Stuart Galbraith Posted July 22 Posted July 22 My father, a deceptively clever man, said Defence is the insurance policy that you hope never pays out. The whole point of having it is not to use it. If you have it, logic dictates, you dont need to use it. Si vis pacem, para bellum. Deterrence failed in Ukraine because we failed to send that message. We dithered, because we didnt want a war with Russia, and because of it, ended up with a war with Russia. Because of this, we will have to spend much more than we would have done, just exercising deterrence. And if we dont pay enough to make it convincing enough, whatever we have we will have to use it. These are old lessons indeed. Its getting really depressing that so many politicians have to relearn them, decade after decade.
seahawk Posted July 22 Posted July 22 9 minutes ago, Ssnake said: The costs of functioning deterrence are much lower than the follow-on costs of a failed deterrence. Didn't think I'd had to spell that out - on Tanknet, of all places. That is questionable. If the the re-unification between the so called Ukraine and Russia would have been peaceful, the overall cost in lives and economic damage would have been much lower. Nazism in the Ukraine would have been destroyed and the economic perspectives for the people would look brighter as well.
Roman Alymov Posted July 22 Posted July 22 54 minutes ago, ink said: One of the reasons the shares of arms companies are going through the roof right now is that everyone, East and West, has to start making everything again. And ordinary folks are gonna have to pay for it. Taking into account most of this money are coming from various forms of "quantitative easyng", the ordinary folks who gonna have to pay for it are folks from countries who end up holding the debt issued by West. Most likely, it will be Chineese folks.
sunday Posted July 22 Posted July 22 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Ssnake said: The costs of functioning deterrence are much lower than the follow-on costs of a failed deterrence. Didn't think I'd had to spell that out - on Tanknet, of all places. Depending on who you want to exercise deterrence again. No much sense in the UK arming to withstand a French invasion, for instance. Or, on the other hand, in Italy spending in naval firepower to avoid invasion by Africans when there is no political will to use that firepower. Edited July 22 by sunday
Ssnake Posted July 22 Posted July 22 Deterrence has multiple domains, including publicly demonstrated resolve, and psychology. These are absolutely vital ingredients, but you can't rely on them alone, just like all your firepower is worthless if your opponent can safely count on your indecision.
Roman Alymov Posted July 22 Posted July 22 Combination of pro-Rus FPV/drone video and pro-Ukr video filmed inside the car hit when it was still able to move (seems like later it burned out due to seat heater (?) shortcut) https://t.me/milinfolive/126518
ink Posted July 22 Posted July 22 1 hour ago, Ssnake said: The costs of functioning deterrence are much lower than the follow-on costs of a failed deterrence. Didn't think I'd had to spell that out - on Tanknet, of all places. Can't argue with that. However, I don't think US deterrence has ever been in question.
seahawk Posted July 22 Posted July 22 As we: Learned some call it an invasion, some call it liberation, some call it migration...
ink Posted July 22 Posted July 22 Also, just by the by, deterrence is not the same as power projection. I see a lot of people here have mixed up the two. When you're expecting your deterrence to work beyond your borders, that's power projection. It's that simple.
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 22 Posted July 22 (edited) I question it. All Europe questions it. If it hadnt been in question, Putin would not have invaded Ukraine. I look back and think, would it have been so hard to have dropped the 82nd Airborne in Ukraine, ostensibly on an 'exercise'? Maybe forward deploy some F15's? An Armoured Cavalry Regiment? Instead Biden went to meet Putin, to deter him, and failed. Maybe he would always have failed, but in the final analysis he still failed. We all failed. Edited July 22 by Stuart Galbraith
ink Posted July 22 Posted July 22 1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said: Taking into account most of this money are coming from various forms of "quantitative easyng", the ordinary folks who gonna have to pay for it are folks from countries who end up holding the debt issued by West. Most likely, it will be Chineese folks. It isn't that simple. A huge majority of US debt is domestic or held by "partner" countries like the UK and Japan. Only around 10-15% (from memory) is Chinese-owned.
Roman Alymov Posted July 22 Posted July 22 8 minutes ago, ink said: It isn't that simple. A huge majority of US debt is domestic or held by "partner" countries like the UK and Japan. Only around 10-15% (from memory) is Chinese-owned. Yes, but taking into account this "internal" debt will newer be converted in real goods and sooner or later will be written off or exported, the real life "ordinary folks" who will end up discovering they have been effectively working for free will be Chineese and other people from "global South" who are producing consumer and industrial goods to be shipped to "garden" in exchange for payment promises aka debt. To some extent, Russians also will be on loosing end (but not in terms of free labor but loosing natural resources that were also effectively provided to West for free).
Roman Alymov Posted July 22 Posted July 22 Drone-directed artillery vs. CAESAR SPG, note the gyu swipping off the tracks from dusty road after the vehicle hidden https://t.me/infomil_live/8234
urbanoid Posted July 22 Posted July 22 2 hours ago, sunday said: Depending on who you want to exercise deterrence again. No much sense in the UK arming to withstand a French invasion, for instance. Or, on the other hand, in Italy spending in naval firepower to avoid invasion by Africans when there is no political will to use that firepower. Hmm, I'd say Italy develops its navy to be an advanced force able to fight a peer enemy. You don't need advanced to fight off a migrant invasion. For that purpose, as long as you have the political will, a very, very 'cheap' navy will be sufficient. 'Cheap' as in 'ships with guns', don't even have to be large caliber. A slow, armed aircraft will do as well.
sunday Posted July 22 Posted July 22 16 minutes ago, urbanoid said: Hmm, I'd say Italy develops its navy to be an advanced force able to fight a peer enemy. You don't need advanced to fight off a migrant invasion. For that purpose, as long as you have the political will, a very, very 'cheap' navy will be sufficient. 'Cheap' as in 'ships with guns', don't even have to be large caliber. A slow, armed aircraft will do as well. True, for those things numerous cheap hulls is better than a few destroyers/frigates.
Roman Alymov Posted July 22 Posted July 22 2 minutes ago, sunday said: True, for those things numerous cheap hulls is better than a few destroyers/frigates. By the way the same is true for Rus Black Sea fleet: there is no need to have expencive and relatively big ships to prevent cargo ships with weapons from reaching Ukr portrs and to hunt u-boats. Small boats (may be even leasure speedboats with HMG) are enough - anyway they will be under ambrella provided by Rus ground-based SAMs and anti-ship missiles. Instead, we have a relatively small number of ships created for unclear purpose as they are too big for Black Sea and too small for ocean (not to mention they are dependent on Turks to allow them through).
old_goat Posted July 22 Posted July 22 6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Was watching an interesting video this morning, Russia is down to 16 percent stocks of MTLB in their depots. Apparently at the present rate they are going to run out in 7 months. A quick search reveals that Russia had around 3300 MTLB before the war, and they lost around 1100 so far... And that number comes from unreliable oryx, so real number is probably less. But even if it is true, Russia still has 2000 more... So keep on dreaming! lol
Roman Alymov Posted July 22 Posted July 22 5 minutes ago, old_goat said: A quick search reveals that Russia had around 3300 MTLB before the war, and they lost around 1100 so far... And that number comes from unreliable oryx, so real number is probably less. But even if it is true, Russia still has 2000 more... So keep on dreaming! lol Actually, there is no contradiction here: armor from storage is not going directly to battlefield losses - but to repair plants and, after some time, to military units (both existing and newly created reserves). So even with zero losses, if repair plants will continue their work they will sooner of later convert all storage yard wrecks into active vehicles in units - so yards will become empty. One could find informative the obvious difference between number of vehicles disapearing from storage yards and number of vehicles confirmed lost.
Roman Alymov Posted July 22 Posted July 22 4 hours ago, Roman Alymov said: FPVs vs. M1 Abrams (?) - not sure abput the type as the tank is partly covered by anti-drone "sunshed" https://t.me/anna_news/68772 P.S. Close up of the vehicle, seems it was not sunshed by soviet-style ERA source https://t.me/milinfolive/126520 location - West from Ocheretino https://t.me/creamy_caprice/6132?single
Yama Posted July 22 Posted July 22 10 hours ago, ink said: It isn't that simple. A huge majority of US debt is domestic or held by "partner" countries like the UK and Japan. Only around 10-15% (from memory) is Chinese-owned. One commentator summed up that much of US "public debt" is actually de facto taxation, which for ideological reason are not allowed to be called "taxes".
Roman Alymov Posted July 24 Posted July 24 Another M1 Abrams out - seems like the crew have missed field road turn (probably during night driving), got stuck and trench and have failed to recover the tank before sunrise -so the tank was noticed by pro-Rus drones and destroyed by FPVs and Krasnopol' https://t.me/dva_majors/47968
Roman Alymov Posted July 24 Posted July 24 Iskander(!) vs. drone control center in Krasny Liman https://t.me/anna_news/68867
ink Posted July 24 Posted July 24 Interesting stuff about the Russian economy: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/24/putin-lies-russian-economy-eu-ministers
Roman Alymov Posted July 24 Posted July 24 From https://t.me/KvachkovV/1666 "Many accuse China of not helping the Russian Federation in the war to the proper extent. And this is absolutely true. And now let's put ourselves in the place of our Chinese comrades, who are very closely following what is happening in the Russian Federation. The Chinese comrades see that practically the entire elite of the Russian Federation is mentally, mentally, soul and body in the West. The Chinese see that the Russian Federation is fighting very strangely, without destroying the proteges of the West in Kiev. The Chinese hear Putin begging for talks for 2.5 years instead of winning, etc. What conclusion should they draw from all this? Most likely, the Chinese comrades are afraid that the Russian Federation is simply using China in order to get recognition of its interests from the West. And if the Russian Federation gets its way, i.e. the Western elite will put the conditional Putin at the same table with them, after that the Russian Federation will throw China, Iran and the entire global south in the blink of an eye and rush with open arms to its palaces, yachts and assets in the West they love so much. How the elite of the Russian Federation knows how to betray their own - the Chinese and the whole world were able to see in 2014. Mozgovoy, Bednov and millions of Russians of Novorossiya will not let you lie. Therefore, it can be assumed that Comrade Xi does not trust his pro-Western raw material neighbor very much. Hence this policy."
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now