I would like to ask, on what basis do you compare the Australian economy with Russias in terms of size. Is it purely a matter of GDP? I think there are other metrics that would be more useful if comparing a countries capabilities to fight a war. For example, how many warships, fighter jets and missiles does the country produce a year? What are its arm exports? Do they have their own space based assets, have they created their own version of GLONASS?
Hell, Australia doesn't even have a decent ballet! That'd be something at least. Not to mention engineers with Russian graduates in excess of 450 thousands compared to Australias 25 thousand. I think a comparison by GDP alone is disingenuous to the depth of Russian economy, one that can't be compared to one whose GDP is based on debt. By the way, Russia's national debt is less than a third that of Australia - and they still haven't put anyone in space or in the Bolshoi!
Military strength and ability to fight a war is based on many metrics - GDP, isn't probably the best one to use. I would say that national resolve and motivation are higher on the list. I'd like to see you write more about how this war is perceived in Russia by the majority of the people and compare this to the feeling in Ukraine and the West, as, ultimately, this is what will determine the outcome.
There is a lot here to pick through, but I will restrain myself to a couple of points and give a more detailed fisking when I have more time, but basically, what is any of this based on?
For example,
"Russia on the other hand has fully mobilised its defence industry that is already at peak capacity"
As a 'peak' is a highest point over time you should have an idea of what production was in the past, what it is now, and what it is likely to be in the future. I'm not asking for a detailed breakdown of classified intelligence, but your statement is a conclusion that one presumes is based on evidence and calculations, it is not unreasonable to ask what the evidence is and what the calculations were.
Similarly,
"Russian industry can produce plenty of artillery shells and refurbish tanks from war stocks but it is not able to match US or European production."
This should be based on rational estimates, both of what the Russian and the US/European production actually is. What are they?
Again, this is not unreasonable criticism. Rational academic standards require that both the data sets used, and the calculations based upon them are made publicly available for examination. Otherwise, it is just an assertion that one invisible number is larger than another invisible number, and as Christopher Hitchens said "That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence"
"frontline is holding and they are inflicting losses on Russia at a rate of roughly five to one. A rate that Russia cannot sustain indefinitely without mobilising further."
I would like to ask, on what basis do you compare the Australian economy with Russias in terms of size. Is it purely a matter of GDP? I think there are other metrics that would be more useful if comparing a countries capabilities to fight a war. For example, how many warships, fighter jets and missiles does the country produce a year? What are its arm exports? Do they have their own space based assets, have they created their own version of GLONASS?
Hell, Australia doesn't even have a decent ballet! That'd be something at least. Not to mention engineers with Russian graduates in excess of 450 thousands compared to Australias 25 thousand. I think a comparison by GDP alone is disingenuous to the depth of Russian economy, one that can't be compared to one whose GDP is based on debt. By the way, Russia's national debt is less than a third that of Australia - and they still haven't put anyone in space or in the Bolshoi!
Military strength and ability to fight a war is based on many metrics - GDP, isn't probably the best one to use. I would say that national resolve and motivation are higher on the list. I'd like to see you write more about how this war is perceived in Russia by the majority of the people and compare this to the feeling in Ukraine and the West, as, ultimately, this is what will determine the outcome.
Agreed
Also if it can't be bought in $USD it shouldn't be rated in $USD.
There is a lot here to pick through, but I will restrain myself to a couple of points and give a more detailed fisking when I have more time, but basically, what is any of this based on?
For example,
"Russia on the other hand has fully mobilised its defence industry that is already at peak capacity"
As a 'peak' is a highest point over time you should have an idea of what production was in the past, what it is now, and what it is likely to be in the future. I'm not asking for a detailed breakdown of classified intelligence, but your statement is a conclusion that one presumes is based on evidence and calculations, it is not unreasonable to ask what the evidence is and what the calculations were.
Similarly,
"Russian industry can produce plenty of artillery shells and refurbish tanks from war stocks but it is not able to match US or European production."
This should be based on rational estimates, both of what the Russian and the US/European production actually is. What are they?
Again, this is not unreasonable criticism. Rational academic standards require that both the data sets used, and the calculations based upon them are made publicly available for examination. Otherwise, it is just an assertion that one invisible number is larger than another invisible number, and as Christopher Hitchens said "That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence"
"frontline is holding and they are inflicting losses on Russia at a rate of roughly five to one. A rate that Russia cannot sustain indefinitely without mobilising further."
What is the source of this 5:1 ratio?