Russian Federation
John Ruehl, The Interpreter: Is Russia’s Military Better Than America’s?
The U.S. will devote $700 billion to its budget for 2018, dwarfing Russia’s $66 billion effort, a trend that has been consistent for more than 25 years. Yet Russia’s military has been relatively successful in recent conflicts, while the U.S. armed forces have not. American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq became multi-year quagmires, in comparison to Russia’s rapid victories against Georgia and Ukraine.
The short-lived U.S. intervention in the Libyan civil war was also another mistake, whereas Russia’s long-term intervention in the Syrian civil war is expected to eventually pay for itself. Russia’s military is certainly weaker than that of the U.S., but ill-fated decisions across multiple administrations have steadily undermined American power.
The war in Afghanistan, soon to enter its 18th year, is the longest-running conflict in American history. U.S.-led forces managed to root the Taliban out from the country’s major cities, but have since been locked in guerrilla fighting as the Taliban still controls or contests much of the rest of the country.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: John Ruehl makes a very convincing case that in today's conflicts, the Russian military fights wars better than America.
6 comments:
Other than Syria, I don't think the situations used are comparable. The Russian successes saw them in areas where the population was essentially Russian and welcomed the invasions. In east Ukraine it appears from a couple of articles the conquered areas are not well economically. That the Ukrainian government is removed from the area would appear to be the only positive for the population there. Crimea has received financial aid in the upgrading of some infrastructure which creates a dependence on the Russian economy. I guess they are pleased though time will tell. The naval base I would think is an economic plus.
Considering Afghanistan, Russia's attempt at depopulation of the country side was a tactic we have not used as did Russia and they still decided the conflict was too expensive and left. As for our involvement I question the availability of unbiased viewpoints.In S.VN I would consider the population shifts were a side effect of the fighting and not a deliberate tactic as was Russia's in Afghanistan. N. Vietnam's government has said they lost 1.1 million men during that war. That seems a big hit considering the starting population size. Too bad Westmoreland didn't ascribe to the Marine's defense of villages tactic after the invasion was driven back to the jungle areas and much big unit fighting diminished and became fruitless except for garnering headlines in our newspapers. Tet was a military debacle for N.VN but that was not the emphasis by our press at the time.
Ask postman
Roger,
Excellent post. I must say you cover a great deal of ground!! As to how much is relevant to the current situation, I am not sure. Nevertheless very interesting reading. Thank you for posting this.
I think we can sum up what you posted by stating that to compare the US military operations to the Russian ones is a comparison of "apples to oranges." I might not materially disagree with that assessment.
Fred,
"Ask postman." By this I think you meant me. You could have addressed it to me by the screen name. I think that would be proper internet etiquette. Nevertheless you asked. I will attempt to answer. Due to family and work commitments my time is limited.
Essentially much of Mr. Ruehl's article I could have written myself. Essentially his assertion that Russian military operations have generally been much more successful than US ones undeniable. He kind of dances around the issues of why but he gets close. Essentially the Russians have focused on areas of strategic importance to their interests, have avoided nation building, and have generally been trustworthy. On the other hand, the US has spent resources frivolously in a number of fruitless operations that don't advance American interests and actually undermine them. Also, American rules of engagement are often to restricting which undermines our abilities to be successful.
From this I think we can conclude that in terms of strategic planning and tactics Russia has better leadership. This is NOT to suggest Russia is a better country. In his last paragraph, he suggests the US needs to better adapt to modern warfare. What he cannot bring himself to say is US military commanders should actually study how the Russians have conducted war and try and learn from it. In other words, try and make our forces better.
Fred,
This is running longer than anticipated so I will break into multiple posts. Also, this should help you to read and comprehend it better. While the end results in terms of advancing Russian interests are undeniable or so it would appear, does this necessarily mean Russian forces are better?
Mr. Ruehl describes Russian forces as "certainly weaker" than US forces and "side by side" US forces are "undeniably superior." These claims are articles of faith. The only way to "know" is to have an actual "head to head" conflict. The only evidence he provides for his claim is how he begins the article by stating that the US spends 700 billion on its military while Russia 66 billion on its military. When comparing military power country by country, how much is being spent is actually the least important stat that one can look at. It is sort of like "time of possession" in American football which football coaches call "the least important stat."
While not irrelevant and not unimportant in and of itself, military spending is considerably less important than time of possession in American football. As the editor pointed out at one time, Germany spends in excess of 50 billion on its military but its military is NOT ready to fight ANYTHING. The editor is getting the concept that military spending is overrated. Maybe you can too. All in all not a bad article by Mr. Ruehl but to have presented military spending as his primary piece of evidence and really his only evidence to support such a claim is weak at best and worst intellectually dishonest.
Fred,
The 4,086 characters is limiting. While I can understand why the editor does this, it does make it difficult to address multifaceted issues. Just to give you a heads up this may take at least one more post to address all relevant points. If you stay with me, you might learn something today.
In the previous post, I explained that the evidence presented to back up the claim that the US military is stronger than Russia's is wanting at best and at worst intellectually dishonest. He has essentially presented an article of faith as fact.
Now lets examine actual evidence. During the Georgian War retired Col Ralph Peters was forced to admit that Russian forces demonstrated capabilities lacked by ours at that time. During the Syrian War media pundits expressed shock at Russian abilities with missile technologies exclaiming to paraphrase, "only the Americans are supposed to be able to do this!!" Also, compelling evidence indicates Russian pilots performed quite well in head to head engagements with our pilots over the skies of Syria which I am sure you have seen where I document elsewhere. Bottom line: the conclusion on this remains unchanged we cannot "know" without an actual engagement.
There is actually more that is worthy of discussing but I am running out of time and duties are calling. Time permitting I will post more later.
Post a Comment