China from its territory.

In Europe (Ukraine), the Middle East and the South China Sea, the West is checkmated through the nature of peer to peer modern warfare and their inability to match the production capabilities of their opponents and to accept the massive scale of casualties that would be produced. With respect to the South China Sea, the incredibly lengthy logistics of the West would also provide additional problems. The only outcome of any such conflict would be escalation toward nuclear war, so it is good that China still seeks a long-term peaceful reintegration of Taiwan into China (unless the Taiwanese government officially claims independence in the interim). Even if China loses patience a few years from now and invades Taiwan it is hard to envision a US doing anything other than attempting to support Taiwan while not triggering a wider war with China, very much like the current Ukraine proxy war. China has 1.4 billion people to Taiwan’s 26 million, and as an island Taiwan can be easily cut off from Western supplies and other support; it imports the vast majority of its food. Any Chinese invasion may very well end up as a fair accompli that the West has to accept, perhaps with performative attempts at sanctions to “punish” China.

The biggest risk of a large-scale conflagration may then be that of a desperate Israel, backed by any of the heavily Zionist-supporting leading candidates for the US presidency. Hopefully, the US president will think of US interests more than Zionist ones and give Israel’s chain a good yank; as Reagan did successfully in the 1980s. The US would rapidly find itself facing off against Iran, Russia, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and possibly even Turkey, and much of the Arab world. The bloody nose that the US Navy got from the Yemenis should be a lesson to be remembered and learnt from.