The Ukraine war provides a unique snapshot. Russia clearly prepared for the contingency of a long war, and they began this preparatory work long before they invaded in 2022.
NATO members like the U.S., by contrast, still haven't seriously addressed their completely unprepared defense manufacturing industry over two years into the war.
In 2023 they convinced the Ukrainians to do a NATO style offensive into the teeth of prepared, hardened Russian defensive lines. It worked out about as well as you can imagine. NATO elites thought Russia was going to give up after the first wave in 2022 lost a bunch of men and vehicles to Javelins, HIMARs, etc. They were all clapping themselves on the back and touting the inevitability of Ukraine pushing Russia out of their country.
They completely ignored the adjustments Russia was making to reconstitute their forces and rework their tactics and larger strategy. They switched from big arrow offensives to "bite and hold" micro-offensives of the type the British pioneered in WWI. Don't send a battalion or brigade forward. Have a squad seize the fighting position in front of them, and then have your other squads seize the positions to the left and right. Then dig in, move up your anti-drone EW assets, and dare the Ukrainians to come for you.
NATO planners have to be apoplectic at this point because this slow, relentless strategy doesn't give them an opportunity to use expensive weapon systems to wipe out concentrations of Russians.
One of our central problems is that we spent 23 years bombing goatherders, and before that we had the 90s, where we smoked a few countries employing outdated soviet hardware crewed by poorly trained, underpaid, unmotivated soldiers.
It takes an agonizingly long-time to build a single guided missile because the defense manufacturers optimized for length of contract and low cost of labor, rather than optimizing for production capacity.
Walk through most defense factories for the big manufacturers and you'll see industrial spaces with very few people working in them. It's because they wanted to stretch their contract for 100 missiles out over 6 years while employing ten line workers to actually build them. *numbers aren't exact, they're just a general example
Our defense industry has a glut of consultants and upper management, and a skeleton crew of people who can actually build the weapons we and our allies need for war. And they're not going to start hiring a bunch of people unless the U.S. government guarantees them long-term contracts.
"It takes an agonizingly long-time to build a single guided missile because the defense manufacturers optimized for length of contract and low cost of labor, rather than optimizing for production capacity."
True, we optimize for earnings, not for fighting potential. (Note that this has to be so, by law! Any company that does not do so opens itself to lawsuits)
This is an inherent flaw of the capitalist system. While we were able to ramp up sharply during war times (ww1 but mostly ww2) it seems capitalism is ill suited to empires that have to endure long periods of (semi-) peace.
The problem is that: The purpose of war is, war itself! Peace, on the other hand, is not the goal, it is even the opposite, every war, whoever the victor, carries within itself the seeds of future conflicts…
Show me one country that has destroyed so many other countries during the last 50 years and has created so much suffering in the name of God and freedom.
Let’s start calling it what it is; an offensive industry. I listen to a lot of smart people. But they aren’t smart enough to get control. They are too intellectual and too little emotional to have an impact.
Stephen. One idea that I have NOT seen discussed anywhere, by anyone, is regardless of whatever other outcomes of the Ukraine-Russia war, there will need to be Western troops stationed in Ukraine to maintain whatever "peace" exists after the war. I estimate 50,000, minimum. The US and Britain had troops in West Germany after WW2, and still has them. Korea has had American troops in South Korea since the armistice that was reached in 1953. Things have worked out well for both of those countries. No troops were left in Vietnam, and the North took the South. Iraq is heading the direction of being controlled by Iran. Based on past experience, it would appear that Ukraine will never be safe from another Russian invasion if NATO, or at least perhaps EU, troops are not stationed in Ukraine after the open conflict ends.
If there is a negotiated deal achieved, the Russians will almost certainly agree only if NATO is excluded (which means troops from NATO states). I could envisage a mixed team from many countries including some from NATO, but not the United Sates, as a possible compromise. I suppose we can only watch, wait and see.
Yes, I agree that the Russians are not likely to accept any participation by NATO, which is why I suggested that the EU might provide the troops to be stationed in Ukraine, as an alternative, to guarantee the stability of the "peace." Also, it would be much easier for Russia to accept Ukraine joining the EU, that Ukraine joining NATO. Although the EU is not a military alliance, member countries could agree to position troops in Ukraine. Although these would be troops from NATO countries, if they were present only representing the EU, that might make them more acceptable under a different "umbrella."
I am not sure the Russians will accept anything like an EU force. The EU is no longer strictly economic. It has a Common Security and Defence Policy and collective defense arrangements among EU members. Josep Borrell, calls the EU the European Defense Union. Would the Russians accept it?
Barring an Unconditional Surrender, like Germany and Japan after WW2, which is unlikely, there will have to be compromises on both sides to end this war. Although it appears to be straining Ukraine more than Russia, in the end Russia will have to compromise to some degree. Ukraine will not have a secure border, and will have the expectation of a repeat invasion unless there are foreign troops in Ukraine to provide stability. Agreed, that Russia will strongly oppose stationing foreign troops in Ukraine, but that needs to be a condition to end the armed conflict. Russia needs to have some degree of fear that it could trigger an open conflict with the rest of Europe. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!"
The Ukraine war provides a unique snapshot. Russia clearly prepared for the contingency of a long war, and they began this preparatory work long before they invaded in 2022.
NATO members like the U.S., by contrast, still haven't seriously addressed their completely unprepared defense manufacturing industry over two years into the war.
In 2023 they convinced the Ukrainians to do a NATO style offensive into the teeth of prepared, hardened Russian defensive lines. It worked out about as well as you can imagine. NATO elites thought Russia was going to give up after the first wave in 2022 lost a bunch of men and vehicles to Javelins, HIMARs, etc. They were all clapping themselves on the back and touting the inevitability of Ukraine pushing Russia out of their country.
They completely ignored the adjustments Russia was making to reconstitute their forces and rework their tactics and larger strategy. They switched from big arrow offensives to "bite and hold" micro-offensives of the type the British pioneered in WWI. Don't send a battalion or brigade forward. Have a squad seize the fighting position in front of them, and then have your other squads seize the positions to the left and right. Then dig in, move up your anti-drone EW assets, and dare the Ukrainians to come for you.
NATO planners have to be apoplectic at this point because this slow, relentless strategy doesn't give them an opportunity to use expensive weapon systems to wipe out concentrations of Russians.
One of our central problems is that we spent 23 years bombing goatherders, and before that we had the 90s, where we smoked a few countries employing outdated soviet hardware crewed by poorly trained, underpaid, unmotivated soldiers.
It takes an agonizingly long-time to build a single guided missile because the defense manufacturers optimized for length of contract and low cost of labor, rather than optimizing for production capacity.
Walk through most defense factories for the big manufacturers and you'll see industrial spaces with very few people working in them. It's because they wanted to stretch their contract for 100 missiles out over 6 years while employing ten line workers to actually build them. *numbers aren't exact, they're just a general example
Our defense industry has a glut of consultants and upper management, and a skeleton crew of people who can actually build the weapons we and our allies need for war. And they're not going to start hiring a bunch of people unless the U.S. government guarantees them long-term contracts.
"It takes an agonizingly long-time to build a single guided missile because the defense manufacturers optimized for length of contract and low cost of labor, rather than optimizing for production capacity."
True, we optimize for earnings, not for fighting potential. (Note that this has to be so, by law! Any company that does not do so opens itself to lawsuits)
This is an inherent flaw of the capitalist system. While we were able to ramp up sharply during war times (ww1 but mostly ww2) it seems capitalism is ill suited to empires that have to endure long periods of (semi-) peace.
The problem is that: The purpose of war is, war itself! Peace, on the other hand, is not the goal, it is even the opposite, every war, whoever the victor, carries within itself the seeds of future conflicts…
It's interesting to see Americans talk about the world and divide it in good & evil.
One must ask what the US has to do with Taiwan and why it matters to them. It's not like Taiwan is anywhere close to the US.
The fact that this all happens in the name of freedom and democracy is just sad.
same goes for every other country
so we should reject them all?
why not rethink your comment as it is wrong
Show me one country that has destroyed so many other countries during the last 50 years and has created so much suffering in the name of God and freedom.
When You look at geopolitics with a moral perspective, you can not understand anything.
When a country would act exclusivy based on moral motives and act in a copletely moral way it would soon be occypied.
Freedom and democracy were the pretext. When You mix the pretext and the reason you can not understand anything either.
The "TOO BIG TO WIN" article by Erik Prince can be found here.
https://im1776.com/too-big-to-win/
PMC = Private Military Company
Let’s start calling it what it is; an offensive industry. I listen to a lot of smart people. But they aren’t smart enough to get control. They are too intellectual and too little emotional to have an impact.
Stephen. One idea that I have NOT seen discussed anywhere, by anyone, is regardless of whatever other outcomes of the Ukraine-Russia war, there will need to be Western troops stationed in Ukraine to maintain whatever "peace" exists after the war. I estimate 50,000, minimum. The US and Britain had troops in West Germany after WW2, and still has them. Korea has had American troops in South Korea since the armistice that was reached in 1953. Things have worked out well for both of those countries. No troops were left in Vietnam, and the North took the South. Iraq is heading the direction of being controlled by Iran. Based on past experience, it would appear that Ukraine will never be safe from another Russian invasion if NATO, or at least perhaps EU, troops are not stationed in Ukraine after the open conflict ends.
If there is a negotiated deal achieved, the Russians will almost certainly agree only if NATO is excluded (which means troops from NATO states). I could envisage a mixed team from many countries including some from NATO, but not the United Sates, as a possible compromise. I suppose we can only watch, wait and see.
Yes, I agree that the Russians are not likely to accept any participation by NATO, which is why I suggested that the EU might provide the troops to be stationed in Ukraine, as an alternative, to guarantee the stability of the "peace." Also, it would be much easier for Russia to accept Ukraine joining the EU, that Ukraine joining NATO. Although the EU is not a military alliance, member countries could agree to position troops in Ukraine. Although these would be troops from NATO countries, if they were present only representing the EU, that might make them more acceptable under a different "umbrella."
I am not sure the Russians will accept anything like an EU force. The EU is no longer strictly economic. It has a Common Security and Defence Policy and collective defense arrangements among EU members. Josep Borrell, calls the EU the European Defense Union. Would the Russians accept it?
Barring an Unconditional Surrender, like Germany and Japan after WW2, which is unlikely, there will have to be compromises on both sides to end this war. Although it appears to be straining Ukraine more than Russia, in the end Russia will have to compromise to some degree. Ukraine will not have a secure border, and will have the expectation of a repeat invasion unless there are foreign troops in Ukraine to provide stability. Agreed, that Russia will strongly oppose stationing foreign troops in Ukraine, but that needs to be a condition to end the armed conflict. Russia needs to have some degree of fear that it could trigger an open conflict with the rest of Europe. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!"