Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bash's avatar

From speaking to friends who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan (or both), I can attest to the wholesale orientation of Western forces towards a SOCOM style of operations. High tech, exceptionally well trained super soldiers supported by overwhelming signals and surveillance and airborne supremecy. I certainly don't envy a force facing against SAS/SEAL/Delta or similar on their terms

But none of that matters if you're pinned in a trench by sustained 155mm fire against an adversary with near-peer ISR and a shell lands in your lap. You're as dead as the next guy.

Expand full comment
Julian Macfarlane's avatar

A simply superb analysis. I stand, or rather huddle over my computer in awe. I have written article which allude to the main ideas in your article but never in such detail, nor so comprehensively. Well done. Of particular interest to me was the historical context you elaborated on. This has been mentioned by many others (including Putin himself) but never with such clarity. Russia is pragmatic because it must be. For, war is existential. For Americans, quite the opposite as I emphasize in my own articles. The key factor is, as you say, history -- which is also the key to Russia's determination to fully demilitarize and denazifiy -- effectively neuter -- Western "Ukraine". I put "Ukraine" in quotation marks because I am not sure what to call this state, which has little historic basis for its existence or legitimacy. Putin does not want to occupy the area west of the Dniepr, but he will surely welcome regions that want to join Russia. "Denazification" -- ie. tribunals and trials -- will drive those supporting the current regime to flee. Russia has a lot more to offer than the West which only seeks to exploit the region. So, yeah, you might see a rather smallerl Western "Ukraine" in the end, landlocked and neutral and dependent on the rest of Novorossiya.

As for military technologies, the Russians don't have money to waste. Nor do they treat weapons as consumer items as I suggest here: https://julianmacfarlane.substack.com/p/much-ado-about-nothing-western-wunderwaffen.

I was particularly impressed by your analysis of Western misunderstanding of Russian concern for the safety of its troops, which obviously influences a.) strategy in the Ukraine b.) design of weapons.

A good example is the Abrams. To big, too heavy to cross a bridge in Ukraine. Needs jet fuel . Breaks down every 100 km. Too expensive to use. Ditto the F35-- still not really fit for combat. Again too expensive to use; too expensive to lose. l And "stealthy:' only under the very best circumstances. The Su47 does "stealth" a lot better -- assuming that no matter what an aircraft is detectable as the Serbs proved shooting down an F117.

I am working through your articles. Some are long and I need to read them a couple of times to digest, with my weak little brain.

Expand full comment
205 more comments...

No posts