Now that a couple of days have passed and the "first responder" commentariat is done, I will sneak in (hopefully unnoticed) and say my piece.
First and foremost, thank you for your time and efforts on this. I have enjoyed immensely the posts and have usually agreed more than disagreed with your thought thus far.
On this post, and after reading the comments, I have come to the conclusion there are a lot of folks out there who have "drank the Koolaid" concerning the omniscience and omnipotence of the US military.
This is a mistake, because in truth, the US military really isn't all that impressive nor has it ever been. We like to preen and crow about our lackluster efforts in WWII, but the truth of the matter is that the US saw WWII as more of a "full-employment" program than a serious shot at war. I strongly recommend that folks review the statistics presented at:
I find the second and third columns especially enlightening.
WWI is similar in results. The US Stands back, turns a tidy profit, then jumps in at the last minute to preen and grab another unearned laurel crown.
I will probably be castigated by the commentariat by my lack of faith in the American Military Tradition. But having spent time bungling through the jungle in SE Asia too many years ago and coming from a family who haven't missed a war since 1812 (all as NCO's) I find people who have faith in American military competence to be a nearly endless source of amusement.
"But to run down your defence forces, treat Russia as an enemy, and then not understand the consequences, must rank as the most miserable, brain-dead foreign and security policy decision since 1945."
Oh yeah! And historically, Russia is a friend of The USA, not an enemy.
Today, London (Johnson/Truss) and Washington (Nuland/Power) are attacking Eurasia in toto and in stultitia from trivially personal motivations. Europe is the western peninsula of Eurasia. https://therevdavidrgraham.substack.com/p/three-eyes
Two supplementary points in addition to the supremely well made points in the article:
a) The obvious one: the EU is currently undergoing a sharp rise in both the costs and the actual supply of gas and oil with which to manufacture any armaments.
b) Arms manufacturing in the 'west' is geared mainly at attaining profits. Actual efficacy in use is a very secondary aim. (Examples of this are: the UK 'Daring class destroyers, the US Navy 'Littoral' ships and new carriers, and the F-22 and F-35 aeroplanes, which all have extensive flaws, liabilities and design failures. Anyone desiring further information can consult the 'Military Watch Magazine' - which as far as I can ascertain, is reasonably impartial). Plus the US is failing to deal with a wide range of infrastructure problems, including the school and penitentiary systems, transport, sewage etc. - mainly because all the money goes to the for-profit arms industry. This is not conducive to having a civil society which can support a long war.
To this I would add the differences of philosophy that make it possible for Russia to maintain such awful (in the old sense of the term) military capabilities despite an economy recently enervated by the barbarian invasions of the 1990s.
It seems that in the West, military procurement--as you mention--emphasizes small numbers of expensive and sophisticated equipment. By its complex nature, this equipment is liable to malfunction and requires an equally complex and expensive support structure to function on the battlefield. Unfortunately, the enemy gets to participate in war as well and will no doubt seek to disrupt the support structures this sophisticated technology relies on.
My point is that the west invests enormous sums of money in technologies that may prove fragile in the face of the enemy. Even if it isn't fragile, the West can only produce small numbers of them.
The Russians, meanwhile, focus more on simpler "good enough" style equipment that's cheap to produce, that can be manufactured in massive quantities, and that do not rely on a sophisticated network to function. For instance, Russians do not seem to use "smart" shells for their howitzers, meaning they function whether or not the satellite positioning systems are still in orbit.
That's not to say the Russians don't produce state-of-the-art arms. Rather, they seem to make intelligent decisions about which arms need to be sophisticated and which arms are "good enough". The clearest example of this is the Russian S-series of ground-based air-defense systems. As far as I can tell, these are the best in the world and enable the overwhelming numerical superiority in "good enough" simple systems to be decisive on the battlefield by ensuring such systems are protected from missiles, areal bombing, and even drones.
To your observations regarding conditions necessary for the West's rearmament, I would add a change of philosophy away from complexity-favoring to simplicity-favoring. This would, I think, help soften the challenges inherent in building a new arms manufacturing base from scratch.
If you go on some telegram channels there are lots of videos put out by the Russian side and the artillery bombardments are insane. Huge cannon to rocket artillery where you can see the shockwaves cascading outwards. There are drones and soldiers directing this often and it’s deadly.
Recently the Kamikaze drones from Iran are being used and if you are not killed you have arms and legs blown off. I hear that the Russian advantage in delivery of rounds is 10 to 1 yet the west is now running out if supplies
As Auruluen details how do you fix this situation to even gain parity with Artillery alone?
This rather detailed discourse appears to overlook that the United States disarmed after the First World War. Nevertheless, its Army, Navy, and Air Force performed well enough to defeat experienced and well-positioned enemy forces during the Second World War. There were not years available to prepare; but the country managed, indeed excelled. That historical fact casts a great deal of shade on the argument presented here.
Now that a couple of days have passed and the "first responder" commentariat is done, I will sneak in (hopefully unnoticed) and say my piece.
First and foremost, thank you for your time and efforts on this. I have enjoyed immensely the posts and have usually agreed more than disagreed with your thought thus far.
On this post, and after reading the comments, I have come to the conclusion there are a lot of folks out there who have "drank the Koolaid" concerning the omniscience and omnipotence of the US military.
This is a mistake, because in truth, the US military really isn't all that impressive nor has it ever been. We like to preen and crow about our lackluster efforts in WWII, but the truth of the matter is that the US saw WWII as more of a "full-employment" program than a serious shot at war. I strongly recommend that folks review the statistics presented at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country
I find the second and third columns especially enlightening.
WWI is similar in results. The US Stands back, turns a tidy profit, then jumps in at the last minute to preen and grab another unearned laurel crown.
I will probably be castigated by the commentariat by my lack of faith in the American Military Tradition. But having spent time bungling through the jungle in SE Asia too many years ago and coming from a family who haven't missed a war since 1812 (all as NCO's) I find people who have faith in American military competence to be a nearly endless source of amusement.
"But to run down your defence forces, treat Russia as an enemy, and then not understand the consequences, must rank as the most miserable, brain-dead foreign and security policy decision since 1945."
Oh yeah! And historically, Russia is a friend of The USA, not an enemy.
Today, London (Johnson/Truss) and Washington (Nuland/Power) are attacking Eurasia in toto and in stultitia from trivially personal motivations. Europe is the western peninsula of Eurasia. https://therevdavidrgraham.substack.com/p/three-eyes
Two supplementary points in addition to the supremely well made points in the article:
a) The obvious one: the EU is currently undergoing a sharp rise in both the costs and the actual supply of gas and oil with which to manufacture any armaments.
b) Arms manufacturing in the 'west' is geared mainly at attaining profits. Actual efficacy in use is a very secondary aim. (Examples of this are: the UK 'Daring class destroyers, the US Navy 'Littoral' ships and new carriers, and the F-22 and F-35 aeroplanes, which all have extensive flaws, liabilities and design failures. Anyone desiring further information can consult the 'Military Watch Magazine' - which as far as I can ascertain, is reasonably impartial). Plus the US is failing to deal with a wide range of infrastructure problems, including the school and penitentiary systems, transport, sewage etc. - mainly because all the money goes to the for-profit arms industry. This is not conducive to having a civil society which can support a long war.
The Russians deserve to win. Serves us well in the west for not being able to build a culture of peace and cooperation when we had ample opportunity.
To this I would add the differences of philosophy that make it possible for Russia to maintain such awful (in the old sense of the term) military capabilities despite an economy recently enervated by the barbarian invasions of the 1990s.
It seems that in the West, military procurement--as you mention--emphasizes small numbers of expensive and sophisticated equipment. By its complex nature, this equipment is liable to malfunction and requires an equally complex and expensive support structure to function on the battlefield. Unfortunately, the enemy gets to participate in war as well and will no doubt seek to disrupt the support structures this sophisticated technology relies on.
My point is that the west invests enormous sums of money in technologies that may prove fragile in the face of the enemy. Even if it isn't fragile, the West can only produce small numbers of them.
The Russians, meanwhile, focus more on simpler "good enough" style equipment that's cheap to produce, that can be manufactured in massive quantities, and that do not rely on a sophisticated network to function. For instance, Russians do not seem to use "smart" shells for their howitzers, meaning they function whether or not the satellite positioning systems are still in orbit.
That's not to say the Russians don't produce state-of-the-art arms. Rather, they seem to make intelligent decisions about which arms need to be sophisticated and which arms are "good enough". The clearest example of this is the Russian S-series of ground-based air-defense systems. As far as I can tell, these are the best in the world and enable the overwhelming numerical superiority in "good enough" simple systems to be decisive on the battlefield by ensuring such systems are protected from missiles, areal bombing, and even drones.
To your observations regarding conditions necessary for the West's rearmament, I would add a change of philosophy away from complexity-favoring to simplicity-favoring. This would, I think, help soften the challenges inherent in building a new arms manufacturing base from scratch.
If you go on some telegram channels there are lots of videos put out by the Russian side and the artillery bombardments are insane. Huge cannon to rocket artillery where you can see the shockwaves cascading outwards. There are drones and soldiers directing this often and it’s deadly.
Recently the Kamikaze drones from Iran are being used and if you are not killed you have arms and legs blown off. I hear that the Russian advantage in delivery of rounds is 10 to 1 yet the west is now running out if supplies
As Auruluen details how do you fix this situation to even gain parity with Artillery alone?
This rather detailed discourse appears to overlook that the United States disarmed after the First World War. Nevertheless, its Army, Navy, and Air Force performed well enough to defeat experienced and well-positioned enemy forces during the Second World War. There were not years available to prepare; but the country managed, indeed excelled. That historical fact casts a great deal of shade on the argument presented here.