I’ve written about the military establishment in Russia before, but it’s worth bringing up again. There are or rather, there were nationalist political groups in Russian politics, but they were either assimilated, like Dmitri Rogozin’s "Rodina” party, which basically faded into irrelevance once Rogozin himself was offered a position in the government, or they folded like the internet journal
At the end of the day, the question will be whether Russia will have suficient POLITICAL backing, within whatever Ukraine becomes, to prevent NATO from installing missile launchers in state hostile to Russia, no matter how small a remnant. How this endgame will be played is what will be important, not how well some "shock-and-awe" show will appeal the masses. One can argue that a slow measured approach will leave more badly-needed friends in a conquered land than a quick brutal victory.
From my distance, it appears to me that Russia did need some time to prepare itself for this confrontation, and judging by the financial outcome, the geopolitical conservatives spent their time well. But only at the very end will we be able to tell whose instincts, Strelkov's or Lavrov's, were the sounder.
Nor did it get a six week war like the Fall of France in 1940.
But are we in for a WWI-style stalemate? Meh, I'm not so sure.
Maybe a closer analogue is the U.S. Civil War. It took the Union four years but with a 3-1 (?) advantage in manpower and overwhelming industrial superiority, it slowly but surely crushed the Confederacy.
It's a pretty egregious mistake for anyone to make, much less someone writing an article with specific arguments & anecdotes about one particular ship that you seemingly confuse with another wildly different ship. And your edit just added the name Admiral Kuznetsov while keeping everything else the same, as if you didn't just construct an entire argument with personal anecdotes about the Admiral Kuznetsov, which you believed to be the destroyed Mosvka. This is my first time reading your writing but if this article is anything to go by, I'd advise readers to exercise caution in what you say or your motives behind saying it.
I don't really have any motives other than to run a successful blog. The point remains the same about old ships. I'm not a military expert and try not to write much about war things other than mentioning general overviews. There are other bloggers who are former military men who know this stuff inside and out. I personally couldn't tell you the difference between the various tanks, ships, artillery and so on.
At the end of the day, the question will be whether Russia will have suficient POLITICAL backing, within whatever Ukraine becomes, to prevent NATO from installing missile launchers in state hostile to Russia, no matter how small a remnant. How this endgame will be played is what will be important, not how well some "shock-and-awe" show will appeal the masses. One can argue that a slow measured approach will leave more badly-needed friends in a conquered land than a quick brutal victory.
From my distance, it appears to me that Russia did need some time to prepare itself for this confrontation, and judging by the financial outcome, the geopolitical conservatives spent their time well. But only at the very end will we be able to tell whose instincts, Strelkov's or Lavrov's, were the sounder.
The home front is important. Rolo has done a good service in highlighting this aspect.
Read anti-empire.com for the real doomer perspective. 😁
I have an interview coming up with Marko
To be fair, maybe Marko is a realist.
Russia obviously didn't get its Six-Day War.
Nor did it get a six week war like the Fall of France in 1940.
But are we in for a WWI-style stalemate? Meh, I'm not so sure.
Maybe a closer analogue is the U.S. Civil War. It took the Union four years but with a 3-1 (?) advantage in manpower and overwhelming industrial superiority, it slowly but surely crushed the Confederacy.
You realize that the Moskva and Admiral Kuznetsov are not the same ship right? Because it sounds like you don't.
youre right its two different ships, I added it for clarity, thanks
It's a pretty egregious mistake for anyone to make, much less someone writing an article with specific arguments & anecdotes about one particular ship that you seemingly confuse with another wildly different ship. And your edit just added the name Admiral Kuznetsov while keeping everything else the same, as if you didn't just construct an entire argument with personal anecdotes about the Admiral Kuznetsov, which you believed to be the destroyed Mosvka. This is my first time reading your writing but if this article is anything to go by, I'd advise readers to exercise caution in what you say or your motives behind saying it.
I don't really have any motives other than to run a successful blog. The point remains the same about old ships. I'm not a military expert and try not to write much about war things other than mentioning general overviews. There are other bloggers who are former military men who know this stuff inside and out. I personally couldn't tell you the difference between the various tanks, ships, artillery and so on.
Not sure what to think of the writings by Rolo, however, I do find the perspective he offers very different and interesting.
Good insights as usual. Thanks for posting.