Re: Generational Dynamics World View News
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2022 3:19 am
Can't the Ukrainians be "triggered" too?Navigator wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:29 amI would say that the Russian Army is only good once an outside power has triggered the threat. This could come from invasion, if it goes far enough, and gets into core areas. For example, the German Army leadership in WW1 knew not to trigger this, and they never went far into Russia, and never against a large "Russian" city (they took Riga, but avoided moving on Minsk, as Riga is Latvian, while Minsk is core Russian).John wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:44 am ** 16-Mar-2022 World View: Navigator's analysis
Thank you for this analysis. I'd like to build on it.Navigator wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:51 pm > Russia has always had trouble with war UNTIL there is a
> psychological trigger for them. I would call this the "Mortal
> Threat to Mother Russia". Until this is triggered, the Russian
> Army in its history, has been pretty poor. But once this is
> triggered, they become a different animal. So far, this has only
> happened 3 times, the war with Sweden in the 1700s (Poltava being
> the culmination), Napoleon, and then Hitler's invasions. Once this
> happens, the Russian military, and people, react quite
> differently, as Napoleon and Hitler learned.
The interesting thing about the three wars you mention is that they
were all non-crisis (Awakening Era) wars for Russia, fought in
conjunction with a crisis war for Europe (War of the Spanish
Succession / Great Northern War, French Revolution / Napoleon's
invasion, WW II / Hitler's invasion).
As you point out, they all follow the same pattern: the Russians are
incompetent with a foreign invader, but they win in the end -- often
because the invader can't tolerate the cold Russian winter -- when the
war becomes an existential crisis for Russia.
Russia's crisis wars for the last few centuries were internal
rebellions -- the Razin's peasant rebellion in the 1600s, Pugachev's
Rebellion in the 1770s, the Crimean War in the 1850s, and the
Bolshevik Revolution in the 1910s.
In other words, Russia has never had a successful expeditionary crisis
war. And let's not forget the the Mongols conquered Russia in 1206
and imposed the hated "Mongol Yoke" that lasted two centuries.
So when you say that the Russian army only becomes competent when it
is "triggered" by an existential threat to Russia, I would say exactly
the same thing in a different way: The Russian army is only competent
inside RussiA, and incompetent outside Russia. In other words, the
Russians don't have the skills to fight an expeditionary war.
Once the "trigger" occurs, the Russian Army is still good past its borders as it goes after whoever "pulled" the "trigger". Hence the Russian Army was competent in the pursuit of Napoleon outside Russia, going as far as Paris in his pursuit. Same with the Russian Army moving across Eastern and Central Europe in pursuit of Hitler and his armies.
Ukraine had been part of Russia for so long that Russians probably view what is going on there as a semi-internal matter. The "trigger" could be Putin telling his domestic audience that the West (NATO) is to blame for the fiasco now unfolding, for all the soldier deaths (due to the weapons they supplied) and that they are in "mortal danger".
He will certainly blame them for the economic turmoil they are about to suffer. Then they can play on the "look at your smug neighbors in the Baltics, Poland and Germany. They have everything we should have. They only have it because they are 'putting us down'". Then all those other Russian psychological instincts (as someone else put it, they will burn down their neighbor's house if its a lot better than theirs) will come into play too.
Also, don't forget the example of the Winter War. Everyone at the time thought the Red Army was hopelessly incompetent. Then look at what happened a year or two later. Stalingrad was neither Russians being incompetent nor "surrender monkeys".