As usual, a fine analysis and a pleasure to read and learn.
Without firmly agreeing or disagreeing, however, I must say that I would at least question a couple of points made. First, Russia has been thinking about this very likely since at least 2007 when Putin made his wonderful Munich speech, an indication to me that the Russians had already started preparing for the worst and were confident enough at that point in their re-building project to at last stand and speak truth to power. Since then, they have been developing new weapons, technology and stores of ammunition, I suspect, in great quantities since at least a decade, or perhaps even two. And since Feb 2022, they have gone into 24/7 mode at their factories.
Secondly, I too believe that it is unlikely that Germans or any other major power in the West will declare martial law and convert to a wartime economy. Why? Three main reasons. First they have deployed most all their heavy industrial capacity to other countries, primarily in the Far East. To hope to build up to the capacity necessary for World War III, it would take literally at least a decade, I suspect. Secondly, to declare martial law is an extreme action that absolutely requires the support of the population and the political will to follow it through. The West can meet neither of these conditions as their populations at this point, aside from a direct Russian invasion, want business-as-usual to resume as soon as possible - they don't really believe in the need for war against a power like Russia, certainly not for the likes of Ukraine. Also, the West is politically weak, having both weak, impotent leadership and divisive ruling classes not able to agree on such matters at all. Thirdly, the West simply does not have the manpower, not even the potential, to field an army capable of defeating a Russian 'total war' action, nor are their military leadership capable of conducting such a war strategically/operationally/tactically, as most of their generals are committed bureaucrats looking to a prosperous retirement package and have never been in a war they have won or against a peer power like Russia or China.
And there is likely a fourth reason - economics. Europe no longer has an economy based on low energy costs. It would be massively expensive to convert to a war economy in today's market - and it is at least questionable whether, under war conditions, their suppliers, who are mostly friendly to Russia (or at least see the practicality of staying at least neutral in such a stand-off - if neutrality would be even possible at that point), might even hike their prices under market pressure or refuse to supply them at all, fearing a Russian advantage in the long-term.
Sorry to be so wordy. I probably could have done better.
Europe is capable to scramble up production, by cannibalizing civilian production.
This is indeed what happens if you declare war (or martial law) and wartime production. It happened already. History taught us. You might want to ask whether the potential is enough to match Russian production? That's the right question.
Population is against war with Russia:
Well, yes. But!
There are certain strategies, which I could describe here, but I won't, that are being used to prepare a country for war very quickly. And believe me, the Germans are very weak on such strategies, unfortunately. Currently, the national pride is being suppressed by the American controlled media. If America decides so, it could unleash nationalism in Germany within a year. Suddenly you would have parties in power, that you never would thought of. There are plans for that. The playbook is known and it was played several times in history.
But let's stop talking about theories. As you and I already wrote, we don't think that such a development will happen. So, let's focus on real events.
Well, yes - good points. Europe possibly could cannibalize its civilian manufacturing capacity as has happened in wars past by most all major powers. So it is reasonable to assume this option when considering the next war. However, my concern is that the next war will be unlike any war ever fought (aren't they all?). The issue is this - the next war will be essentially a "stand-off" war - in the beginning at least. What I mean is that missiles (cruise, hypersonic, ballistic, etc), drones and electronic warfare weaponry will be used heavily. This of course means that critical military and civilian infrastructure and Command and Control Centres will be taken out first and quickly! And Europe (nor America!) has the anti-missile systems that could stop Russian weaponry. I suspect there will be neither the time nor the means to make a conversion to a war economy under such a scenario. Take Ukraine as an example - within the first few hours and days, most of its military infrastructure was critically damaged beyond repair - anti-missile systems, airfields, ports, etc. Many, many C&C centres taken out quickly so that the Ukrainians had difficulty communicating among the units. Expect this and far more once the Red Army is fully engaged.
One further point that has been made by experts more knowledgeable than I is that NATO spent 7 years (at least) building up the Ukrainian army to be the best army in Europe, so powerful that it could, if it wished, turn West instead of East and wipe out most of European forces with relative ease. The Ukrainians, for all that is said bad against them, are admittedly smart, know war (Soviet style - and that ain't bad) and they are courageous - all excellent qualities. Yet, with all the weaponry, training and logistical support offered by the West and the quality of the Ukrainian army personnel, the Russians are still wiping the floor with them. Putin once said "We haven't even started yet." when asked why he never referred to it as a war. I'm afraid Europe and America are going to wake up to a brutal reality if and when the real Red Army goes to war. God help us all.
As for preparing the population for war, unfortunately, you are likely correct - there exist means to quickly manipulate assent to war. This is one area where governments have become extremely efficient.
Russia was in a very weak position after the collapse of the USSR and the Yeltsin weakness. They essentially lost the 1st Chechen war. I suppose you could call it a draw. Putin came in and started building back up then. They won the 2nd Chechen war decisively .They took over the major cities in 2 years and spent 9 years clearing out the North Caucasus. They were woefully behind the USA though. They needed decades, Efficient spending, and the wisdom to know what to spend the money on to catch up. We are now seeing the results of that. Whatever you want to say about Paul Wolfowitz... in the discussions Wesley Clark mentioned he understood they only had a certain window to take what they want and consolidate their gains. He did predict a resurgent Russia. It appears the US failed on consolidating gains though. They were able to win militarily in the middle east but not win over enough hearts and minds for a political victory. We don't really know (at least I don't) what happened in-between the first and second Chechen wars. Kadyrov took Russia's side the second time and was instrumental in winning over the population and achieving a political victory along with a military one. My guess is promises were made as I believe there was a lot of fighting and jostling for power and influence of Chechnya after the 1st war. Kadyrov was smart enough to make a deal and consolidate power there after the war. Russia already built up the LPR and DPR forces in Ukraine. They already have a lot of pro Russian support minus the far West of Ukraine. They should have a much easier time winning a political victory as long as they win the military one here. The only thing they really need is to take Odessa at this point. The only other solution would be to agree to have Ukraine demilitarized. The problem with that is you can't trust the USA. They are non agreement capable as Lavrov always likes to point out.
The USA's greatest weakness is their cultural rot in my opinion. What they have done to divide and rule over their native population they seem to believe will work to win over foreign populations. It hasn't worked at all. When it hasn't worked the only solution is to always double down on what doesn't work. It is truly a very incompetent bunch of people running things in the US. They insist every country become as corrupt and morally bankrupt as the USA. Not a very attractive thing.
The West has been so busy neutering their young males and confusing their females that I can't imagine any successful outcome if they were to engage directly in a war ... and eventually, the rest of the world will tire of them screwing everything up for everyone else. As I commented on another post, I think the biggest threat to the world right now are the Spoiled Evil Brats of the Neocon Class that might get trigger happy while they're pounding the ground and kicking their feet because they don't get their own way. I understand the West wins with every Ukrainian and Russian death in this war by proxy .... but, the world is watching this debacle!
Taking up from your second point - the western financial system is in awful shape. The FED and NY banks were against the SWIFT disconnection and assets seizures being fully aware of the consequences which have since started coming home to roost. John Titus at Best Evidence has examined the most recent F.D.I.C. quarterly banking profile (3Q2022) and concludes systemic insolvency. Uncharted territory - it seems that if timing is crucial certain windows of opportunity have closed; don't worry about supply chains how about complete cessation of boats of goodies? I'd agree that re-tooling production and labour would take at least a decade. Meanwhile the multipolar caravan moves on.
I believe that the Russians have been preparing for war in Ukraine since at least 2014. That gave them at least 8 years to ramp up and expand material production. War supplies by Iran, China, etc. could be seen as an offering of support, not so much increasing supplies. Two other points in regards to preparation: the wonder weapons unveiled in 2018, most now in serial production; the other being the successful economic parries Russia put forth. As the milestones are being achieved in this current phase, it makes sense to see a reduction of artillery/missile/drone strikes from 60k to 20k per day (still WOW!). The reduction will enable for the resupply of munitions closer to the front lines, in time for the next operation.
For now, I think nothing will happen. I might be wrong about that.
But I wrote a piece about the same situation/development half a year ago.
Ukraine did the same back then.
I was declaring it as a diversion or as a pinning operation to stop the Russian advances in the East of the country. I think, it is the same again.
Moreover there is the possibility, that it is being done to put pressure on the Russians to start a big offensive to early, before the enemy units are too weak, to stop it. Which would inflict heavy casualties on the Russians. I advice to be patient and wait.
Again, I might be wrong.
If it indeed happen it would be a very unfortunate development for all parties involved. That's why I don't believe in it.
About a week ago, Western media reported a massive defeat with 1500 Russian casualties. Shortly after, the discussion stopped. What is your assessment of the accuracy of that information?
See, there are two Russian brigades, which are NOT prepared for an offensive with heavy loss potential. There would need to be thousands of reserve troops staying in Mariupol to feed them in, in case of losses. This is exactly, what you see by the Ukrainians. They ARE prepared and ready to spend men and material. Russia not. Rightfully so.
I assume, that the Russians could have underestimated the reinforcments potnetial by the Ukrainians for the Ugledar front. Considering the situation in Artemovsk. So they went on with these two brigades to envelop Ugledar. It failed, because of the steady reinforcements provided by Ukraine. Hence, they retreated (rightfully so) under some loses to regroup and change the strategy.
Yes, there were losses. I don't have data but I would estimate that in the whole battle for Ugledar from the beginning until now, the Russian marines could have suffered some 500 casualties. (Dead and wounded).
Well, that's war. Nothing extraordinary, but from a Russian human perspective, of course a disaster.
Thank you. It is almost impossible to get an accurate picture here in the USA, everything is war propaganda. If I were a journalist, I would be embarrassed.
As usual, a fine analysis and a pleasure to read and learn.
Without firmly agreeing or disagreeing, however, I must say that I would at least question a couple of points made. First, Russia has been thinking about this very likely since at least 2007 when Putin made his wonderful Munich speech, an indication to me that the Russians had already started preparing for the worst and were confident enough at that point in their re-building project to at last stand and speak truth to power. Since then, they have been developing new weapons, technology and stores of ammunition, I suspect, in great quantities since at least a decade, or perhaps even two. And since Feb 2022, they have gone into 24/7 mode at their factories.
Secondly, I too believe that it is unlikely that Germans or any other major power in the West will declare martial law and convert to a wartime economy. Why? Three main reasons. First they have deployed most all their heavy industrial capacity to other countries, primarily in the Far East. To hope to build up to the capacity necessary for World War III, it would take literally at least a decade, I suspect. Secondly, to declare martial law is an extreme action that absolutely requires the support of the population and the political will to follow it through. The West can meet neither of these conditions as their populations at this point, aside from a direct Russian invasion, want business-as-usual to resume as soon as possible - they don't really believe in the need for war against a power like Russia, certainly not for the likes of Ukraine. Also, the West is politically weak, having both weak, impotent leadership and divisive ruling classes not able to agree on such matters at all. Thirdly, the West simply does not have the manpower, not even the potential, to field an army capable of defeating a Russian 'total war' action, nor are their military leadership capable of conducting such a war strategically/operationally/tactically, as most of their generals are committed bureaucrats looking to a prosperous retirement package and have never been in a war they have won or against a peer power like Russia or China.
And there is likely a fourth reason - economics. Europe no longer has an economy based on low energy costs. It would be massively expensive to convert to a war economy in today's market - and it is at least questionable whether, under war conditions, their suppliers, who are mostly friendly to Russia (or at least see the practicality of staying at least neutral in such a stand-off - if neutrality would be even possible at that point), might even hike their prices under market pressure or refuse to supply them at all, fearing a Russian advantage in the long-term.
Sorry to be so wordy. I probably could have done better.
Hi Victor.
I enjoyed reading your comment.
It is well thought. Thanks.
I agree to every single point.
Even though I want to add something.
Industrial production of Europe:
Europe is capable to scramble up production, by cannibalizing civilian production.
This is indeed what happens if you declare war (or martial law) and wartime production. It happened already. History taught us. You might want to ask whether the potential is enough to match Russian production? That's the right question.
Population is against war with Russia:
Well, yes. But!
There are certain strategies, which I could describe here, but I won't, that are being used to prepare a country for war very quickly. And believe me, the Germans are very weak on such strategies, unfortunately. Currently, the national pride is being suppressed by the American controlled media. If America decides so, it could unleash nationalism in Germany within a year. Suddenly you would have parties in power, that you never would thought of. There are plans for that. The playbook is known and it was played several times in history.
But let's stop talking about theories. As you and I already wrote, we don't think that such a development will happen. So, let's focus on real events.
Hi Aleks.
Well, yes - good points. Europe possibly could cannibalize its civilian manufacturing capacity as has happened in wars past by most all major powers. So it is reasonable to assume this option when considering the next war. However, my concern is that the next war will be unlike any war ever fought (aren't they all?). The issue is this - the next war will be essentially a "stand-off" war - in the beginning at least. What I mean is that missiles (cruise, hypersonic, ballistic, etc), drones and electronic warfare weaponry will be used heavily. This of course means that critical military and civilian infrastructure and Command and Control Centres will be taken out first and quickly! And Europe (nor America!) has the anti-missile systems that could stop Russian weaponry. I suspect there will be neither the time nor the means to make a conversion to a war economy under such a scenario. Take Ukraine as an example - within the first few hours and days, most of its military infrastructure was critically damaged beyond repair - anti-missile systems, airfields, ports, etc. Many, many C&C centres taken out quickly so that the Ukrainians had difficulty communicating among the units. Expect this and far more once the Red Army is fully engaged.
One further point that has been made by experts more knowledgeable than I is that NATO spent 7 years (at least) building up the Ukrainian army to be the best army in Europe, so powerful that it could, if it wished, turn West instead of East and wipe out most of European forces with relative ease. The Ukrainians, for all that is said bad against them, are admittedly smart, know war (Soviet style - and that ain't bad) and they are courageous - all excellent qualities. Yet, with all the weaponry, training and logistical support offered by the West and the quality of the Ukrainian army personnel, the Russians are still wiping the floor with them. Putin once said "We haven't even started yet." when asked why he never referred to it as a war. I'm afraid Europe and America are going to wake up to a brutal reality if and when the real Red Army goes to war. God help us all.
As for preparing the population for war, unfortunately, you are likely correct - there exist means to quickly manipulate assent to war. This is one area where governments have become extremely efficient.
Russia was in a very weak position after the collapse of the USSR and the Yeltsin weakness. They essentially lost the 1st Chechen war. I suppose you could call it a draw. Putin came in and started building back up then. They won the 2nd Chechen war decisively .They took over the major cities in 2 years and spent 9 years clearing out the North Caucasus. They were woefully behind the USA though. They needed decades, Efficient spending, and the wisdom to know what to spend the money on to catch up. We are now seeing the results of that. Whatever you want to say about Paul Wolfowitz... in the discussions Wesley Clark mentioned he understood they only had a certain window to take what they want and consolidate their gains. He did predict a resurgent Russia. It appears the US failed on consolidating gains though. They were able to win militarily in the middle east but not win over enough hearts and minds for a political victory. We don't really know (at least I don't) what happened in-between the first and second Chechen wars. Kadyrov took Russia's side the second time and was instrumental in winning over the population and achieving a political victory along with a military one. My guess is promises were made as I believe there was a lot of fighting and jostling for power and influence of Chechnya after the 1st war. Kadyrov was smart enough to make a deal and consolidate power there after the war. Russia already built up the LPR and DPR forces in Ukraine. They already have a lot of pro Russian support minus the far West of Ukraine. They should have a much easier time winning a political victory as long as they win the military one here. The only thing they really need is to take Odessa at this point. The only other solution would be to agree to have Ukraine demilitarized. The problem with that is you can't trust the USA. They are non agreement capable as Lavrov always likes to point out.
The USA's greatest weakness is their cultural rot in my opinion. What they have done to divide and rule over their native population they seem to believe will work to win over foreign populations. It hasn't worked at all. When it hasn't worked the only solution is to always double down on what doesn't work. It is truly a very incompetent bunch of people running things in the US. They insist every country become as corrupt and morally bankrupt as the USA. Not a very attractive thing.
The West has been so busy neutering their young males and confusing their females that I can't imagine any successful outcome if they were to engage directly in a war ... and eventually, the rest of the world will tire of them screwing everything up for everyone else. As I commented on another post, I think the biggest threat to the world right now are the Spoiled Evil Brats of the Neocon Class that might get trigger happy while they're pounding the ground and kicking their feet because they don't get their own way. I understand the West wins with every Ukrainian and Russian death in this war by proxy .... but, the world is watching this debacle!
Taking up from your second point - the western financial system is in awful shape. The FED and NY banks were against the SWIFT disconnection and assets seizures being fully aware of the consequences which have since started coming home to roost. John Titus at Best Evidence has examined the most recent F.D.I.C. quarterly banking profile (3Q2022) and concludes systemic insolvency. Uncharted territory - it seems that if timing is crucial certain windows of opportunity have closed; don't worry about supply chains how about complete cessation of boats of goodies? I'd agree that re-tooling production and labour would take at least a decade. Meanwhile the multipolar caravan moves on.
Stay the course💙🇷🇺❤️
I believe that the Russians have been preparing for war in Ukraine since at least 2014. That gave them at least 8 years to ramp up and expand material production. War supplies by Iran, China, etc. could be seen as an offering of support, not so much increasing supplies. Two other points in regards to preparation: the wonder weapons unveiled in 2018, most now in serial production; the other being the successful economic parries Russia put forth. As the milestones are being achieved in this current phase, it makes sense to see a reduction of artillery/missile/drone strikes from 60k to 20k per day (still WOW!). The reduction will enable for the resupply of munitions closer to the front lines, in time for the next operation.
Cheers from Cheyenne!
Hi TBP.
As always I appreciate your comments.
Thanks.
What is your opinion, brother, would any new developments like Nazi attack on Transnistria change the pace of Russian war operations?
For now, I think nothing will happen. I might be wrong about that.
But I wrote a piece about the same situation/development half a year ago.
Ukraine did the same back then.
I was declaring it as a diversion or as a pinning operation to stop the Russian advances in the East of the country. I think, it is the same again.
Moreover there is the possibility, that it is being done to put pressure on the Russians to start a big offensive to early, before the enemy units are too weak, to stop it. Which would inflict heavy casualties on the Russians. I advice to be patient and wait.
Again, I might be wrong.
If it indeed happen it would be a very unfortunate development for all parties involved. That's why I don't believe in it.
About a week ago, Western media reported a massive defeat with 1500 Russian casualties. Shortly after, the discussion stopped. What is your assessment of the accuracy of that information?
I do believe, that Russia suffered losses here.
See, there are two Russian brigades, which are NOT prepared for an offensive with heavy loss potential. There would need to be thousands of reserve troops staying in Mariupol to feed them in, in case of losses. This is exactly, what you see by the Ukrainians. They ARE prepared and ready to spend men and material. Russia not. Rightfully so.
I assume, that the Russians could have underestimated the reinforcments potnetial by the Ukrainians for the Ugledar front. Considering the situation in Artemovsk. So they went on with these two brigades to envelop Ugledar. It failed, because of the steady reinforcements provided by Ukraine. Hence, they retreated (rightfully so) under some loses to regroup and change the strategy.
Yes, there were losses. I don't have data but I would estimate that in the whole battle for Ugledar from the beginning until now, the Russian marines could have suffered some 500 casualties. (Dead and wounded).
Well, that's war. Nothing extraordinary, but from a Russian human perspective, of course a disaster.
Thank you. It is almost impossible to get an accurate picture here in the USA, everything is war propaganda. If I were a journalist, I would be embarrassed.
Psyops 101!