Short term has been a quiet large scale up and modernisation of ammunition supply chains across the western world. There’s been a significant investment announced in NATO air defences.
Medium term there’s a large investment in French, German, Korean and US produced artillery, tanks, MLRS and IFVs. The F-35 and F-16 will be sold into more nations, along with the support and ammunition that all these require.
Stuff that hasn’t been announced are drone defence and attack capabilities, amongst other things. There’s going to be a whole range of stuff that is learnt from this conflict. One of which is how not standardised NATO standard actually is. There will be a big push for similar platforms across the alliance.
The first change will be in munitions and guided weapons. Production of existing types will be scaled up or restarted, to rebuild inventories and supply Ukraine operations. There are signs this is happening already.
Second will be refurbishment of existing platforms, which have been retired and stored. Think the Bushmaster and M113 Australia has sent (the former ex Afghanistan and replaced with upgraded models, the latter just due for retirement). Also supply of Abhrams tanks to Poland or Ukraine. These will be taken from bone yards in the US, refurbished to whichever standard, and delivered. All of this reduces the stock of donor vehicles for future programs to the larger western militaries.
Stage 3 is when, for example, US wants a new tank, as their is no longer a ready supply of old but suitable as a donor upgrade tanks in storage, so they will have to build new rather than rebuild.
A trickle-down of technology, and a slow trickle up of shiny new toys for the big boys.
And the western arms manufacturers are undoubtedly the winners.
I don’t think armies assemble at borders by accident. On the (rare) occasions when a subsequent war appears to have started as an “accidental” result of some low level incident the fundamental reason for the war is the reason that caused the armies to assemble (even in the even more rare case when the “accident” was not just a deliberate pretext).
I think @FuriousGeorge includes the most relevant factor behind armies assembling at Polish/Belarus border:
Belarus regime has succeeded in staying out of the war so far despite having openly provided launching point for Ruscist attack on Kyiv.
It has consequently delayed the internal upheaval expected at the start.
If there is eventually an internal revolt I can imagine circumstances in which Poland, Lithuania and Latvia recognized the Belarus government in exile and assisted it in expelling the Russian garrison and Lukashenko regime, without any decision by NATO.
The Russian garrison would be the main force defending the regime - especially by blocking the Belarus armed forces they are now “combined” with from accepting a democratic government.
I don’t see that happening unless Russicsts are able to complete mobilization and mount another offensive on Kyiv, dragging in Belarus.
But that is possible, and anything possible should be prepared for.
Part of preparing for it is NOT describing Baltics assistance to democratic revolution in Belarus as Poland itching for war with Belarus.
I haven’t been following this issue. My impression was that training facilities in Russia are overwhelmed by mobilization so mobniks are being sent to Belarus for training. Doesn’t follow that they would be used from Belarus. I just assumed will be needed in Donbas and south before any possibility of opening up a third front. Air support can move anywhere.
OTOH a lot of attention is being focussed on how near the 101st airborne is to Odessa and Snake Island. Worth noting that they are also near Lvov.
They got obliterated by a single Caesar howitzer that Ukraine barged out to the closest coastal island. It lobbed base bleed extended range shells into the island until they gave up. Can’t hold an island against mainland artillery.
NATO surveillance aircraft can keep a very close eye on the Lviv area. Imagine an eye in the sky radioing live targeting info to a couple of Ukrainian HIMARS units. Each assault convoy would be obliterated before they laid eyes on the Ukrainian defenders.
It is a battlefield that is perfectly advantageous to the Ukrainian defenders.
Whatever…I’m not sure of the relevance but you knock yourself out if you really believe it was some sort of biased political point @bigallan big was making.
(A point that several ensuing posters also pointed out)
BTW like everyone else I believed the invasion of Iraq was held up because the 4th Infantry Division had been scheduled to arrive from Turkey and had to go all the way around Africa to join the forces invading from the south so they were waiting for it to arrive before invading.
In fact airborne assault troops accompanied Kurdish capture of Mosul from the North, long before 4th ID arrived. Roughly same time as Australian special forces, seizing missile bases just before the final ultimatum expired.
So despite no inclination to overestimate US military I would never underestimate their skills at being able to achieve tactical surprise by Military Deception and airborne assault troops together with allies, despite a strategic situation in which nobody could be surprised by an invasion announced months in advance.
It could be less about protecting NATO’s southern flank in the Black Sea than NATO positioning in Romania , with its land border to Ukraine and as a contiguous Black Sea maritime State.
The RAF has bases in Romania which are used to patrol the air corridor to Poland and, if necessary, to airfreight supplies of weaponry via Romania in the event that UA western land borders are affected.
It can also be used to guard shipping transiting through Romania’s maritime waters to Ukraine’s ports, as well as in international air space in the Black Sea.
The siting of the US 101st parachute division in Romania just south of the UA border is an added deterrent to any Russian attempts to launch naval attacks from Sevastopol base in Crimea.
To be fair, obviously the US military-Industrial complex is a big winner from this war but not the only one. German, French, Spanish, Czech, Polish, Korean and even the Australian Arms Industries are also winners. Eastern European NATO members are upgrading their military capabilities, some very dramatically. The big loser is russia - if there has been at least one benefit from this terrible war, at least the huge stockpile of Soviet weaponry they were sitting on has been depleted (sans the nuclear stockpile) to the extent so that when and if the next fascist neo-Tzar came to power there post-Putin, they would be in command of a dramatically curtailed military power. (1) These military material losses coupled with the severe degradation of its economic and industrial base due to manpower losses, emigration, international sanctions and other factors combined, should prevent them from being a major (non-nuclear) threat for at least the next 50 years. With their exit from the ISS and deep cuts to Roscosmos, even their time as a leading space power is over…
