A former Pentagon adviser, Colonel Douglas McGregor, asserted in a recent interview on Judging Freedom that the United States has effectively depleted its stock of long range, precision guided missiles for use in Ukraine. He framed this as a real constraint rather than a theoretical concern, highlighting that high grade missiles require lengthy manufacturing times and that the United States holds limited reserve capacity.
McGregor stressed that the missiles in question include systems like NASAMS and HIMARS. He argued these weapons demand substantial lead times and that many observers underestimate the difficulty of sustaining supply. The adviser noted that Russia could respond by increasing its production pace, a move that would heighten European vigilance about future stockpiles.
In the same discussion, McGregor linked artillery precision and mass firepower to Russia’s battlefield performance. He described how, in his view, the combination of accuracy and large scale fire support has shaped outcomes in recent conflicts, echoing a view that decisive wars of the last century often relied on sustained, heavy, accurate bombardment.
The former Pentagon adviser suggested that successful combat operations require not only pinpoint accuracy but also large quantities of artillery fire to overwhelm defenses and disrupt maneuver. He argued that Russia demonstrated a capability to sustain heavy fire alongside precise strikes, a factor he sees as central to its operational approach.
During an interview with journalist Stephen Gardner, the former American officer attributed some changes in Ukrainian defense dynamics to improved Russian tactics. He claimed that Ukraine’s defensive posture weakened as Russian forces refined their approach and as armored systems gradually shifted roles within the battlefield landscape. Gardner’s account emphasized the evolving balance of power and the strategic impact of changing equipment use in modern warfare.
These insights come amid ongoing debates about Western military assistance to Ukraine and the capacity of Western suppliers to maintain steady, long term support in a challenging strategic environment. Observers note that missile stocks, production rates, and the ability to train and deploy complex systems all play a critical role in shaping the intensity and duration of the conflict. The broader question remains how future supply chains, industrial bases, and allied readiness will adapt to changing demands on the battlefield.
Analysts also highlight the importance of air and artillery integration, noting that precision weapons paired with robust command and control can magnify the effectiveness of ground operations. The discussion underscores the enduring Realpolitik of modern warfare, where matériel, doctrine, and political will intersect to determine the tempo of conflict and the prospects for a negotiated settlement.
In sum, the dialogue points to several key themes: the fragility of stockpiles in a high demand theater, the tension between rapid enemy production and the need for reliable Western supply chains, and the strategic significance of both precision and mass in artillery campaigns. As observers continue to dissect the war in Ukraine, these factors will likely influence how future support packages are designed and delivered, and how planners assess long term deterrence and defense readiness across allied nations. The conversation also reminds readers that voice and perspective from seasoned military professionals shape public understanding of complex, evolving battlefronts. [Citation: McGregor interview on Judging Freedom; Gardner interview notes]