How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[holoween]

8 minutes ago, JonS said:

This is fabulously wrong headed.

"Somehow", those effete slow liberal democracies managed to win WWII, Korea, Cold War, Gulf War, etc against those superlative and efficient autocracies and dictatorships.

And in which of those did the democracies not have a massive economic advantedge?

The only time this advantedge wasnt massive was early ww2 and that didnt exactly turn out well.

[sburke]

4 minutes ago, holoween said:

And in which of those did the democracies not have a massive economic advantedge?

The only time this advantedge wasnt massive was early ww2 and that didnt exactly turn out well.

are you asking because you don't think they have one now?  and umm, they did win ww2 and pretty much obliterated the axis powers and frankly their economic advantage in ww2 was pretty massive.  I mean hell look at the comparison in carrier fleets between Japan and the US and that was the secondary theater as far as the democracies were concerned.

Quote

In 1943, U.S. naval production was at its highest level in the war, and this year's output alone exceeded the total wartime output of all other major powers combined.

let's not even begin to talk tank production etc.

[JonS]

24 minutes ago, holoween said:

And in which of those did the democracies not have a massive economic advantedge?

Do you think that was mere coincidence?

Also, so what? War isn't like competitive ballroom dancing - you dont get extra points for style and panache.

[Battlefront.com]

21 minutes ago, holoween said:

And in which of those did the democracies not have a massive economic advantedge?

The only time this advantedge wasnt massive was early ww2 and that didnt exactly turn out well.

Can't compare that.  The democracies weren't on a wartime footing.  Japan understood this and that's why it attacked Pearl Harbor.  Hitler didn't understand this at all and was dumb enough to declare war on the US.

The frustrating thing for many of us here is that we see the need for the West to switch into at least 1st gear on wartime production, but all we do is hear the engine revving with the clutch pushed down.

I have thought for some time now that I think I know the feeling of the people that kept screaming in the late 1990s about al Qaeda.

Steve

[Sojourner]

28 minutes ago, JonS said:

This is fabulously wrong headed.

"Somehow", those effete slow liberal democracies managed to win WWII, Korea, Cold War, Gulf War, etc against those superlative and efficient autocracies and dictatorships.

That's a bit harsh.

In WWII at least, those "effete slow liberal democracies" had to resort to some authoritarian measures. Mandatory conscription, rationing, curfews, Nisei concentration camps, something called the War Powers Act in the US (I presume UK/ANZAC had something similar), to name a few.

Not sure I would call Korea a win, not sure I would call the Cold War a war, and the Gulf War adversary was in a whole different league.

Not that I disagree with the point, slow and steady wins the race, as the saying  goes. It's just unfortunate that bureaucracy is a necessary evil for an open, rule-of-law democracy.

[dan/california]

1700 km, no way that is less than 16 hours. 

[holoween]

25 minutes ago, sburke said:

are you asking because you don't think they have one now?  and umm, they did win ww2 and pretty much obliterated the axis powers and frankly their economic advantage in ww2 was pretty massive.  I mean hell look at the comparison in carrier fleets between Japan and the US and that was the secondary theater as far as the democracies were concerned.

let's not even begin to talk tank production etc.

yea te point is judging efficiency by overall outcome doesnt work. Speed and efficiency of resource allocation only gets you so far. And early ww2 so germany + italy vs france and britain does somewhat illustrate that.

10 minutes ago, JonS said:

Do you think that was mere coincidence?

Also, so what? War isn't like competitive ballroom dancing - you dont get extra points for style and panache.

Democracies having bigger economies isnt really a coincidence but also not inherent to democracies.

9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Can't compare that.  The democracies weren't on a wartime footing.  Japan understood this and that's why it attacked Pearl Harbor.  Hitler didn't understand this at all and was dumb enough to declare war on the US.

The frustrating thing for many of us here is that we see the need for the West to switch into at least 1st gear on wartime production, but all we do is hear the engine revving with the clutch pushed down.

I have thought for some time now that I think I know the feeling of the people that kept screaming in the late 1990s about al Qaeda.

Steve

But thats the point. Autocracies can make decisions and allocate resources faster than democracies can.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, holoween said:

But thats the point. Autocracies can make decisions and allocate resources faster than democracies can.

I don't think there is much disagreement on this point.  But it only matters if the autocracy can achieve what it wants before the democracies clobber them long term. 

Steve

[holoween]

Just now, Battlefront.com said:

I don't think there is much disagreement on this point.  But it only matters if the autocracy can achieve what it wants before the democracies clobber them long term. 

Steve

Absolutely.

Deocraty is by far the best societal organisation over long timeframes.

They keep educated people, have the easiest time to deal with korruption, make best use of their population and as a result have the best economies.

But short term autocracies can absolutely outperform them. Which is why democracies turned autocracies are incredibly dangerous.

[holoween]

43 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

 It's just unfortunate that bureaucracy is a necessary evil for an open, rule-of-law democracy.

bureaucracy is essential for any large organisation to function coherently.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Seedorf81 said:

The Capt and Beleg85 thank you for your clarifying posts.

The Capt:

I never suspected the "low balling" and "dumping" of the ammo at a much lower price. Makes sense, and at the same time it doesn't.

One question:  you wrote "(..)one big 20 year VEO bug hunt", but even my good friend Urban Dictionary couldn't come up with a good explaination for VEO. Could you, or anyone, explain what VEO means in this context, please?

 

Beleg85:

Well spotted that the forementioned article missed the 155 - 152 mm difference. I assume the writers meant 152 mm calibre for the 20.000 Russian shells.

 

Both your posts enhance my understanding (and awe, and some disbelief)of the humongous amounts of money that are related to war. It also shows me that there are much more people that make much more money from investing in war, and war-related enterprises, than I realised. Why would they choose peace??

 

 

It makes sense that western politicians are playing a careful balancing act - support Ukraine but don't go too nuts because the economy is pretty stressed right now.  One way to deal with this is to show the tens of thousands of rounds we are sending Ukraine but low-balling the price tag to avoid sticker shock.  So the prices listed are likely wholesale costs from 20 years ago when these shells were made - nicely avoiding military inflation etc.  Governments play these games all the time.

"VEO" - Violent extremist organization.  A new broad term we use to encompass terrorism but also beyond that.  Some groups are VEOs but not terrorists (legally) - but every terrorist is a VEO.  In Afghanistan, the Taliban were a VEO but not legally a terror organization.  AQ was a terror organization and VEO.  We had two completely different operations to deal with them.

[The_Capt]

58 minutes ago, JonS said:

War isn't like competitive ballroom dancing - you dont get extra points for style and panache.

Sig lines!  Get your sig lines, right here!

[sburke]

30 minutes ago, holoween said:

Absolutely.

Deocraty is by far the best societal organisation over long timeframes.

They keep educated people, have the easiest time to deal with korruption, make best use of their population and as a result have the best economies.

But short term autocracies can absolutely outperform them. Which is why democracies turned autocracies are incredibly dangerous.

and that quick win ended on the drive at Kiev... soooooooo we are back to the democracies having much better economic clout, which incidentally the democracies flexed that clout way faster than Russia expected.  The decision to knock Russia off Swift was done immediately and that was not a small matter.

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

This is fabulously wrong headed.

"Somehow", those effete slow liberal democracies managed to win WWII, Korea, Cold War, Gulf War, etc against those superlative and efficient autocracies and dictatorships.

It is an astonishingly strong conceit that autocracies are somehow better at war than more liberal states. Even looking at *this* war...Russia's autocracy has screwed up in every conceivable way, taken grossly disproportionate losses and cannot regain its earlier standing *even if it prevails* in Ukraine. It has inflicted on itself a strategic, economic and demographic disaster.   

[Seedorf81]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

It makes sense that western politicians are playing a careful balancing act - support Ukraine but don't go too nuts because the economy is pretty stressed right now.  One way to deal with this is to show the tens of thousands of rounds we are sending Ukraine but low-balling the price tag to avoid sticker shock.  So the prices listed are likely wholesale costs from 20 years ago when these shells were made - nicely avoiding military inflation etc.  Governments play these games all the time.

"VEO" - Violent extremist organization.  A new broad term we use to encompass terrorism but also beyond that.  Some groups are VEOs but not terrorists (legally) - but every terrorist is a VEO.  In Afghanistan, the Taliban were a VEO but not legally a terror organization.  AQ was a terror organization and VEO.  We had two completely different operations to deal with them.

Thank you! That's why I like this thread.

Not just an answer, but a very good explanation, too.

I like to learn new things, and today I did learn new stuff.

Nice!

 

[photon]

And if we think of economics in terms of decision space, democracies being a bit slower than autocracies has some active advantages. Japan's economy had very little slack in 1941, and consequently when the action war revealed that many of their economic priorities were misaligned with their strategy, they couldn't easily retool. Same story in Germany. But the United States had enormous slack and could therefore invest heavily in what combat revealed to be good strategic priorities.

The war in Ukraine has revealed that we had lots of bad ideas about strategy and procurement. That offers the west the opportunity to retool towards things that will matter strategically. We need to take that opportunity, though.

[Seedorf81]

27 minutes ago, billbindc said:

It is an astonishingly strong conceit that autocracies are somehow better at war than more liberal states. Even looking at *this* war...Russia's autocracy has screwed up in every conceivable way, taken grossly disproportionate losses and cannot regain its earlier standing *even if it prevails* in Ukraine. It has inflicted on itself a strategic, economic and demographic disaster.   

Democracy's reluctance and hesitation to commit to war, even if it seems like cowardice or weakness, could be it's strongest value.

One who knows his real power and strength, should be careful when to use it. IF democracies decide to go to war, their potential is huge, because freedom of thought creates much more creativity, productivity and willingness to sacrifice, than the initial "weakness" seems to indicate.

A bit like the sleeping tiger that doesn't want to wake up, and lets the dumb human poke him. And poke him again. And again. And then the tiger kills the annoying man.

Even with current USA struggling, with Western Europe's crises, and the growing BRICS, Iran and all, opposition to democracy, I think that "The West" is like that sleeping tiger.

 

 

Edited January 7 by Seedorf81
never no mistake could be my middle name..

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, photon said:

And if we think of economics in terms of decision space, democracies being a bit slower than autocracies has some active advantages. Japan's economy had very little slack in 1941, and consequently when the action war revealed that many of their economic priorities were misaligned with their strategy, they couldn't easily retool. Same story in Germany. But the United States had enormous slack and could therefore invest heavily in what combat revealed to be good strategic priorities.

Yes!

What some of us here have to constantly remind people about is the economics of this war.  Russia invaded Ukraine in part because its economy was faltering and the rich in Moscow weren't getting as rich any more.  It had some spare capacity to wage a short and successful war, it had no capacity to wage a protracted existential war without sacrifice.  The Russian economy, on the whole, is suffering enormously because of this war.  That means any increase in military spending comes at the expense of something else.  Whether it is cash, soft power, or bartering... that's all national economic capacity being spent to keep the war going and not something else.  The prewar assets are all being rapidly spent down with no end in sight. 

Meanwhile, the West is barely noticing the expenditures to help Ukraine.  Unfortunately, that too is not endless.  The discussion about 155mm shell cost is a perfect example.  It's all well and fine to take a $3k shell and give it to Ukraine for $1k in order to keep the accounting looking positive, but what happens when those shells need to be replaced?  It's going to be expensive to do that, not to mention do that AND send new production (at $3k each) off to Ukraine.

In a way the West is playing the same sorts of accounting games with aid to Ukraine as Russia is with its Cold War stocks of weaponry.  Once these things are gone they are gone and only new expenses, at current market rates, will produce more.  It's no wonder the West is starting to get stingy with its munitions.

Steve

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, holoween said:

But thats the point. Autocracies can make decisions and allocate resources faster than democracies can.

And autocracies can do really stupid things much faster than democracies.  No checks on power, no diversity in thought while making decisions, and no internal accountability.  The external accountability can be a tad painful.

It certainly cuts both ways.

[Carolus]

30 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

And autocracies can do really stupid things much faster than democracies.  No checks on power, no diversity in thought while making decisions, and no internal accountability.  The external accountability can be a tad painful.

It certainly cuts both ways.

Very well.

So what do the democracies do now to prevent unnecessary deaths caused by those silly autocracies that commit these stupid mistakes so easily?

The systemic view has its place and if the point is that democracies will triumph in the long run, I am willing to grant that for the sake of argument.

But does that help the people who are getting killed right now?

And that the support for Ukraine will be gearing down somewhat until 2025 at least? 

Is this the optimal path within democratic structures?

Because I can tell quite well how things are going. No, there will be no Russian thunder run on Warsaw or even on Kiyv. 

But Ukraine will continue to slowly bleed out for the next years while the new BRICS axis will continue their very successful hybrid strategies and affect elections on all levels of governance in those democracies to make sure that whatever they try next will receive the same response as the response to the invasion of Ukraine in 2014. 

No, we are seeing democracies failing to act, not because democracies are slower, but because they are being influenced from within and without + independent internal trust and leadership crises that were going on since before the Corona era already without any interference. The WW2 axis, while it had some players in the UK and the US, never reached this level of successful internal corrosion inside their enemies as Russia and China have reached now in Europe and the US. 

There will be no big bang. But we are observing the beginning of a long whimpering end of liberal democratic order, globally.

Edited January 7 by Carolus

[Beleg85]

3 hours ago, Seedorf81 said:

Both your posts enhance my understanding (and awe, and some disbelief)of the humongous amounts of money that are related to war. It also shows me that there are much more people that make much more money from investing in war, and war-related enterprises, than I realised. Why would they choose peace??

That's nature of modern industrialized warfare, but that doesn't mean they decide when to go to war. Ultimatelly, it is politicians who are calling the shots and war effort of this scale is never something that is treated lightly, in economical terms only. I am pretty sure that even most mafioso-style Russian officials, industrialists and oligarchs are also occassionaly pretty scarred where all this is heading and would love to take a deep breath, when some ceasefire would be made.

 

A propos discussions about peace talks from 2022- Yaroslav Trofimov wrote a chapter about in his newest book (still need to read it); he does represent views close to Kyiv government and is likely not totally impartial here, but on the other side he has access to good sources. As far as I know, he did not relate to Naftali Bennett's interview though:

https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1743654749696573745

[sburke]

so about those Autocracies making faster decision cycles... roughly comparable to Russia's corruption issues.

Xi Jinping Purges Military Following Reports Of Missiles Filled With Water Instead Of Fuel (msn.com)

Quote

 

U.S. intelligence sources recently disclosed that Chinese President Xi Jinping initiated a significant military purge due to concerns about rampant corruption undermining the country's military strength and jeopardizing its ability to wage war.

What Happened: The corruption reportedly extends to China's Rocket Force and its defense industrial base, with examples ranging from missiles filled with water instead of fuel to malfunctioning missile silos, reported Bloomberg. 

 

 

[JonS]

Yeah, but Steve - it took them no time at all to decide that it would be more profitable to use H2O instead of CH3CH2OH, and rather than having endless meetings over whether to use Perrier, or Fiji, or Voss, they just hyper efficiently went with tapwater.

So, once again, autocracies and dictatorships for the win!

Checkmate, libruls!

Edited January 7 by JonS

[billbindc]

39 minutes ago, Carolus said:

No, we are seeing democracies failing to act, not because democracies are slower, but because they are being influenced from within and without + independent internal trust and leadership crises that were going on since before the Corona era already without any interference. The WW2 axis, while it had some players in the UK and the US, never reached this level of successful internal corrosion inside their enemies as Russia and China have reached now in Europe and the US. 

There will be no big bang. But we are observing the beginning of a long whimpering end of liberal democratic order, globally.

This take is highly redolent of the attitudes of pessimists in the 1930's and contra your claim, there was very extensive German/fascist influence in Western democracies during that period. But then, as now, the extremist states were driven by the dynamics of authoritarian rule and could not stop themselves from over reaching.  Why? Because such states are not good at running countries very efficiently and must needs export the internal contradictions they suffer from to survive. Nuclear weapons change the way these things play out somewhat but Russia and China are simply not a match for an aroused and committed US/EU. It is a rough truth for Ukraine (and one that I find shameful) but the West has room to dither. Russia in particular, will not know when to quit and it is already working towards Russia's undoing. 

[OBJ]

43 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Very well.

So what do the democracies do now to prevent unnecessary deaths caused by those silly autocracies that commit these stupid mistakes so easily?

The systemic view has its place and if the point is that democracies will triumph in the long run, I am willing to grant that for the sake of argument.

But does that help the people who are getting killed right now?

And that the support for Ukraine will be gearing down somewhat until 2025 at least? 

Is this the optimal path within democratic structures?

Because I can tell quite well how things are going. No, there will be no Russian thunder run on Warsaw or even on Kiyv. 

But Ukraine will continue to slowly bleed out for the next years while the new BRICS axis will continue their very successful hybrid strategies and affect elections on all levels of governance in those democracies to make sure that whatever they try next will receive the same response as the response to the invasion of Ukraine in 2014. 

No, we are seeing democracies failing to act, not because democracies are slower, but because they are being influenced from within and without + independent internal trust and leadership crises that were going on since before the Corona era already without any interference. The WW2 axis, while it had some players in the UK and the US, never reached this level of successful internal corrosion inside their enemies as Russia and China have reached now in Europe and the US. 

There will be no big bang. But we are observing the beginning of a long whimpering end of liberal democratic order, globally.

You know, it's very hard to tell how a large, complex, very dynamic situation is going to end, until it ends.
I have to keep reminding myself of Danish politician Karl Kristian Steinke advice, 'It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future'

I, as I believe others here, have an affinity for the history of conflict in the last century. I suggest if you'd asked the man on the street, any street, how they thought democracy was doing in 1931, 1936, 1937, 1939, 1940, 1941, pretty much through the middle to end of 1942, I imagine the response would have been, 'not very well.' The death, destruction and abject misery continued for quite a while after that before things got better for even just some people.