|
Vance Criticizes Europe In Fierce Speech
The 2007 speech by Russia's President Vladimir Putin at the Munich Security Conference was one for the ages.
Concepts mentioned therein are only now getting acknowledged:
It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilisations.
This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”.
…
The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.
…
It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.
…
There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.
Eighteen years later the new U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged the fact of a multipolar world. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demolished any hope for Ukraine to enter NATO. Donald Trump, by calling President Putin, accepted the concept of a shared if not yet indivisible security. In 2007 Putin also spoke out against the abuse of so called NGOs to manipulate foreign countries' internal policies. Trump has now stopped USAID and NED from financing these.
Eighteen years on the core concepts of Putin's speech have thus been accepted.
Yesterday another speech at the Munich Security Conference was given by U.S. Vice-President JD Vance (video, transcript). It will also echo for years to come:
Vance opened by saying that the biggest threat to Europe comes not from Russia or China or other external threats. It comes from within by the antidemocratic instincts and behavior of those in power, who trample free speech in the name of fighting ‘disinformation’ and show no respect for political opposition.
While I agree with Vance on this I wonder if he can acknowledge his own U.S. made hypocrisy. It were not the Europeans who initiated the campaign against 'disinformation'. It was the U.S. who came up with this concept and which has been using its 'soft power' to push censorship into Europe.
The German Defense Minister immediately reinforced Vance's critique of too little tolerance for political speech in Europe by calling his speech unacceptable:
"Democracy was called into question by the US Vice President for the whole of Europe earlier," German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said from the main stage at the conference. "He speaks of the annihilation of democracy. And if I have understood him correctly, he is comparing conditions in parts of Europe with those in authoritarian regions… that is not acceptable."
This critique by Vance is also shallow:
I was struck that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don’t go to plan, the very same thing could happen in Germany too.
Now, these cavalier statements are shocking to American ears.
For years, we’ve been told that everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values. Everything—from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship—is billed as a defense of democracy.
But when we see European courts canceling elections, and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we’re holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard.
As Arnaud Bertrand points out:
[O]n Romania and much of Vance's criticism directed at Europe, the U.S. was right there alongside Europe acting jointly, and often even guiding Europe's actions. Specifically on Romania for instance, I believe that the US State Department was first in issuing a statement on December 4th (https://2021-2025.state.gov/statement-on-romanias-presidential-elections/) expressing its concern about "Russian involvement in malign cyber activity designed to influence the integrity of the Romanian electoral process" which led to the elections being cancelled two days later (and which, it was later proven, was completely false: it turned out that this "malign cyber activity" were paid for by the very Romanian party in power that cancelled the elections!). It's only after that State Department statement that the Europeans followed the U.S.'s lead.
So it's a bit rich, even very rich, for Vance, less than 2 months afterwards, to lecture Europeans on this without as much as acknowledging the U.S.'s own role in a lot of it.
Vance also criticized mass immigration to Europe. But he is neglecting the fact that the streams of Afghan, Syrian and Ukrainian refugees are a consequence of wars that the U.S. has caused and is waging. He laments the de-industrialization of Germany but ignores the U.S. bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines which is the greatest cause of it.
Vance calls for more democracy in Europe but at the same time is actively meddling in it. By pushing nationalist parties against European institution he is endangering peace in Europe.
The speech is a wake up call for Europeans to fight for their own sovereignty. As such it may have good impact:
After the dark days of the Biden repressions, the reliance of Power on corrupt intelligence agencies and the weaponization of the Justice Department, it was remarkable to be treated to such brave words from a top American official in defense of the people against the authoritarian rulers in Brussels, in Berlin, in Paris.
It is hard to see how the usurper Ursula van der Leyen and her whole team of people-haters will be able to hold onto power in these conditions.
Vance's speech may also be seen as the watershed where the U.S. divorces from Europe. There is a hidden danger in this:
The Europeanisation of Nato, framed as a necessity following US withdrawal, has accelerated the continent’s militarisation and its leaders’ demonisation of Russia, perpetuating the very conditions that caused the conflict in Ukraine in the first place. Instead of using this moment to engage in diplomacy, European leaders view the US retreat as a reason to escalate militarily. In this sense, Washington’s decoupling from Europe is at odds with Trump’s stated aim of achieving peace in Ukraine.
…
Ironically, the US’s attempt to distance itself from European security affairs may ultimately pull it back into an even larger conflict — one that it will have far less control over.
@Roger Boyd | Sun, 16 Feb 2025 08:37:00 GMT | 339
Well if you knew economics intimately you would know that the fact that Japan runs a large current account surplus, and has a very large net positive foreign asset position (i.e. has a continuing stream of incoming foreign currency earnings) has a very fundamental impact on how it can run its economy and its finances. It doesn’t need to borrow money to pay for imports, therefore it doesn’t have a need to run up foreign currency denominated debts.
Indeed, the current account balance is positive, due mostly to Japan’s foreign investments, and the service balance because more tourists are coming to Japan due to the weaker yen. But the trade balance for Japan is negative, by 30 trillion yen. So I don’t know why you said this:
Japan has been running a trade surplus, a current account surplus (3.6% of GDP in 2023 and it has been higher than that) helped by a very significant capital account surplus for decades. The latter is due to the very large net positive foreign investment position of Japan, it has a continuous flow of US$’s especially flowing home from the investments abroad. Not just financial investments, but all those factories abroad remitting profits. It does not need to borrow to fund its imports, quite the opposite it is an ongoing investor abroad.
Which is what I had an issue with. Again, a red herring or just not knowing the data, take your pick.
As for the US vs. Japan economy, here are some similarities and dissimilarities: The US runs a current account deficit, while Japan has an account surplus. Both have massive public debt, 262 percent of GDP for Japan, 120 percent for the US. Both have massive external debt, Japan’s is 107 percent of GDP, while the US is at 93 percent, only because its GDP is larger proportionally than Japan’s.
You are correct that Japan does not have high inflation compared to the US. I can still get quality items for a hundred yen, while I doubt I can buy anything for .65 cents in the US, maybe half a stick of gum. And, yes the yen depreciated in 2020, but it is undervauled, and this was due to the high debt ratios. Recently, the BoJ has increased the money supply to boost spending, so this might change.
Japan has demographic issues, but so does the US and every other Western country. The main difference is the US population is bigger and allows immigration, while Japan is still insulated. Japan has had reticent economic growth since 1991, but since 2010 this growth has been comparable to the US economy. Japan hasn’t returned to the heyday of the ’80s, but neither has the US. In Japan, interest rates are low. Wages remain static, which is the main problem, although it has improved recently.
Structurally, the US and Japan have the same macroeconomic issues – trade deficits, large debt, static growth, for the US inflation, and for Japan wage stagnation. Although, the US economy is larger so it will take a little longer for it to reach the critical mass point of Japan. But it will in five to ten years, so Sun of Alabama’s comparison is apt.
Posted by: James M. | Feb 16 2025 10:33 utc | 346
Vance’s speech, regardless of how hypocritical it is in the context of the US having been the driving force behind the cultural/societal degradation against which Vance speaks, was largely required as a first step for the West to not just acknowledge, but also to act on the fact that the world is multipolar.
Yes, the US pushed all this crap, but the powers that drive these things do not act in the interest of the people any more than the EU acts in the interest of its people. Both (former) nations serve the same master, and that master’s desire is to completely destroy any identity based on a shared blood, history, culture, religion, etc., as maintaining such identity results in unity and a drive to project the people’s interests and manifest their will into the world.
The false world they maintain on which our senses derive what we believe is reality can only be described as pure evil. It is a battle against nature (or God) itself, and one would be better served even if all he did was look for truth by assuming as truth the opposite of what this false world portrays. Our chosenite overlords hold up the most grotesque as beautiful, the most ridiculous falsehoods as absolute truth, and outcomes so vile the world cries out for help as justice.
We have all been brought up to hold “democracy” as some sacred religious value that CANNOT be questioned without being cast out of polite society. It is the ONLY way to achieve “freedom” for the people. If fact, it is so synonymous with “freedom” and “liberty” that any other means of government we view with contempt. Any type of monarchy is immediately viewed as illegitimate, oppressive system run by a ruthless “strong man dictator” who violates the “human rights” of all. Naturally, “human rights” represent the ability to practice without negative consequences that which is the most destructive to the people as they march towards their extinction, meaning that ANY remnants of a shared racial/ethnic/cultural/historical/genetic identity will be gone. Humanity, excluding only the chosenites, will be comprised of masses with no history, no religion, no future, no will.
Breaking the “chains” of monarchy was the first major step in destroying all of us. Monarchs are the means for a unified people to protect their interests and manifest their collective will. It is that which protects the people from a parasitical group taking power and destroying the people through control first of money, then of industry, and ultimately (particularly with today’s technology) the flow of all information to the point of dictating the reality around which individuals base their decisions. They are rewarded for harming their group’s collective interests and punished when attempting to guard those interests.
Yes, monarchs can be corrupt as can all forms of government. However, a monarch can be held accountable to the point the people rise up and kill him. Just look how those occupying power in the West have used their NGO’s, sanctions, and more to cause this very thing to happen. It is much easier to take down a monarch than the system if so called “democracy” once it has taken root.
In our “democracy,” we never get what we want. The popular will is demonized as “populist.” Using the US as an example, the people never wanted desegregation and forced bussing. It never desired to bring in all the world’s “wretched refuse” in spite of the fact such desire is stated in words by a chosenite, no doubt, attached to our Statue of Liberty (oh how she “liberated” us from protection of our interests!). Even crazy ass California voted NO on a referendum on gay “marriage” TWICE when it was put to statewide popular vote, but we got it anyway. None of us, even radical feminists, wanted men in skirts in our daughters changing rooms, but we got them anyway.
Just look at any country that can still be called a NATION, meaning a mostly homogenous population. These are the places that tend to have some type of autocratic government. Look at the level of support the people have for their leaders. They tend to be 80-95%, whereas our ridiculous “democracies,” typically can’t even get support from a simple majority. It is a system meant to divide, and a people divided falls to those who sneak in to “liberate” them from having a place, a home, in which their particular nature dictates how their society is run. Different peoples will have different systems of rules, laws, and enforcement. That is part of what makes any place what it is. You can experience the people’s unique culture in such places, and they are run by a government that leans towards autocracy that the people support. Or you can go to the US where all of this has been destroyed under the illusion of democracy, a government by the people (originally, perhaps, but twisted by chosenite will), for the people (and their ultimate destruction), and of the people (who serve chosenite interests against the interests of their people). It is always the case that for one system of government to rule over many peoples, some amount of tyranny is required, and it ultimately benefits none of them.
Posted by: BADmejr | Feb 16 2025 23:47 utc | 397
An excerpt from an excellent article from “Institutional War Theory”, about military strength:
“I. Productive Capacity
The U.S. & NATO together have a significantly greater defense expenditure than the Russian Federation. Russia’s 2024 military budget was $115 Billion while NATO member’ combined budget was $1.27 Trillion, eleven times greater than Russia. Yet, this vast difference in spending has little bearing on defense capabilities for three reasons: (1) Purchasing power. (2) Economies of scale. (3) Contract price gouging. Because of each, producing weapons is significantly cheaper in Russia.
To find the difference in purchasing power, we must calculate input costs in the U.S. (the largest producer of weapons in NATO)5 versus Russia. In industrial manufacturing, input costs like labor, materials, and energy make up a substantial proportion of the total operating budget. These costs fluctuate significantly depending on cost of living and the market prices of metals and energy. However, based on corporate self reporting, we can assume baseline labor costs are ~16%, material costs are ~27%,6 and energy costs are ~7%,7 totaling to half of the operating budget of a typical industrial corporation. Therefore, the costs of these units can be used to extrapolate the baseline difference in purchasing power of each bloc’s defense procurement budget.
The 2023 household income per capita in Russia was $7,5008 while American income was $50,900.9 From this, we can assume that the cost of American labor is 6.78 times greater than the cost of Russian labor. Current Russian steel pricing is $529 per metric ton10 while American steel is $887 per metric ton,11 1.67 times more. Russian energy costs $0.05/kWh12 while American energy costs $0.15/kWh,13 exactly three times more. Averaging each unit proportionally reveals that with equal scales of production, we should expect Russian weapons to cost roughly 41% that of American weapons.14
Larger scales of production also reduce unit costs, so a smaller military budget can yield an equal or greater number of weapons. While stockpiles matter at the start of a war, productive capacity is more important for extended wars of attrition since sustainable volumes of weaponry and manpower are the means for victory.15 The category of weapons responsible for the most casualties in land war are explosives, with artillery being responsible for ~80% of casualties, including the Russo-Ukrainian War,16 earning its King of Battle title. Therefore, the units for comparison will be explosives, specifically artillery shells, bombs, missiles, and drones.
The following figures are the latest available open source estimates of weapon production by each bloc. Russia produces 250,00017 to 375,00018 large caliber artillery shells (152 mm) per month. NATO states together produce 83,800 to 125,80019 shells (155 mm) per month. Russia produces at least 3,50020 glide bombs (FAB & KAB) per month. NATO states together produce 70021 glide bombs (JDAM) per month. Russia produces 174 to 21322 offensive missiles23 per month. NATO states together produce 12924 offensive missiles per month. Russia produces 120,00025 FPV drones per month. It is unclear how many FPV drones NATO & Ukraine together produce, but it could be between 17,000 and 84,00026 per month. Russia produces 1,63327 large platform suicide UAV (Geran-2, Lancet) per month. NATO produces as many as 8328 intermediate platform suicide UAV (Switchblade) per month. Russia produces multiples more of each explosive weapon type than NATO: 3.5x the artillery shells, 5x the glide bombs, 1.5x the missiles, 2x the FPV drones, and 19x the larger suicide drones, a scale of weapons production 6.2 times larger. Considering Russia has significantly higher productive capacity than the collective West, it is likely their weapons have much lower unit costs due to economies of scale.
The weapons contract system used by the U.S. Department of Defense does not strictly enforce price gouging, and may indeed use monopolized contracts as an incentive for manufacturers. With a monopoly on the production of one type of weapon system needed by the DOD, manufacturers can charge whatever they want. This wastes a large portion of the procurement budget since taxpayer dollars are converted into corporate profit, which could be an intentional incentive structure to increase competition for contracts.
This system has resulted in a worsening burden on the budget from unsustainable price gouging. U.S. defense spending totals more than half of discretionary spending, and this proportion is increasing.29 The impact on weapon prices, however, is particularly alarming. An oil pressure switch that has a production cost of less than $328 costs the DOD $10,000. A shoulder-fired Stinger missile that cost $25,000 in 1991 now costs $400,000.30 Adjusted for inflation, it should only cost $58,000. The worst example is a bag of bushings, which could probably be procured from a hardware store for $100, instead costs the Air Force $90,000.31
The Russian Ministry of Defense, by contrast, appears to create profit incentives through higher output volumes rather than monopolization, investing in a firm’s ability to increase its scale of production. Russia previously purchased Shahed-136 drones from Iran, on which the Geran-2 design is based, for $200,000 per unit.32 While the exact procurement cost for the Geran-2 is unknown, the production cost is understood to be ~$25,000, significantly lower than the Iranian export price.33 Russian ammunition plants have multiplied their production of 152 mm artillery shells, resulting in a unit cost of $1,000,34 much lower than the $8,00035 price tag in NATO states caused by low supply and limited scales of production. Some Russian weapons have seen increased unit costs, like FPV drones increasing in cost by $3,00036 per unit with the addition of jam-proof fiber optic lines. However, Russian weaponry does not generally suffer from price gouging since scales of production have increased system-wide, organically increasing profit margins37 and removing the incentive.
Since Russian weaponry costs less than half that of Western weaponry by default, has six times the scale of production, and does not come with price gouging incentives, Russia is able to produce significantly greater quantities of weaponry for a fraction of the cost. Therefore, NATO’s greater budget has not earned it greater strength.
II. Speed of Adaptation
Russian weapon technology is quickly adapting to battlefield threats by developing practical, cheap, and increasingly lethal modifications. Additionally, in the realm of superweapons, according to the best available evidence, Russia currently has greater capabilities than the U.S. & NATO.
Russia’s diversification of specialized drone types has accelerated in the last year. They now use first person view (FPV) drones for various roles including anti infantry, anti tank, aerial interception, bombing, mining, and electronic warfare.38 They have also deployed non-jammable fiber optic drones in large numbers,39 bypassing electronic warfare devices that normally scramble wireless signals and blind drone feeds.
The Russian Air Force uses cheaply produced JDAM-style glide bomb kits that fit standard FAB bombs and KAB thermobaric vacuum bombs. These kits retrofit the large Soviet stockpiles of FAB and KAB bombs to have much longer ranges and much higher precision. These bombs have very large explosive yields, with the three thousand kilogram FAB-3000 regularly hitting Ukrainian positions and the gargantuan FAB-9000 having been used at least once.40 Given the large quantity of glide bombs deployed on the battlefield, particularly during the 2024 Battle of Avdiivka, Ukraine’s insufficient air defense coupled with the sheer quantity of these bombs have made them a lethal addition to the battlefield, and would likely be a serious challenge for Western forces in the event of a peer conflict given that their JDAM stockpiles have been drained by aid to the Israel Air Force. Israel has dropped in excess of 88,000 tons41 of JDAMs and other guided bombs in Gaza, the rough equivalent of five Hiroshima bombs.42 It is unknown what percentage of the NATO glide bomb stockpile has been given to Israel, but it is unquestionably substantial.
Many people assume that NATO member states secretly mass produce highly effective superweapons that could easily overwhelm Russian defensive capabilities. They possess very deadly technologies like the B-2 & B-21 stealth bombers, which could deliver significant blows during a peer conflict. However, the suggestion that NATO possesses secret serial production lines or deployment of classified superweapons appears to have no basis in reality. The U.S. & NATO are testing numerous experimental prototypes including hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV)43 and directed energy weapons, but none of these systems have entered serial production, let alone service.
A directed energy weapon called the Epirus Leonidas, designed to disable drone swarms, won a contract with the U.S. Army. However, the company has only built four prototypes44 and is unlikely to produce enough units to protect the entire Army anytime soon. The Army has only recently begun fielding jammers to infantry units,45 but this is already too late considering Russia now uses non-jammable fiber optic drones. Wireless FPV drone operators can still successfully engage targets by simply ramming their drones through blind spots.46 Russia also uses real, battlefield tested superweapons already in serial production like the Kinzhal, Zircon, and Oreshnik, and is now fielding the Poseidon. While the U.S. & NATO are capable of eventually establishing production lines of HGV, directed energy weapons, & other superweapons, there is no evidence they have achieved this so far.
An area NATO is believed to have greater capabilities than Russia is precision tactical weaponry like GPS-guided Caliber shells, GMLRS systems like the HIMARS, GLSDB systems like the M270, and other “game changers.” However, since these systems have been used in Ukraine, Russia is now able to jam and intercept them,47 and has almost certainly developed a system for quickly assessing and adapting to the characteristics of unfamiliar systems. During the Gulf War of 1991, these expensive signal-guided tactical weapons were a huge advantage for the collective West, delivering it a decisive victory. However, on the modern battlefield, these weapons function as poorly as non-guided tactical weapons, rendering them overpriced and pointless. The winning strategy in modern warfare is to develop higher production volumes of cheap non-guided systems like rocket artillery and cheap guided systems like FPV drones.
III. Size of Standing Armies
The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation currently numbers 2,219,000 active personnel with 1,330,000 soldiers,48 a recruitment rate of 30,000 per month,49 and an additional 1,500,000 reservists.50 The U.S. Armed Forces stand at 1,326,000 active personnel, 443,000 soldiers, a recruitment rate of 4,600 per month,51 and 806,700 reservists.52 NATO, including the U.S., stands at 3,471,200 active personnel53 with 1,395,290 soldiers,54 a recruitment deficit,55 and 2,414,000 reservists.56 In total, NATO has slightly more troops and substantially more reservists than Russia, but a fraction of the recruitment rate. The U.S. has the highest recruitment rate of any NATO member state, yet recruits 84% fewer troops per month than Russia.
NATO member states have six times the population of Russia and should hypothetically be able to conscript six times the manpower, thereby making it theoretically capable of winning a war of attrition against Russia. This is true, but there are a few reasons why current recruitment rates and force size are better measurements of potential military strength than population size and number of reservists. Calling up all available reservists and conscripts puts an enormous burden on the economy, as both Ukraine & Israel have discovered, so this move must be saved for true existential threats. Yet both blocs have nuclear deterrence, making a direct war unlikely. If reservists and conscripts were called up for World War III, a strategic nuclear exchange would likely occur before reservists and conscripts were trained up and ready for deployment. With a steady flow of recruits already in motion, the side with the higher pre-war recruitment rate will have an advantage in the first year of conflict since the other army will need more time to train. Additionally, each bloc would need to arm their respective militaries, and having the greater productive capacity in the short term will create an immediate advantage on the battlefield. Therefore, the current force size and recruitment rate of each bloc are better measurements of military strength.
The Russian Ministry of Defense uses pay incentives to increase recruitment levels. Its base pay is $2,100 per month.57 This is roughly four times greater than the national median income of $625 per month. For comparison, entry pay in the U.S. Army (E-1) is currently $2,017 per month,58 or less than half the national median income of $4,241 per month. If American soldiers were paid a proportionally equivalent rate to Russian soldiers, they would be earning $16,966 per month. This is a gargantuan sum, but it’s only a portion of their total earnings and incentives. They also earn large enlistment bonuses,59 regional cost of living adjustments,60 benefits like debt forgiveness,61 and cash rewards for destroying and/or capturing enemy equipment.62 Russian soldiers are paid slightly more than American soldiers in exact dollars, and at least eight times more when adjusted for cost of living, without even counting bonuses or benefits.
The sustainability of such high personnel costs has been questioned, but Russia’s personnel costs only comprises 10%63 of its total military budget while the U.S. personnel costs comprise 22%64 of the total American defense budget. Despite having three times the personnel, half the relative personnel budget, and one seventh the total defense budget, Russia literally pays its soldiers more than American soldiers are paid. This does not make sense mathematically, but it is true. This begs the question as to whether some portion of the American personnel budget is being misspent. It would be unsurprising if corruption was siphoning off a portion of the American personnel budget given how price gouging similarly affects the procurement budget. Localized problems are sometimes representative of system-wide problems, and that may be the case with corruption vis-à-vis U.S. defense spending.
In current numbers, the collective size of NATO’s standing armies are slightly larger than Russia’s, and its number of reservists is significantly higher. However, Russia’s recruitment numbers and incentive structure are better than NATO’s. The two factors, productive capacity and recruitment, are why many military analysts predict Russia will win the Russo-Ukrainian War65 and why I assess it is currently more powerful than NATO.
NATO members could hypothetically match or exceed Russia’s recruitment if they make a convincing case that they face an existential threat. The U.S. military enjoyed recruitment surges following the Pearl Harbor and September 11 attacks66 despite neither Japan nor Al Qaeda posing existential threats. Perhaps if Russia were to attack a NATO member or if a convincing false flag were staged, NATO could see a spike in recruitment that would give it a clear advantage over Russia in a war of attrition. It is important not to count on such a possibility, though, because nationalism is a much more powerful political force than liberal institutionalism.
If a NATO ally is attacked, it could have some effect on recruitment, but it is unlikely to cause the same kind of recruitment surge seen when one’s own state is attacked because it would not automatically be perceived by the public as a national security threat. For example, if Russia attacks Latvia, there will certainly be a spike in recruitment among Latvians and their immediate neighbors like Lithuanians and Estonians. However, it is unlikely to convince citizens in distant allied states because not everyone considers an indirect threat worth dying over. A false flag attack, similar to the U.S.S. Maine Attack68 or the Gulf of Tonkin Incident,69 could potentially surge recruitment, but skepticism is likely to be strong in the age of democratized open source intelligence (OSINT) analysis.
IV. Experience and Quality of Training
Experience and quality of training are sometimes pointed to as evidence of NATO being more powerful than the Russian military. This was likely true prior to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine since NATO had fought a series of counterinsurgency (COIN) interventions over thirty years, gaining experience for their many soldiers, airmen, and marines. Additionally, as someone who personally knows American infantry veterans, I have heard anecdotes about their extremely intense training, indicating NATO’s ability to prepare soldiers for land wars. However, no training can substitute the practical experience gained from real high intensity combat. By that measurement, the Russian military is now, by far, the most experienced and best trained military in the world. According to Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu, at least 650,000 Russian troops are now experienced in combat,70 and new troops are regularly rotated in, further raising this figure.
This measurement is why I do not consider the Chinese People’s Liberation Army to be more powerful than the Russian military despite exceeding it in some measurements of strength including size of forces and productive capacity. The PLA has not engaged in high intensity combat since the 1984 Battle of Laoshan against Vietnam. The PLA seems unlikely to win a land war against Russia given its current level of experience. That could change with enough time and adaptation in a protracted war of attrition, especially since China has a much larger population, but a quick Chinese victory would be unrealistic to expect given the combination of Russia’s already substantial experience level, force size, and productive capacity. Additionally, like NATO, China has nuclear deterrence, making a China-Russia war unlikely.
Some NATO troops have gained peer land war experience by joining the International Legion and Georgian Legion to fight alongside Ukrainian forces. It is unclear how many volunteers were NATO veterans, but the total number of foreign fighters could be as many as 32,500 combatants.71 Assuming that each of these members is a NATO veteran and has since returned to active duty or advisory roles with NATO (neither of which are likely), the number of NATO troops experienced in peer combat would total a mere five percent of Russia’s. Since NATO forces are exclusively experienced in COIN warfare, they are not guaranteed to make good tactical or strategic decisions in peer land wars. For example, the choice by NATO war planners to have Ukraine conduct a blitzkrieg attack, an antiquated and historically ineffective tactic, led to a major strategic defeat during the 2023 Zaporizhia Offensive.”
Yes, over (plenty of) time NATO can conceivably catch up with Russia in some of these things, but even matching or surpassing it in one or two won’t be anywhere near enough.
And it will never manage to match or surpass it in all the categories.
It doesn’t and most likely never will have the institutional competence to do that.
And this is still just scratching the surface.
The cultural and psychological factors touched upon by Chris Cosmos are a factor of huge importance.
The Russians have all the motivation in the world to fight and they have demonstrated that just as their forebears they can deal with hardship.
Modern Westerners are frankly pussies, they will never in a thousand years volunteer in numbers that would make invading Russia (which it would have to come down to obviously, because after finishing Ukraine Russia obviously won’t do any of the stupid invading the Baltics stuff that Nazo propagandists claim it will, something that the european population will be well aware of) even remotely feasable.
So their only chance would be to force people into it, which is of course why they are re-introducing the draft.
But they won’t be able to actually get millions of people to fight and die without an apparatus of coercion making that of Ukraine with it’s Banderite deathsquads look like a libertarian utopia.
Ukraine is still fighting despite apocalyptic losses because there is an apparatus of oppression that was built up over many years and that is rooted in an unbroken 70 years tradition of militant nationalism and carefully cultivated warrior death cult demanding selfsacrifice without decades and decades of hyperindividualist, liberal consumerist living anywhere in betweem and of courese also very much because they are fighting for their country’s survival.
That last point is true regardless of the fact that their own treacherous elites brought this catastrophy upon them.
No Ukrainian fighting the Russians at this point is fighting for Zelensky, or the Oligarchs, or the West or America.
Trying to somehow re-create the perfect storm of factors causing the Ukrainians to fight like demons even in the face of certain defeat and death, despite staggering losses every day, in Western Europe of all places, so western europeans somehow, for some reason, will fight and die by the millions in a foreign land, for elites they despise, is doomed to complete and utter failure.
No population in all of human history was ever as illprepared for war, especially this kind of war, as modern day westerners are.
Posted by: Schopsi | Feb 17 2025 10:11 utc | 399
|
