Bullshit. The Russian army has lost massive amounts of valuable equipment, they’ve lost a significant part of the demographic that can be mobilized. The country has lost the war chest they’d built up over many years, and the Russian economy and infrastructure is set back many years already.
It’s much more likely that Russia will be split into multiple states, and Russia will become more irrelevant than they’ve been for a millennium.
The Russian economy will probably continue to struggle for decades after the war, as sanctions are only lifted slowly, and only if Russia promises to behave.From a purely military perspective, active combat creates expertise at all levels in a military organization. Those that survive improve. This remains true until the losses outcompete the ability of the military to train replacements.
NATO forces have little experience with the type of war that Ukraine is facing. How do you fight all the inexpensive drones being mass produced? These drones have proven to be able to damage or destroy just about everything on the battlefield.
It’s a whole different war that will lead to rapid developments in new ways to kill each other for several decades.
The most efficient way to get NATO troops trained in this new war is to send troops to Ukraine. I suspect this may be one of the reasons that North Korea is sending troops to Ukraine.
How do you fight all the inexpensive drones being mass produced?
deleted by creator
If the war ended this moment, I could absolutely see Russia’s military getting stronger over the next few years compared to today. However, the war won’t end for awhile yet. In the mean time their military will continue to be beaten down by Ukraine and sanctions will continue to hamper their industrial base. Not to mention the ever-mounting demographic issues Russia has take an increasing toll on their military and economy as time passes.
Yes if the war ended tomorrow, I suppose you are right they could rebuild some of what they’ve lost, and become stronger than they became at their weakest.
But it would be very dangerous politically to allocate a lot of ressources to the military after the war, when the country is in dire need of restoration to where they were before the war. Even if they haven’t been bombed much, Russia has lost a lot economically, investments in infrastructure and production has been near zero for almost 2 years already, even the already existing capacity hasn’t been maintained.Russians a getting poorer fast, and just ending the war will not automatically turn things around, the economy is not healthy, and Russia needs to allocate ressources for restoring the economy, which will mean that ordinary household economies will be strained for years.
The “magic” economic growth we saw after WW2 will not happen for Russia, because the conditions that existed back then to create it, are not present today. For instance women entering the workplace in greater numbers. Where Russia will remain short on manpower.
But it would be very dangerous politically to allocate a lot of ressources to the military after the war, when the country is in dire need of restoration to where they were before the war.
I’d argue the reverse, Putin isn’t ruling democratically, he doesn’t need votes or approval. He DOES need a very strong military to stay in power, which is why Russia has the “national guard”, Rosgvardiya, under the sole authority of the president.
Of course, a palace guard military has very different material demands, and their main use is against civilians and other military, so the level of equipment can be decreased, but for a dictator to have a country full of disgruntled veterans is a very dangerous thing.
Keeping your own population in check is way cheaper than waging war. Your own population doesn’t have their own military.
it would be very dangerous politically
sobs in westerners still not understanding anything
No I think the article is making a pretty reasonable assumption that if Russia does not collapse, they will rebuild their army to the level they have historically maintained it.
You’re basically saying “no way they don’t collapse” but that seems a pretty large speculative leap.
You’re basically saying “no way they don’t collapse”
No I’m not, I’m saying no way they wont go into a multiple year recession. And they MAY collapse as a single nation because of it.
There is no doubt their economy is seriously cracking already.Sure the economy is bad, but you seriously don’t think they’ll keep spending on the military?
When the war ends, I expect they’ll reduce military cost dramatically, because they have to.
Wishful thinking
The one thing WW1 taught even casual observers is that a modern industrial nation can sustain a war and war production until they start running out of bodies.
Contemporary material demands are a bit more hard to supply but the basic functionality of an army is still basically the same, you give enough guys rifles, boots, and helmets and things will tend to work out.
