Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Ken]

The Ukrainians do have a dark Biblical sense of humor

[RZehr]

So my comment was not about the current war. It was about measuring military power as it relates to GDP.
I’m suggesting that when the USA spends $1,000,000 on a weapon, the next country could spend only $300,000 for a similar weapon. And if they buy three of these weapons for $900,000 they might actually have the upper hand by virtue of 3:1 in weapons, even though they spent less money.
And we could compare capabilities of the weapon, and the corruption such as yachts vs. Raytheon profit margin.

I as the American consumers have proven for decades now, in terms of economy, we accept Chinese quality at their prices over American quality over American prices. Why? Because even if American is better, the best bang for the buck is often Chinese. Correspondingly, the biggest bangs for the military buck is probably not American made either.

And military payroll is another place the USA pays more.

That’s why just looking at GDP and military spending is probably a poor way of measure war fighting power.

https://voxeu.org/article/why-military- ... ty-matters

[Ken]

So my comment was not about the current war. It was about measuring military power as it relates to GDP.
I’m suggesting that when the USA spends $1,000,000 on a weapon, the next country could spend only $300,000 for a similar weapon. And if they buy three of these weapons for $900,000 they might actually have the upper hand by virtue of 3:1 in weapons, even though they spent less money.
And we could compare capabilities of the weapon, and the corruption such as yachts vs. Raytheon profit margin.

I as the American consumers have proven for decades now, in terms of economy, we accept Chinese quality at their prices over American quality over American prices. Why? Because even if American is better, the best bang for the buck is often Chinese. Correspondingly, the biggest bangs for the military buck is probably not American made either.

And military payroll is another place the USA pays more.

That’s why just looking at GDP and military spending is probably a poor way of measure war fighting power.

Gotcha.

I think though, that the more important point is that Russia (and any other warring nation) has to actually produce the supplies they use to fight their wars (or buy them on the open market). So it doesn't really matter what salary you might pay to a Russian machinist in a tank or aircraft factory. They still have to obtain the steel, rubber, electronics, machine tools, and so forth to build the thing. And then they have to build and maintain the infrastructure to transport, store, and maintain it and the supply of spare parts to keep it running. All of that costs actual hard resources that then can't be spent on civilian uses. The Russians aren't fighting a guerilla war like the Taliban did where they live in caves and strike out from their homes in hit-and-run ambushes. They are fighting a conventional war across many broad fronts that seems to be eating up men and equipment at a tremendous rate.

What this war seems to be showing is that heavy mechanized armor may be obsolete in the 21st Century. It was proven obsolete in Iraq by US air power which could target and eliminate Iraqi armor wherever it congregated. And now in Ukraine it seems to be made further obsolete by cheap precision-fired shoulder weapons and drones. The Russians seem geared up to fight the last war not the next one. Ukrainian foot soldiers can reach out and destroy armored columns with precision-guided weapons like the Javelin which has an effective firing range of almost 3 miles. Whereas Russian foot soldiers with automatic rifles have to close to perhaps 100 meters or even closer to engage and defend. That is a huge mismatch. The Ukrainians can "shoot and scoot" long before Russian troops can ever get close to them. Russia doesn't have remotely enough troops to fan out and defend its hundreds of miles of supply lines out beyond 3 miles on either side.

[Falco Underhill]

The Two Blunders That Caused the Ukraine War

The Russian invasion of Ukraine resulted from two immense strategic blunders, Robert Service says. The first came on Nov. 10, when the U.S. and Ukraine signed a Charter on Strategic Partnership, which asserted America’s support for Kyiv’s right to pursue membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The pact made it likelier than ever that Ukraine would eventually join NATO—an intolerable prospect for Vladimir Putin. “It was the last straw,” Mr. Service says. Preparations immediately began for Russia’s so-called special military operation in Ukraine.

The Wall Street Journal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cause-ukra ... ory-commun

[Ken]

The Two Blunders That Caused the Ukraine War

Your link leads to a dead-end. This is the correct link. The story is from March 4: https://www.wsj.com/articles/cause-ukra ... 1646413200

And you didn't quote the second blunder cited in the article

The second strategic error was Mr. Putin’s underestimation of his rivals. “He despises the West and what he sees as Western decadence,” Mr. Service says. “He had come to believe that the West was a shambles, both politically and culturally.” He also thought that the leaders of the West were “of poor quality, and inexperienced, in comparison with himself. After all, he’s been in power 20 years.”

In Mr. Putin’s cocksure reckoning, the invasion was going to be “a pushover—not just in regard to Ukraine, but in regard to the West.” He’d spent four years “running rings around Donald Trump, ” and he thought the retirement of German Chancellor Angela Merkel left the West rudderless. That set the scene for the “surprise he got when he invaded Ukraine, when he found that he’d inadvertently united the West—that what he’d done was the very opposite of what he wanted.” Mr. Service calls Mr. Putin “reckless and mediocre” and scoffs at the notion that he is “some sort of genius.” What kind of Russian leader, he asks, “makes it impossible for a German leader not to build up Germany’s armaments”?

[Falco Underhill]

And you didn't quote the second blunder cited in the article.

The second strategic error was Mr. Putin’s underestimation of his rivals. “He despises the West and what he sees as Western decadence,” Mr. Service says. “He had come to believe that the West was a shambles, both politically and culturally.” He also thought that the leaders of the West were “of poor quality, and inexperienced, in comparison with himself. After all, he’s been in power 20 years.”

My guess is that might an be a somewhat accurate description of Putin's assement of American foreign policy "experts" though I disagree that Putin underestimated them.

The rest seems to me all bluster and sarcasm.

In Mr. Putin’s cocksure reckoning, the invasion was going to be “a pushover—not just in regard to Ukraine, but in regard to the West.” He’d spent four years “running rings around Donald Trump, ” and he thought the retirement of German Chancellor Angela Merkel left the West rudderless. That set the scene for the “surprise he got when he invaded Ukraine, when he found that he’d inadvertently united the West—that what he’d done was the very opposite of what he wanted.” Mr. Service calls Mr. Putin “reckless and mediocre” and scoffs at the notion that he is “some sort of genius.” What kind of Russian leader, he asks, “makes it impossible for a German leader not to build up Germany’s armaments”?

[Josh]

The Ukrainians do have a dark Biblical sense of humor

I see the border guard took a day off from what they usually do, which is demanding bribes

[Ken]

And you didn't quote the second blunder cited in the article.

The second strategic error was Mr. Putin’s underestimation of his rivals. “He despises the West and what he sees as Western decadence,” Mr. Service says. “He had come to believe that the West was a shambles, both politically and culturally.” He also thought that the leaders of the West were “of poor quality, and inexperienced, in comparison with himself. After all, he’s been in power 20 years.”

My guess is that might an be a somewhat accurate description of Putin's assement of American foreign policy "experts" though I disagree that Putin underestimated them.

The rest seems to me all bluster and sarcasm.

In Mr. Putin’s cocksure reckoning, the invasion was going to be “a pushover—not just in regard to Ukraine, but in regard to the West.” He’d spent four years “running rings around Donald Trump, ” and he thought the retirement of German Chancellor Angela Merkel left the West rudderless. That set the scene for the “surprise he got when he invaded Ukraine, when he found that he’d inadvertently united the West—that what he’d done was the very opposite of what he wanted.” Mr. Service calls Mr. Putin “reckless and mediocre” and scoffs at the notion that he is “some sort of genius.” What kind of Russian leader, he asks, “makes it impossible for a German leader not to build up Germany’s armaments”?

Well, it was your article that you posted.

I don't know though. The west seems more unified by this than at any time since perhaps the Berlin Airlift. And countries all across Europe from Sweden to Germany to Denmark to Poland are all greatly ramping up their military spending and cross-cooperation. I don't expect that is a result that Russia particularly desired. The USSR which was 2x the size of Russia couldn't keep up with the west when it controlled Eastern Europe all the way to East Germany. They stand no chance now when the west has grown so much faster economically and Russia is perhaps half the size of the former USSR.

Personally I don't think it is a good thing that Europe is re-militarizing. That is the opposite direction from the world I want to live in. But I would like to see the folly of war go down in crushing defeat if only as an object lesson for the next nation that might contemplate an offensive war of choice in this day and age. "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind" according to Hosea.

The article continues:

“Putin despises democracy,” Mr. Service says. “He believes in the right of the leadership to impose the authority of the state on society.” In the Russian president’s view, this is good for citizens because it brings stability and predictability into their lives. He also believes in the importance of the secret police as an adjunct of government. In this, Mr. Service points out, many of his methods are “reminiscent of the Soviet period,” even if his ideology isn’t.

and...

Mr. Service is certain, however, that the Russians will find conquered Ukrainians as difficult to control as free ones. “The Ukrainians have become more nationally conscious over the 20th century, and they’re a proud people who’ve seen what happened to them when they were subjugated by the U.S.S.R.” It is inconceivable that they will accept subjugation again. “They had it in the early 1930s, when millions died under Stalin’s famines. They had it again in the late 1940s, after the war ended. I don’t think they’re going to let history repeat itself.”

The invasion of Ukraine, Mr. Service says, is not a tragedy for Ukraine alone. It’s a tragedy for Russia. “Russian people don’t deserve a ruler like Putin. They’ve not had very much luck with their rulers in the last 150 years. In fact, they’ve had appalling luck.”

[Szdfan]

The second strategic error was Mr. Putin’s underestimation of his rivals. “He despises the West and what he sees as Western decadence,” Mr. Service says. “He had come to believe that the West was a shambles, both politically and culturally.” He also thought that the leaders of the West were “of poor quality, and inexperienced, in comparison with himself. After all, he’s been in power 20 years.”

In Mr. Putin’s cocksure reckoning, the invasion was going to be “a pushover—not just in regard to Ukraine, but in regard to the West.” He’d spent four years “running rings around Donald Trump, ” and he thought the retirement of German Chancellor Angela Merkel left the West rudderless. That set the scene for the “surprise he got when he invaded Ukraine, when he found that he’d inadvertently united the West—that what he’d done was the very opposite of what he wanted.” Mr. Service calls Mr. Putin “reckless and mediocre” and scoffs at the notion that he is “some sort of genius.” What kind of Russian leader, he asks, “makes it impossible for a German leader not to build up Germany’s armaments”?

This may demonstrate the danger of surrounding yourself with loyal “yes men” who tell you what you want to hear. You don’t get the full picture and it’s easy to make significant mistakes with wrong assumptions and incomplete information.

[Ken]

The second strategic error was Mr. Putin’s underestimation of his rivals. “He despises the West and what he sees as Western decadence,” Mr. Service says. “He had come to believe that the West was a shambles, both politically and culturally.” He also thought that the leaders of the West were “of poor quality, and inexperienced, in comparison with himself. After all, he’s been in power 20 years.”

In Mr. Putin’s cocksure reckoning, the invasion was going to be “a pushover—not just in regard to Ukraine, but in regard to the West.” He’d spent four years “running rings around Donald Trump, ” and he thought the retirement of German Chancellor Angela Merkel left the West rudderless. That set the scene for the “surprise he got when he invaded Ukraine, when he found that he’d inadvertently united the West—that what he’d done was the very opposite of what he wanted.” Mr. Service calls Mr. Putin “reckless and mediocre” and scoffs at the notion that he is “some sort of genius.” What kind of Russian leader, he asks, “makes it impossible for a German leader not to build up Germany’s armaments”?

This may demonstrate the danger of surrounding yourself with loyal “yes men” who tell you what you want to hear. You don’t get the full picture and it’s easy to make significant mistakes with wrong assumptions and incomplete information.

Democracies tend to be self-correcting. Dictatorships not so much.