History in the Making: Russian Invasion

I think Russia is still making good money from oil and gas (their primary source of money), so I think the general economy is still OK.

There are clear signs the Russians are not keeping up with their use of ammo / missiles. I would suspect their arms productions is as dysfunctional as expected.  They are definitely having issues making anything with chips in them since they were sourcing most of that from the west (strangely enough, maybe directly from Taiwan?).  I am sure they are rapidly trying to source that from China (who of apparently get a lot of their sophisticated stuff from Taiwan).

The general condition of the Russian military seems to always be: Presents itself as a high tech, massive force, but when you look under the tarp, or look past the one shiny example, it has more the look of an outdated second tier military.  Kind of like the gym rat with the huge muscles.  Looks impressive, but in a fight, he would have been well advised to spend a lot more time in MMA training rather than on the bench press.

I suspect the word SNAFU applies here:  Situation Normal, All Fcked Up.

(snafu does of course originate from WWII)

If anyone has seen any more specific recent info on the Russian economy, please do post it up.

aircooled said:

Found this quote, which of course is very insightful:

“War is an economy. It’s money. And if you have a drone for $3,000 and a grenade for $200, and you destroy a tank that costs $3 million, it’s very interesting.”

— Graf, a Ukrainian soldier in charge of a team developing drone-dropped grenades to kill Russian tanks.

It's very true. It's not only about money, but it's a major factor. This once again suggests looking at the US experience in Vietnam as a source for understanding the dynamics of the Ukraine war. Sure, the US had to deal with protests and domestic politics, but the enormous costs of the war forced LBJ to curtail some domestic spending, which in turn undermined his support with another voter demographic (besides anti-war protestors), thus weakening his ability to act, etc. All this to fight guerrillas with AKs and sandals (and a few MiGs and SAMs up north). Even in a non-democratic system, Putin will be having to deal with the repercussions of the cost disparity. This is only exacerbated by Western money flowing in to Ukraine (just as Soviet and Chinese resources flowing into North Vietnam made the US position more difficult).

In reply to 02Pilot :

It's a little more complex than that. Yes a portion of American public turned against the War.   Not only because of the cost both in money and men. But the rather obvious disparity between rich and poor.  
    Those with the economic means could avoid the draft  by attending college  while the rest would be eligible for the draft.   Plus social injustice.  During the peak of combat in Vietnam,  part of the American strategy dealt with troops selected to do actual combat. Some in the military were eager to use troops with lower IQ, in the most hazardous combat situations. Knowing that they had a greater chance of not returning. Effectively survival of the fittest. 
  As troops found out about such practices Fratricide was used to "fight back".  
   Luckily not all agreed with such policies so actual combat was a little more democratic than some intended.   
      Part of the political issue of Vietnam was to prevent involving Russia directly in the confrontation.  We knew which ships and submarines were carrying high tech missiles  into  the Tonkin Gulf. We'd track them directly from Russian ports. Russian Submarines traveled through a regular gauntlet through the Pacific and into the Tonkin Gulf. Periodically harassing them with PDC's ( practice depth charges).   They sound very close to actual depth charges inside a submarine. Making the trip extremely difficult for the sailors. 
     Soviet Nuclear submarines were so noisy back then our SOSUS net's would tell us exactly were they were. Then carrier based S2's would fly out to that location get a MAD contact and drop some PDC's  right on top of them.  When carrier based planes weren't overhead land based P2V's or later P3's would harass the subs or fly right over cargo ships carrying equipment.  
  The goal was not just harassment but to let the Russians know that they couldn't hide. 
    The cost back then was reported to be about a Million dollars a day. For one ASW Carrier battle group.  ( a WW2 era Essex class carrier, 2 Fletcher class destroyers, 1 tanker  and about 5500 men. 
 
 The Navy kept about 4 ASW battle groups in regular rotation plus 3-4 Attack carrier groups which were more than twice as expensive. Remember those were 1960's dollars.   Plus most ships back then  were oil burners.   
Air craft carrier battle groups during the first Gulf war were costing 20 million a day. They were different then., the carrier 1 cruiser 2 destroyer escorts,  2 tankers, 1 submarine, & 1 maintenance ship. 
     I'm guessing  as to today's cost? 30 million? 

Sometimes when adults are speaking I've learned to step back and just listen so that I could learn from them.  I wish others felt the same.

Stampie said:

Sometimes when adults are speaking I've learned to step back and just listen so that I could learn from them.  I wish others felt the same.

Definitely a life skill. 

In reply to frenchyd :

My feeble understanding turning 18 two years after the Vietnam ended and one year after the draft ended, of which my 18 year old draft lottery number was 37, was that in every conflict since and including Korea, the US tried to fight every conflict on the cheap and refused to raise taxes enough to fight to win them. I sure could be wrong, but I don't think that we have ever actually wanted to win like in WWII. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they have all just been political jokes. Except for all of the people dying.

37 eh?  Since I am psychic I am going to guess you were born late in the year?

How do I know?  Well, the lottery was not very random.  They loaded the numbers into the hopper low numbers first and did not adequately mix them.  A student figured this out (plotting the distribution would make it rather obvious) and tried to get the to redo it, but they didn't.

It would have not made much difference, except for who went first, but they only ended up drawing 195 of the 366 numbers!

So the draft was not only unfair based on income, but on month of birth!

https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/how-the-vietnam-draft-wasnt-as-random-as-you-think/

18 years old, Dec, 1973 lol. I was learning Canadian. Eh? The boarder was only 50 miles away.

My father a decorated combat vet who started war on the Beach in France  strongly suggested I spend an extended visit in Canada. Offering to help pay my way.  
 I disappointed him doing 2 tours in Vietnam.  
     So I understand exactly what you were saying. 

Oh, let me guess again.... you where a young male, right?  

I believe my oldest step brother did some sort of resistance.  He did not leave the country, but ended up with some sort of punishment (I will have to ask another step brother about it, I don't see either much).  Not sure how that worked with his dad, who at the time was likely just getting out of a 30 year navy career (only saw a little combat on a destroyer in Task Force 58 in WWII).

aircooled said:

37 eh?  Since I am psychic I am going to guess you were born late in the year?

How do I know?  Well, the lottery was not very random.  They loaded the numbers into the hopper low numbers first and did not adequately mix them.  A student figured this out (plotting the distribution would make it rather obvious) and tried to get the to redo it, but they didn't.

It would have not made much difference, except for who went first, but they only ended up drawing 195 of the 366 numbers!

So the draft was not only unfair based on income, but on month of birth!

https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/how-the-vietnam-draft-wasnt-as-random-as-you-think/

Interesting. I never knew that.  I managed to dodge the draft by Joining the Navy. Then wound up doing 2 tours in Vietnam. 

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to frenchyd :

My feeble understanding turning 18 two years after the Vietnam ended and one year after the draft ended, of which my 18 year old draft lottery number was 37, was that in every conflict since and including Korea, the US tried to fight every conflict on the cheap and refused to raise taxes enough to fight to win them. I sure could be wrong, but I don't think that we have ever actually wanted to win like in WWII. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they have all just been political jokes. Except for all of the people dying.

Actually the way America has always fought every war ( except WW2) was to acquire debt and then post war inflate our way out of the debt.  
     WW2 we increased taxes, ran Bond  drives and inflated post war. 
    

frenchyd said:

My father a decorated combat vet who started war on the Beach in France  strongly suggested I spend an extended visit in Canada. Offering to help pay my way.  
 I disappointed him doing 2 tours in Vietnam.  
     So I understand exactly what you were saying. 

I remember having that same conversation with my mom in 1990 when Desert Storm was ramping up. I was 20. At the time, I probably would have went, but looking back now, I'm not sure Canada wouldn't have been the wiser choice. Just glad I never had to actually make that decision.

December birthday. Lottery number 70.  Had student deferment then became CO.  

While discussing my situation with my family, going to Canada was considered.  My WWII  veteran father had 2 Purple Hearts & a Bronze Star. He said that if I went, he & Mom would visit as often as possible.

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to frenchyd :

My feeble understanding turning 18 two years after the Vietnam ended and one year after the draft ended, of which my 18 year old draft lottery number was 37, was that in every conflict since and including Korea, the US tried to fight every conflict on the cheap and refused to raise taxes enough to fight to win them. I sure could be wrong, but I don't think that we have ever actually wanted to win like in WWII. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they have all just been political jokes. Except for all of the people dying.

I've mentioned this quote in this thread before, but it bears repeating: "War is policy by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz.

The Second World War was fought the way it was because it was total war, an existential conflict in which the victors would fundamentally dismantle the defeated governments and rebuild them as they saw fit. This was at least somewhat clear from the beginning (Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini were reasonably explicit about it, Stalin rather less so; the Western allies only took the plunge after the "unconditional surrender" statement following the Casablanca Conference), and policy was shaped to fit the circumstances. Korea, Vietnam, and those that followed were not total wars for the US, and as such, the way each was conducted reflected the needs of policy at the time: maintaining confidence of allies, supporting containment, balancing against regional threats, etc.

From the perspective of the average American, yes, it seems as if America never really wanted to win any of the post-war conflicts the way it did WW2, but the simple counterpoint is to ask them to define victory. It was easy in the Second World War - destroy the ability of enemy governments to continue to fight by any means necessary. But if you applied that approach to any of the later wars, particularly those during the Cold War, you would have ended up with World War Three. So military operations had to be limited in ways that made them better suit US national interests. Sometimes, the result was that the war could not be won without costing the US more than it would gain through military victory. How long it took to figure that out, and at what cost, is a different issue.

As far as getting into detail on Vietnam, I could go further (I designed and taught a course on that conflict), but I don't know that this is the place. My point in bringing it up was simply to illustrate the dynamics of how economic investments by non-combatants can shape political (as well as military) outcomes.

I thought this was interesting:

Why the world needs Ukrainian victory, Fifteen reasons.

Number one bears repeating:

1) To halt atrocity.

dculberson said:

I thought this was interesting:

Why the world needs Ukrainian victory, Fifteen reasons.

Number one bears repeating:

1) To halt atrocity.

Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed that.

02Pilot said:

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to frenchyd :

My feeble understanding turning 18 two years after the Vietnam ended and one year after the draft ended, of which my 18 year old draft lottery number was 37, was that in every conflict since and including Korea, the US tried to fight every conflict on the cheap and refused to raise taxes enough to fight to win them. I sure could be wrong, but I don't think that we have ever actually wanted to win like in WWII. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they have all just been political jokes. Except for all of the people dying.

I've mentioned this quote in this thread before, but it bears repeating: "War is policy by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz.

The Second World War was fought the way it was because it was total war, an existential conflict in which the victors would fundamentally dismantle the defeated governments and rebuild them as they saw fit. This was at least somewhat clear from the beginning (Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini were reasonably explicit about it, Stalin rather less so; the Western allies only took the plunge after the "unconditional surrender" statement following the Casablanca Conference), and policy was shaped to fit the circumstances. Korea, Vietnam, and those that followed were not total wars for the US, and as such, the way each was conducted reflected the needs of policy at the time: maintaining confidence of allies, supporting containment, balancing against regional threats, etc.

From the perspective of the average American, yes, it seems as if America never really wanted to win any of the post-war conflicts the way it did WW2, but the simple counterpoint is to ask them to define victory. It was easy in the Second World War - destroy the ability of enemy governments to continue to fight by any means necessary. But if you applied that approach to any of the later wars, particularly those during the Cold War, you would have ended up with World War Three. So military operations had to be limited in ways that made them better suit US national interests. Sometimes, the result was that the war could not be won without costing the US more than it would gain through military victory. How long it took to figure that out, and at what cost, is a different issue.

As far as getting into detail on Vietnam, I could go further (I designed and taught a course on that conflict), but I don't know that this is the place. My point in bringing it up was simply to illustrate the dynamics of how economic investments by non-combatants can shape political (as well as military) outcomes.

Well said especially the part about WW3.   
It's very easy to forget that part  of post WW2 combat. Not only that but remember WW2's Marshall plan is the only reason Both Japan and Germany wound up being our Allies rather than our enemies once defeated. 

About the draft. My mothers family was poor. All four of her brothers were drafted. Coincidence? I don't know, but it stinks. My grandfather had to write a letter to the service saying that it wasn't fair that he had three sons on the ground over there at the same time. They all came back in time, but one's never been right in the head since. 

One thing that really struck me in the lead up to Iraq war 2 was how crap our intelligence was. Aluminum tubes, anyone? History is chocked full of questionable decisions based on lies and incorrect data. 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

History is chocked full of questionable decisions based on lies and incorrect data. 

Yup. And hindsight. That's the nature of studying history, and of making time-sensitive decisions based on the best available information. It's not likely to change.

frenchyd said:

02Pilot said:

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to frenchyd :

My feeble understanding turning 18 two years after the Vietnam ended and one year after the draft ended, of which my 18 year old draft lottery number was 37, was that in every conflict since and including Korea, the US tried to fight every conflict on the cheap and refused to raise taxes enough to fight to win them. I sure could be wrong, but I don't think that we have ever actually wanted to win like in WWII. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they have all just been political jokes. Except for all of the people dying.

I've mentioned this quote in this thread before, but it bears repeating: "War is policy by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz.

The Second World War was fought the way it was because it was total war, an existential conflict in which the victors would fundamentally dismantle the defeated governments and rebuild them as they saw fit. This was at least somewhat clear from the beginning (Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini were reasonably explicit about it, Stalin rather less so; the Western allies only took the plunge after the "unconditional surrender" statement following the Casablanca Conference), and policy was shaped to fit the circumstances. Korea, Vietnam, and those that followed were not total wars for the US, and as such, the way each was conducted reflected the needs of policy at the time: maintaining confidence of allies, supporting containment, balancing against regional threats, etc.

From the perspective of the average American, yes, it seems as if America never really wanted to win any of the post-war conflicts the way it did WW2, but the simple counterpoint is to ask them to define victory. It was easy in the Second World War - destroy the ability of enemy governments to continue to fight by any means necessary. But if you applied that approach to any of the later wars, particularly those during the Cold War, you would have ended up with World War Three. So military operations had to be limited in ways that made them better suit US national interests. Sometimes, the result was that the war could not be won without costing the US more than it would gain through military victory. How long it took to figure that out, and at what cost, is a different issue.

As far as getting into detail on Vietnam, I could go further (I designed and taught a course on that conflict), but I don't know that this is the place. My point in bringing it up was simply to illustrate the dynamics of how economic investments by non-combatants can shape political (as well as military) outcomes.

Well said especially the part about WW3.   
It's very easy to forget that part  of post WW2 combat. Not only that but remember WW2's Marshall plan is the only reason Both Japan and Germany wound up being our Allies rather than our enemies once defeated. 

The European Recovery Program (ERP), as the Marshall Plan was known officially, only applied - surprise, surprise - to Europe. Japan's occupation was a completely different animal. Little-known fact: the ERP was offered to all of Europe, including the Soviet-controlled portions. The Soviets refused to allow those territories under their control to accept it, knowing that a flood of US money would badly undermine their efforts to administer those areas.

I would argue that ERP money was more important in countries like Italy and France, countries that had significant and active Communist parties that would have had far greater political success had it not been for Marshall Plan money propping up non-Communist governments immediately following the war (well, that and the CIA dumping money into influence operations). Germany was tightly bound by the rules of the occupation, and wasn't free to choose its own leadership until 1949. By then, the Berlin Blockade and Airlift had occurred - that event alone did an enormous amount to demonstrate to West Germany (and quite a few Germans in the East, who subsequently fled west) that it was far better off tying its fate to the US and its allies.

Assuming that there is no quit in the russian willingness to fight, and that the world is going to maintain at least the current level of economic sanctions, where do we see russia as a nation  5 years from now?

FWIW: 

Zelenskiy promises to swiftly confront Ukraine corruption

In reply to 02Pilot :

I wasn't aware of that.  ( regarding Japan). I had just assumed that we helped the Japanese recover as well.  
  Could our stationing troops to support the war in Korea  and immediate post WW2  been the reason for Japan's quick recovery from the total devastation  during the war?  Firebombing of  Tokyo,  Battleship bombardment of Japans Iron foundries, the two nuclear bombs, extensive bombing of all industrial sites. And Harbors etc. 

   20 years following Japan's surrender  I saw absolutely no sign  of any destruction have ever been taken place ( exception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ) even those had been cleaned of rubble etc. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Oh, the US certainly aided Japan's recovery, just not as part of the ERP. ERP was built to deal with the fractious, divided nature of Europe and try to corral numerous factions and national governments into something coordinated. The fact that Japan was solely occupied and controlled by the US, as opposed to a power-sharing agreement as in Germany and independent governments (well, in terms of policy anyway) in several other countries, and that it was an island with little concern about borders, meant that the approach was different because the needs (US first, Japanese second) were different.

The West tended to encourage cleaning up the messes it made during the war. By contrast, there were still war-damaged buildings in East Germany when the wall came down.