"The Threat" - Alaxander Cockburn

New York: Random House, 1983. ISBN 0-394-52402-0.

I bought this book when it came out. The author makes a pretty strong case for the weaknesses of the Soviet military: The morale of poorly paid and poorly led soldiers, fliers and sailors; corruption in procurement; poor logistics; poor maintenance of equipment, vehicles and ships. The book's argument is that the west, especially the US were overestimating the threat from the soviet military and were throwing a lot of money away to counter something that did not exist.

Cockburn (he likes to have his name pronounced Co-burn) did his research and can back it all up. It was too inconvenient for the people who are making money from military expenditures, so it was ignored.

So here we are in 2022 and everyone is surprised that the Russian army couldn't just steamroll a country like Ukraine. The book is still worth reading.

jn

My bad! It was Alexander's brother Andrew wrote "The Threat." Alexander was the left libertarian who wrote the "Counterpunch" anti-establishment column back in the day. They were collateral descendants of the Admiral Cockburn who burned Washington in the war of 1812.


jn

I may have to look that up. The history of the Soviet/Russian military is fraught with contradictions.

The Soviet Army was comprised mostly of conscripts led by professional officers and NCOs. Discipline was brutal, unnecessarily so. Equipment was very good but not up, generally to the best Western equipment. But on the rare times they were engaged they performed ok., at least at the start.

Then the Soviet Union fell and the economy collapsed. Russia couldn't even pay the army. Then the Rosskies lost the First Chechen war badly.

Putin comes in and reforms the army, makes it more professional and wins the Second Chechen War. Since then things have obviously declined. Corruption and poor leadership and lack of training seem to have absolutely gutted the Russian Military. The actions of the Russian Military against civilians, a lot of which seems random, speaks to both poor discipline and poor morale.

The Russian military today, especially the Army seems mediocre on its good days.

We have a bad habit of underestimating our enemies-Korea, Vietnam, e.g. and overestimating our own capabilities. Granted the USSR in the 1980s was in what they called the "Period of Stagnation", with an overage leadership committed to a "sclerotic orthodoxy", but Uncle Sam's military had very serious morale problems, and remember what Norman Schwarzkopf said-"The Army lost its integrity in Vietnam."

Sorta like the disfunctional family down the block but with nukes.

Well so far, the Russian Army has not been able to crush the Ukrainians, and the faults Cockburn found in the So0viet Army seem to have carried over into the new regime. Putin's war has done as much damage to his own country as it has to Ukraine. I think a lot of people are paying attention, but they may be drawing the wrong lessons fr9om this war.

jn

Their infantry and armor leave everything to be desired. However they have the guns brought up now to back up their defensive positions, and enough shells to pulverize everything in front of their positions. Even in a fantasy scenario where somehow NATO first-line forces get involved in Ukraine (without the whole thing going nuclear), the emphasis would be on an extended campaign to starve the front-line Russian positions of the supplies needed to make war, plus threaten the southern flank via the Black Sea (again a fantasy scenario where somehow this doesn't go nuclear).

"Operation Strangle" -- the campaign to deny logistical support to the Germans dug in on the Italian Peninsula. Apologies to jn if this is a 'thread hijack'. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGHxdcoK5jQ

During the Iraq war Iraq fired scud missiles at Israel. They were un-guided fireworks bought from Russia (basically old V2 technology). Now we see that Russia's only or best hope to beat the Ukraine is to nuke them.

They obviously have some high tech equipment but how much and how effective and why hasn't it already been used?

I think their main strength is their shear numbers/number of soldiers, but like the Nazi's of WW2 they don't all agree to fight for one man's cause and beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allen

.....I think their main strength is their shear numbers/number of soldiers, but like the Nazi's of WW2 they don't all agree to fight for one man's cause and beliefs.

---

Russia's numbers of draft- and working-age people, especially men, have been falling for twenty years. Alcohol and AIDs cut down a lot of them young, also TB. Who knows how many they lost to the 'rona? It's what happens when you don't have decent public health.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/03...cline-ukraine/

jn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon_norstog

Russia's numbers of draft- and working-age people, especially men, have been falling for twenty years. Alcohol and AIDs cut down a lot of them young, also TB. Who knows how many they lost to the 'rona? It's what happens when you don't have decent public health.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/03...cline-ukraine/

jn

---

Sounds like they are getting as bad off as us.

Re: manpower. Russia has the same problems of any modern nation with a low birthrate. No one in their right mind has any interest in moving to some hopeless place like Russia. The folks w/ any skills or training are getting out while the getting is good. Makes sense. There is nothing in Russia except decline. Same goes for America. Without the influx of illegal immigrants, the birthrate in our nation would not even scratch the paint on the scale of replacement births. It is hitting plenty of other nations where if it were not for migrants moving in, the nation would be loosing population. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

Who needs more people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dryheat

Who needs more people?

---

It can't go on forever, clearly. And yet there are sectors of the economy that need positive growth, because that is what their investors expect. (Think hospital chains. But the # of hospitals only goes up with the # of sick people.)