|
Kesper North posted:I swear to god I'm not a tankie, but what if... just what if... the entire threat of Russia was exaggerated just a teeny tiny bit for political and economic reasons to the benefit of Raytheon et al., and we didn't have to be this poo poo-scared of them the whole time because they were always this hollow Underestimating your enemy is the classic mistake, and military intel and planners are understandably wary of making it.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Arrath posted:They were, demonstrably, pretty capable circa 1945. The question is, when did they degrade to the poo poo show we see today? Definitely some time before the Soviet-Afghan War.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:I swear to god I'm not a tankie, but what if... just what if... the entire threat of Russia was exaggerated just a teeny tiny bit for political and economic reasons to the benefit of Raytheon et al., and we didn't have to be this poo poo-scared of them the whole time because they were always this hollow I'm not sure it would make that much difference in practice. You pretty much have to assume that your opponent will be able to use their published capabilities competently. Like, history is replete with failed/dead military leadership who dismissed their opponents out of hand because it didn't fit their world view that they could be competent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 18:32
|
|
Kesper North posted:I swear to god I'm not a tankie, but what if... just what if... the entire threat of Russia was exaggerated just a teeny tiny bit for political and economic reasons to the benefit of Raytheon et al., and we didn't have to be this poo poo-scared of them the whole time because they were always this hollow Yeah I mean you definitely don't ever want to underestimate there but I do believe exaggerating the threat to get more money sent to the MIC is definitely a thing as well. I can't find it now but someone linked a scene from a movie I hadn't heard of before and it was basically some Russian operative who was being forcibly interrogated and stated "Russian military isn't a threat, never has been a threat, your entire economy / leadership needs it to be one for them to stay in power" or something like that... anyone remember what that show was? Can't recall for the life of me. It got linked around here early into all this.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:I swear to god I'm not a tankie, but what if... just what if... the entire threat of Russia was exaggerated just a teeny tiny bit for political and economic reasons to the benefit of Raytheon et al., and we didn't have to be this poo poo-scared of them the whole time because they were always this hollow A common theme in military history is this: Side 1: They could not possibly be that stupid. Side 2: Is in fact that stupid. Even if you have a reason to think Side 2 is in fact that stupid, you do not ever assume or prepare for them being that stupid if you can help it. Because preparing for a competent, well-equipped, well-prepared enemy and then crumpling a paper tiger is an infinitely preferable outcome to preparing for a batch of complete morons and then getting your poo poo wrecked because your intel was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I'm not sure it would make that much difference in practice. You pretty much have to assume that your opponent will be able to use their published capabilities competently. For example, 7 Russian generals during the Ukraine campaign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
As an example of what happens when you underestimate you opponent, see what Ukraine is currently doing to Russia
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
That Works posted:Yeah I mean you definitely don't ever want to underestimate there but I do believe exaggerating the threat to get more money sent to the MIC is definitely a thing as well. There is a cost to over-preparing (see McClellan and the ACW) however from a cost benefit pov the case for that excess opportunity cost being enough to justify risking an existential crisis due to a military failure is so high as to be near infinite. Like, Russia failing to prepare adequately for Ukraine has some people predicting that Putin may end up with an ice pick in his ear. So, in that light, the cost of being over-prepared is pretty negligible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
Dismissing your opponents abilities is infamously a part of what dictatorships do and get the poo poo kicked out of them for it. The most hilarious example was the Italian Campaign in WW1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:Dismissing your opponents abilities is infamously a part of what dictatorships do and get the poo poo kicked out of them for it. The most hilarious example was the Italian Campaign in WW1. 17th battle of Izonzo
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:Starstreaks are genuinely important for Ukraine right now, but c'mon its definitely also for dickwaving purposes I think it's more of a "if we do this will you please ignore how chummy we've been to Putin up until just recently pretty please with some spotted dick on top?" thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:You should go over to Ukraine and tell them that Russia is a paper tiger and their war isn't such a big deal. We're not Ukraine. Germany and France are not Ukraine. We're part of NATO. All this really tells me though is that they can take on a single European state on their own border and do a lot of damage, yeah. That isn't shocking. But it does kind of put lie to the notion that they could prosecute a "total war" against all of NATO - you know, the scenario we all spent our lives expecting and in some cases training around - without resorting to nuclear weapons. It sure makes Red Dawn scenarios look, frankly, hilariously implausible. It also seems to suggest, based on what we're seeing in Ukraine, they'd have been able to make a mess of Poland but would also probably not be able to advance on western Europe without experiencing logistical collapse. So why were they touted as such a vast threat to the world when they're obviously really struggling to take a single European state? The obvious answer is, because our intelligence assessments said they were a bigger threat at that time, and that even the best intelligence isn't perfectly accurate. It could also be because the Russian military didn't get completely hollowed out until the post-Cold War period. But we also know that intel estimates can be cherry-picked and inflated, as with the Iraq War. I'm not saying we shouldn't have 'fought' the Cold War. But we should also ask ourselves how often political inflation of intel estimates has occurred, and maybe do some historical research to try and figure out exactly when and where our estimations of capability departed from reality. How big a threat is Russia to western Europe now that it has suffered all these losses and can't replace its advanced weapons systems due to sanctions? Can we meaningfully call it a threat to western Europe? Note: I'm not saying we should stop arming Ukraine - far from it - but again, it seems that is the nuclear arsenal that makes Russia a threat to any peer that doesn't share a border with it, not its conventional military. They are literally displaying right now that they don't have the logistical capability to fight that war, or even bring it to NATO's Cold War borders. So how long has that been true for? All good points here: Xakura posted:Underestimating your enemy is the classic mistake, and military intel and planners are understandably wary of making it. Cythereal posted:A common theme in military history is this: That Works posted:Yeah I mean you definitely don't ever want to underestimate there but I do believe exaggerating the threat to get more money sent to the MIC is definitely a thing as well. Murgos posted:I'm not sure it would make that much difference in practice. You pretty much have to assume that your opponent will be able to use their published capabilities competently. Xakura posted:Underestimating your enemy is the classic mistake, and military intel and planners are understandably wary of making it. FrozenVent posted:The bomber gap and missile gaps were 100% this, their conventional capability I think is more of a surprise. That being said I’m sure some people figured it out when they started paying soldiers in potatoes and such. Arrath posted:They were, demonstrably, pretty capable circa 1945. The question is, when did they degrade to the poo poo show we see today? Kesper North fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Apr 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
The problem is you're posing this question with the benefit of hindsight, which allows you to ignore everything we thought we knew or suspected up until February 24th. The systems that Raytheon et al developed were so expensive that they couldn't engage in a "if you build it they will come" Silicon Valley style product development strategy. The MIC has undoubtedly pushed the US to buy expensive poo poo, but the systems we have now are still the result of government issued requirements. psydude fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Apr 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:So how long has that been true for? We don't know. Fundamentally, we probably never will. That kind of detailed level of knowledge of Russia, its military, their operations, and their history is probably simply not available and never will be available, not even to Russia itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:We don't know. Fundamentally, we probably never will. That kind of detailed level of knowledge of Russia, its military, their operations, and their history is probably simply not available and never will be available, not even to Russia itself. This is an insightful reply. If Putin is getting bad intelligence about the state of his army, chances are good that we are too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:13
|
|
|
There's also that Soviet Union is not Russia. They had twice the population, and GDP in 1989 was ~twice what Russia has today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
"Red Dawn" Scenarios were always highly improbable (which hasn't stopped a fear soaked portion of the population from preparing for it) but I would also be wary of taking what we see in Ukraine today and back fitting it to the Warsaw Pact capabilities of 40 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
Russia's military can be fixed as well. They have modern weaponry, they just need internal reforms for both corruption and adjusting to the reality of modern war. If there is anyone with the will and capability to fix their military is a different issue, but that is far easier than trying to magic a military industrial complex that can produce everything from small arms to tanks and planes. PookBear fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Apr 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
PookBear posted:Russia's military would be fairly easy to fix as well. They have the hardware, its just internal rot. Also a good point; IIRC Ukraine actually did exactly this after Euromaidan and we're seeing the results now. psydude posted:The problem is you're posing this question with the benefit of hindsight, which allows you to ignore everything we thought we knew or suspected up until February 24th. True. psydude posted:The systems that Raytheon et al developed were so expensive that they couldn't engage in a "if you build it they will come" Silicon Valley style product development strategy. The MIC has undoubtedly pushed the US to buy expensive poo poo, but the systems we have now are still the result of government issued requirements. Yeah they just misdeliver so badly on stuff like LCS and the Zumwalts that sometimes I forget the government even issued any requirements. Kesper North fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Apr 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
That Works posted:I can't find it now but someone linked a scene from a movie I hadn't heard of before and it was basically some Russian operative who was being forcibly interrogated and stated "Russian military isn't a threat, never has been a threat, your entire economy / leadership needs it to be one for them to stay in power" or something like that... anyone remember what that show was? Can't recall for the life of me. It got linked around here early into all this. The Good Shepherd
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:We don't know. Fundamentally, we probably never will. That kind of detailed level of knowledge of Russia, its military, their operations, and their history is probably simply not available and never will be available, not even to Russia itself. If their archives are opened up again, and someone is dedicated enough, it might be possible, but there's a slim chance we'll see a Wages of Destruction for the Cold War Soviet Union in our lifetimes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
Also, internal rot is something that is impossible to actually quantify and every time someone has tried to do so its gone horribly wrong. Its up there with "if we invade with a battalion, the rest of the country will rise up and join us" and "home by christmas"
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
PookBear posted:Russia's military can be fixed as well. They have modern weaponry, they just need internal reforms for both corruption and adjusting to the reality of modern war. Do they have the wherewithal to do that though? Dictators are very careful about building and training their armies. And as long as corruption is endemic, they can't really fix anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
The big problem with trying to track corruption with historical record is that part of it becoming systemic is that the books are being cooked. If your inspectors are crooked then the falsified records and your actions being covered up by those records continue up until they get a reality check i.e. actually having to use all that poo poo that isn't in the condition that it's being reported as.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
zoux posted:Do they have the wherewithal to do that though? Dictators are very careful about building and training their armies. And as long as corruption is endemic, they can't really fix anything. This lack of training and even the basic understanding on how to actually wage a real war that isn't the modern equivalent of handing a serf a spear and telling them to charge (If the serf dies, send another one. We have lots of serfs) are just the  on top of the corruption.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:(If the serf dies, send another one. We have lots of serfs) https://twitter.com/LucasFoxNews/status/1512487913426386946
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
It's also worth considering that this is already essentially a total war between NATO and Russia in just about every dimension except kinetic. Ukraine has seen a massive infusion of armaments and intelligence that Russia cannot effectively degrade or destroy Not to discredit the bravery and heroism if the Ukraine forces doing the dying or how badly Russia is failing at basic things, but just how much of a force multiplier is it to have two continent's worth of developed countries shoveling weapons at you and letting their intelligence agencies do  things? I feel caution is in order extrapolating to a larger European conflict because because of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
Hyrax Attack! posted:Question from an uninformed person regarding those Switchblade drones we are sending over in large numbers. Would it be standard practice that in addition to the expensive explosive models they would also deploy barebones models with no weapons and only enough tech to get airborne and linger but that otherwise look the same? Seems like a cost effective way to make Russian armor paranoid. Think of Switchblade less as a drone and more as JSOW for mortars
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:It's also worth considering that this is already essentially a total war between NATO and Russia in just about every dimension except kinetic. There is so much more NATO could throw at it that there is no way that Total War is a apt from that side. As a portion of NATOs capability to respond it's assistance to Ukraine to date is almost token. However, as Russia commits more of its economy and population to this war and commensurately lowers it's threshold for atrocity, it's looking like it might get to Total War levels for them. edit: Obviously the war has been a Total War for Ukraine since day one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:It's also worth considering that this is already essentially a total war between NATO and Russia in just about every dimension except kinetic. Ukraine has seen a massive infusion of armaments and intelligence that Russia cannot effectively degrade or destroy Historically isn't this how they GLADIO worked? Wasabi the J fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Apr 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
Politico finally put together a profile of the general that's been running Ukraine's side of the fight https://twitter.com/herszenhorn/status/1512421143344517125?s=20&t=AWC340dUurDv0wp98uA4OQ The article is a really good read about how Ukraine managed to fully overhaul it's military system, doctrine, and command style in less than a decade. Link: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/08/ukraines-iron-general-zaluzhnyy-00023901 Note the general profiled has been refusing interviews, and Politico was no exception, so no new quotes. This guy sounds like a consummate professional who doesn't give a poo poo about PR, so I'm sure he's pretty happy Zelensky's doing the press and staying out of his way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:You should go over to Ukraine and tell them that Russia is a paper tiger and their war isn't such a big deal. You’re being intentionally dense or really looking for an internet fight
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:Politico finally put together a profile of the general that's been running Ukraine's side of the fight Are either of those generals like, revered? Petraeus, at least, is disgraced
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 20:20
|
|
|
Flikken posted:Or search and rescue ships after climate change ramps up storms on the Great Lakes. Does the coast guard operate anything big on the Great Lakes? Yeah, some icebreakers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
zoux posted:Are either of those generals like, revered? Petraeus, at least, is disgraced I think it's just a reference to the fact they all have nicknames. Literally a throwaway reference in the article itself, so why that was the tweet I do not know 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:Dismissing your opponents abilities is infamously a part of what dictatorships do and get the poo poo kicked out of them for it. The most hilarious example was the Italian Campaign in WW1. There’s a pretty good explanation in The Dictator’s Handbook on how states with decentralized power structures (typically, more democratic ones) tend to win wars over highly centralized ones precisely because the military in a very centralized state where having power is a high risk high reward thing is entirely built around and managed as a tool for maintaining power. It also means military success is only a priority if the dictator’s/elites job depends on it. (“Centralized” and “decentralized” here meaning how many people actually call the shots and can influence who rules rather than geography or legal conventions or whatever.) It’s a pretty good model since it explains why the same red army under Stalin sucked so much against the Finns but eventually excelled against the Germans. Stalin quickly had no choice but to stop loving over the army by gutting the officers corps and actually empower them to make them effective since winning the war actually personally mattered to his literal survival the second time. What’s happening with Russia is kinda similar to the first gulf war, everyone thought the Iraqi army would be far more effective than it actually was despite it being battle hardened and reasonably well equipped but it hadn’t actually learned any of the lessons or developed any doctrine to use it’s equipment or troops well since the purpose of the Iraqi army wasn’t to win wars, it was more to play a part in the poo poo mosaic of Saddam power structure. The Saudi army is similar where it has all the best toys and training money can buy but the regime will never allow units to train or actually learn how to operate since a well connected professional officer’s corps is a huge threat to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
zoux posted:Are either of those generals like, revered? Petraeus, at least, is disgraced It’s really amazing that despite all the horrible poo poo or general incompetence the US did post 9-11 the only general that has been meaningfully punished is him and it had nothing whatsoever to do with like covering up war crimes and he’s arguably the most competent general in GWOT
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
In america, we punish our generals by giving them a pension and a contributor position to the news network of their choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:It’s really amazing that despite all the horrible poo poo or general incompetence the US did post 9-11 the only general that has been meaningfully punished is him and it had nothing whatsoever to do with like covering up war crimes and he’s arguably the most competent general in GWOT Mattis has a much more famous nickname and he also wasn't convicted of giving classified information to his mistress. I've never heard "King David" Petraeus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
zoux posted:Mattis has a much more famous nickname and he also wasn't convicted of giving classified information to his mistress. I've never heard "King David" Petraeus. He directly played a role in the coverup of Haditha which did absolutely nothing to harm his career or image Being a direct accomplice to the senseless execution of a bunch of entire innocent families is a lot worse than being a horny idiot is something I think we all agree but not in the logic of US elites I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 20:43
|
|