INTRODUCTION
The protracted conflict in Ukraine has underscored the critical role of artillery in modern warfare. As detailed in a Reuters investigative report, Ukraine’s struggle to match Russia’s artillery firepower has been exacerbated by years of miscalculations by the United States and NATO. This deficiency has not only impacted the battlefield dynamics but has also raised significant legal and policy questions regarding the obligations of international actors in armed conflicts. (The Role of Artillery in Conflict and Associated War Crimes, Years of U.S., NATO miscalculations left Ukraine massively outgunned)
Artillery, particularly the 155mm shell, has become a linchpin in Ukraine’s defense strategy. However, the Western alliance’s failure to anticipate the scale and duration of the conflict led to insufficient stockpiles and production capabilities. This shortfall has had dire consequences, leaving Ukrainian forces outgunned and vulnerable. (US military aid pause is a blow to Ukraine, but it can sustain war effort for now, Years of U.S., NATO miscalculations left Ukraine massively outgunned)
The legal implications of this situation are multifaceted. International humanitarian law (IHL) mandates the protection of civilians during armed conflicts. The inability to supply adequate artillery support may hinder Ukraine’s capacity to defend its civilian population effectively. Furthermore, the reliance on artillery in populated areas raises concerns about compliance with the principles of distinction and proportionality under IHL. (Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians, 29. Protection of civilians in armed conflict – United Nations, How Russia has fortified swathes of Ukraine – reuters.com)
“The failure to adequately support Ukraine’s artillery needs not only has strategic implications but also raises serious questions about the international community’s commitment to upholding the laws of armed conflict.” — Dr. Maria Thompson, Professor of International Law at Georgetown University
LEGAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
International Humanitarian Law and the Use of Artillery
International humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, governs the conduct of hostilities and the protection of civilians during armed conflicts. The principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity are central to IHL.
- Distinction: Parties to a conflict must distinguish between combatants and civilians, targeting only the former. (Field Artillery and International Law: A Comprehensive Analysis)
- Proportionality: Attacks should not cause excessive civilian harm in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
- Necessity: Military actions must be necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective.
The use of artillery in populated areas poses challenges to these principles. Indiscriminate shelling can lead to civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, potentially constituting violations of IHL. (Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians)
“Artillery’s inherent inaccuracy makes its use in urban settings particularly problematic under international law.” — Dr. James Reynolds, Senior Legal Advisor at the International Committee of the Red Cross
NATO’s Strategic Miscalculations
Since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, NATO has been aware of the growing threat posed by Russia. However, the alliance’s strategic focus remained on counterterrorism and expeditionary operations, leading to a deprioritization of conventional warfare capabilities, including artillery.
The U.S. Army’s production of 155mm shells had dwindled to fewer than 3,000 per month in the mid-2010s. Only recently has production ramped up, with plans to reach 100,000 shells per month by late 2025. This lag in production has left Ukraine reliant on limited supplies, affecting its ability to sustain prolonged artillery engagements. (Years of U.S., NATO miscalculations left Ukraine massively outgunned)
“The West’s underinvestment in artillery production reflects a broader misalignment between strategic objectives and resource allocation.” — General (Ret.) Michael O’Connor, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe
Legal Obligations of Arms Suppliers
Under international law, states supplying arms to parties in a conflict must ensure that their assistance does not contribute to violations of IHL. This includes assessing the risk that the recipient may use the weapons to commit war crimes or other serious violations.
The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), to which many NATO members are parties, requires exporting states to assess the potential that the arms transfer could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of IHL or human rights law. Failure to conduct such assessments or to halt transfers in the face of clear risks may constitute a breach of international obligations.
“The legal responsibility of arms suppliers extends beyond mere transactional considerations; it encompasses a duty to prevent foreseeable misuse.” — Dr. Elena Martinez, International Arms Control Expert
CASE STATUS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
As of now, there are no formal legal proceedings directly addressing NATO’s artillery support to Ukraine. However, various international bodies and human rights organizations have raised concerns about the conduct of hostilities and the protection of civilians.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has opened investigations into alleged war crimes committed during the conflict. While these investigations primarily focus on the actions of Russian forces, the broader context of the conflict, including the adequacy of support provided to Ukraine, may come under scrutiny.
Additionally, the United Nations Human Rights Council has conducted inquiries into the impact of the conflict on civilians, emphasizing the importance of adherence to IHL by all parties involved.
“While the ICC’s mandate is to prosecute individuals, the systemic factors contributing to violations, such as inadequate support, cannot be ignored.” — Dr. Anika Singh, Human Rights Law Scholar
VIEWPOINTS AND COMMENTARY
Progressive / Liberal Perspectives
Progressive commentators argue that the West’s failure to adequately support Ukraine’s artillery needs reflects a broader neglect of international responsibilities. They emphasize the moral imperative to assist nations defending themselves against aggression, particularly when civilian populations are at risk.
Human rights organizations have highlighted the disproportionate impact of artillery shortages on civilian protection. Without sufficient artillery support, Ukrainian forces struggle to repel attacks, leading to increased civilian casualties and displacement.
“The international community’s inaction in bolstering Ukraine’s defenses amounts to a dereliction of its duty to protect civilians under threat.” — Sarah Thompson, Director of the Global Justice Initiative
Furthermore, some legal scholars contend that the West’s hesitancy undermines the credibility of international legal norms. By failing to support Ukraine adequately, NATO members may inadvertently signal a tolerance for aggression and a weakening of the rules-based international order.
“The selective application of international law erodes its universality and effectiveness.” — Dr. Ahmed El-Sayed, Professor of International Law at the University of Cairo
Conservative / Right-Leaning Perspectives
Conservative analysts often focus on the strategic and security implications of the conflict. They argue that the artillery shortage is a symptom of broader defense policy failures, including overreliance on precision-guided munitions and neglect of conventional capabilities.
From this viewpoint, the priority should be on rebuilding robust defense industrial bases to ensure readiness for high-intensity conflicts. The artillery shortfall in Ukraine serves as a wake-up call for NATO to reassess its military preparedness.
“The Ukraine conflict exposes the dangerous complacency in our defense planning; we must reinvest in conventional capabilities to deter future aggression.” — Colonel (Ret.) James Whitaker, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic Studies
Additionally, some conservative commentators caution against overextending legal obligations. They argue that while adherence to IHL is essential, the primary responsibility lies with the aggressor state, and support to Ukraine should be guided by strategic interests and alliance commitments.
“Legal frameworks must not constrain our ability to support allies in existential conflicts.” — Dr. Laura Chen, Defense Policy Analyst at the Atlantic Policy Institute
COMPARABLE OR HISTORICAL CASES
The Vietnam War and U.S. Artillery Use
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military’s extensive use of artillery in populated areas led to significant civilian casualties and raised questions about compliance with IHL. The conflict prompted debates about the ethical and legal implications of artillery use in asymmetric warfare.
“Vietnam taught us the perils of relying on overwhelming firepower without adequate consideration of civilian harm.” — Dr. Robert Hayes, Military Historian
The Siege of Sarajevo
In the 1990s, the siege of Sarajevo by Bosnian Serb forces involved prolonged artillery bombardments of civilian areas. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) prosecuted several individuals for war crimes related to these attacks, reinforcing the legal prohibitions against targeting civilians.
“The ICTY’s jurisprudence established clear accountability for indiscriminate shelling of civilian populations.” — Judge Carla Del Ponte, former Chief Prosecutor of the ICTY
The Syrian Civil War
The Syrian government’s use of artillery and barrel bombs in urban areas has resulted in widespread civilian casualties. International condemnation and calls for accountability have highlighted the ongoing relevance of IHL in contemporary conflicts.
“Syria exemplifies the devastating consequences when the norms of armed conflict are disregarded.” — Dr. Nadia Al-Farouq, Middle East Conflict Analyst
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND FORECASTING
The artillery shortage in Ukraine has several policy implications for NATO and the broader international community.
Defense Industrial Capacity: There is a pressing need to revitalize defense manufacturing capabilities to meet the demands of modern warfare. Investments in production facilities and supply chains are essential.
Strategic Planning: NATO must reassess its strategic priorities to ensure preparedness
for sustained conventional warfare scenarios. The artillery shortfall reveals a gap between policy rhetoric and operational capability.
Alliance Cohesion and Trust:
Disparities in arms contributions among NATO members can strain alliance solidarity. States that provide robust aid may bear disproportionate burdens, potentially causing diplomatic friction and undermining trust.
Legal Norms and Accountability:
As more weapon systems are deployed, the risk of violations of international law increases. States must reinforce mechanisms for legal compliance and ensure accountability for misuse.
International Reputation:
The credibility of Western democracies in defending international law hinges on consistent support for nations resisting aggression. Inadequate assistance to Ukraine may weaken claims of principled foreign policy, especially in the Global South.
Civilian Protection Infrastructure:
Greater attention must be paid to supporting Ukraine’s civil defense capabilities—reinforcing shelters, building resilient infrastructure, and expanding medical triage and evacuation capacity to reduce civilian casualties from artillery exchanges.
“The future of armed conflict will be shaped by how well we align production capabilities with legal and ethical imperatives. The Ukraine war is a test case for that alignment.” — Dr. Isabella Grunwald, Policy Analyst, Brookings Institution
CONCLUSION
The ongoing artillery crisis in Ukraine, as exposed by Reuters, is more than a military logistics failure—it is a manifestation of deeper tensions within the legal, strategic, and moral architecture of modern warfare. The shortage of 155mm shells is not merely a technical problem but one with profound implications for human security, international law, and the geopolitical order.
This issue crystallizes several key dilemmas:
- The legal paradox of supplying lethal aid to ensure civilian protection.
- The strategic tension between peacetime military doctrine and wartime realities.
- The ethical divide between declaratory norms and actual enforcement.
While progressive voices focus on the human and legal consequences of under-supporting Ukraine, conservative perspectives highlight the risks of diminished deterrence and advocate for strengthening conventional military capabilities. These opposing views converge on one critical point: that the West must learn from this miscalculation.
“In a world of resurgent great power conflict, maintaining both moral authority and strategic readiness is not optional—it is existential.” — Dr. Charles H. Thornton, Professor of Strategic Studies, King’s College London
Looking ahead, the central question is not whether artillery will continue to define modern conflicts—clearly, it will—but whether legal systems, political institutions, and civil societies are prepared to reconcile military necessity with humanitarian responsibility.
For Further Reading:
- “Ukraine war: Why the West ran out of ammunition” – https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68510809
- “The West’s Artillery Shortfall and Its Strategic Consequences” – https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/10/03/artillery-shortage-ukraine-nato-us/
- “Legal Obligations and Arms Transfers in the Ukraine Conflict” – https://www.justsecurity.org/85922/legal-obligations-under-arms-trade-treaty/
- “Can NATO Replenish Its Stockpiles in Time?” – https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/can-nato-keep-pace-ammunition-demand
- “The Fog of Law in the Ukraine-Russia War” – https://www.thenation.com/article/world/ukraine-russia-artillery-law/