I think some are too focused on recruiting or conscripting citizens for fighting a kinetic conflict.
For the Five Eyes(Canada, US, UK, Australia, NZ) that don’t ever need to worry about conventional invasion, it’s far more about national resilience that relates to national defence.
How does a nation rapidly adapt to warfare that is occurring beneath the threshold of conventional warfare, and in some cases general public detection.
It’s not about fighting future trench warfare, it’s likely more about adaption to disruption to the nation of the electrical grid, logistics systems, and digital platforms.
A contemporary civil defence optimised not to defend against nuclear war but to defend against cyber, informational, psychological, and supply chain warfare.
Less continuity of government(as per Cold awards doctrine), more continuity of economy.
> For the Five Eyes(Canada, US, UK, Australia, NZ) that don’t ever need to worry about conventional invasion
Australia is extremely at risk of conventional invasion, their current independence is a function of alliance to the strongest navy in the Pacific. Without a US that is willing and able to ensure Australia's free access to the surrounding ocean, AU is absolutely unable to deploy enough of their own military to fend of probably even Indonesia, let alone China. The coastline is just far too long, the military assets too few, and the country too depopulated to be able to stop a determined invasion.
I need to push back on your analysis on this. Quite hard actually.
Indonesia lacks the force projection capability to even project an expeditionary force into Northern Australia.
Sustaining an expeditionary force into Northern Australia by Indonesia would leave it incredibly vulnerable to air and sea supply chain interdiction.
With first hand professional domain experience, and without arrogance or hubris, an Indonesian invasion of Northern Australia would be disastrous for Indonesia.
China invading Australia would entail a much more capable, but entirely untested, expeditionary force over much longer and far more vulnerable supply chains.
With just FVEY intelligence support and FVEY forces already forward deployed into Australia, the likelihood of China successfully establishing and sustaining a beachhead to break into Australia with a conventional invasion would be similar to that of Indonesia, due to very long and very vulnerable supply chains.
Unless China glassed Australia with nuclear weapons, any attempt by Xi and the CCP's PLAN/PLAAF/PLA to conventionally invade Australia would be a moon shot too far.
China's fleet steaming south would be severely attrited transitting limited maritime traffic route bottlenecks that would be akin to cattle chutes in a slaughter house, while China's own energy/food/raw industrial materials commercial maritime supply chains would be existentially vulnerable.
That's just to Australia's current fleet of Collins class submarines and tanker supported F35s.
Australia's AUKUS nuclear submarine investment will magnify that current independent threat to China's maritime supply chain.
Which is odd, considering this comedic skit is partially true:
The Indonesia comment was a bit of cheek, I totally concede that it would be disastrous for them. However, I don't think that a conventional invasion is too far fetched IFF USN assets withdraw from the western Pacific.
Yes China has to transit the straits around SEA, but how many Collins does Australia actually currently have available to deny these channels, 1 or 2? Additionally, if this scenario happened and the US was in full turtle-mode, how long do you think AU could sustain those F35s? AUKUS won't deliver actual capability to Australia until maybe 2035 at the earliest, and those subs are too large to feasibly use the channels around Indonesia and Malaysia effectively anyway.
But yes I agree, unconventional attacks are more likely.
I think biggest threat of invasion for Australia is illegal immigration.
It’s happened before, and Australia has used discrete and unconventional means to disrupt it.
RAN could probably surge 3 Collins boats depending on timings of depot level maintenance.
P8 paired with C17/C130 used as arsenal planes to saturate PLAN air defence and F35 hitting hard targets with LRASM would make it a slaughter.
PLAN’s recent live fire exercise in the commercial air corridor between Australia and NZ single handedly justifies increased defence spending for ANZ.
Personally, I think China’s horrible demographic wall it’s about to hit at 100kph combined with a stagnant economy(140+ car makers today that will surely drop to 20 or less by 2035) leaves Xi with plenty of domestic crisis to solve.
The risk is if Xi needs(or needs to create) an external crisis to activate nationalism and deflect away from domestic strike(akin to Argentina-Falklands 1982).
Even Taiwan might be a stretch too far. Xi will need a guaranteed win.
But if it mimics the rise of the same idea in Japan, it could indicate peak real estate as coincided relatively closely with the introduction of the 50 year mortgage in Japana,
Different circumstances, different “song”. But perhaps a similar tune.
Pizza Hut opened in the Soviet Union in 1990 prior to collapse the following year.
Although many might contest Pizza Hut qualifying as real pizza. :)
It’s a shame authentic pizza didn’t grab hold earlier, especially with the origins of pizza being egalitarian peasant food.
Two early post-Soviet pizza events, both involving Pizza Hut, are somewhat relevant here.
Not so much about the introduction of Pizza, but the Pizza Hut proxy introduction of capitalism(western success) and dissolution of communism(Soviet failure).
Gorbachev Pizza Hut commercial(post Soviet collapse and during Russian Financial Crisis):
Pizza Hut also paid the Russian space program(in deep financial distress at the time) a considerable sum to have cosmonauts eat Pizza Hut in space, delivered on a Soviet-era Proton rocket carrying a 50ft Pizza Hut logo.
So pizza certainly existed in the waning days of the Soviet Union, but a deeper question might be what role did pizza(Pizza Hut specifically) play in influencing, exemplifying, or merely footnoting the troubled geopolitics between Russia and the pizza eating west?
I would think Tesla’s lower residual value from price declines would result in a poorer(possibly much poorer) showing using a total cost of ownership framework.
And I would think Toyota, especially Toyota plug-in hybrids, would get a strong boost in total cost of ownership rankings.
Wouldn’t an important inflection point for EVs be winning a total costs of ownership comparison with Toyota plug in hybrids?
It might make sense to maintain a few with the 105mm gun for low intensity conflict against non state actors.
But we seem to be moving at velocity towards a peer or near peer adversary environment.
An AC130H Spectre(Spirit03) was shot down by an Iraqi MANPAD crew when it remained on station after first light supporting USMC units that stopped an Iraqi probing attack in 1991.
When facing an adversary with modern MANPADs(or better) and night vision/thermal targeting optics, Spectre is going to be at risk.
Leave the gunship over the horizon and/or outside of the air defence bubble and launch a swarm of cheap drones.
Drones for command, control, communication.
Drones for surveillance and targeting.
Drones for electronic and kinetic attack.
Launched, and potentially recovered, from the C130 ramp, jump door, and/or retrofittable ejection system like a sonobuoy dispenser in a P3/P8.
Potentially any C130 could be configured with palletised launch/recovery systems as well as palletised drone operator consoles.
C130 configured as an arsenal plane would probably be more capable and survivable than the current Spectre, assuming equivalent flight crew and defensive systems.
Tangentially related, there's also the Rapid Dragon system for launching palletized cruise JASSM cruise missiles from cargo planes. They roll the disposable launcher packs off the back, which deploy a chute and drop missiles. You can fit 12 missiles in a C-130, 45 in a C-17.
This ends, or escalates further, with the use of nuclear weapons by Russia.
People can debate all day on whether Putin is a genuinely and popularly elected President, a totalitarian dictator, or a mafia boss.
But what’s not up for debate is Putin’s absolute consistency.
Putin does what he says, and says what he does.
If Putin threatens to use nuclear weapons, he likely will, the only debate is when.
The real threat of Putin using nuclear weapons shouldn’t stop efforts to shape the desired end-state.
A realistic hope may be HOW nuclear weapons are deployed.
An atmospheric test display over remote Russsian territory that disrupts the test ban treaty and global markets suffer some temporary disruption.
A high altitude atmospheric detonation over Ukraine that disrupts Ukrainian communications, western military support for Ukraine, and global markets suffer longer lasting disruption.
A tactical nuclear weapon detonation over Ukrainian combat units that disrupts Ukrainian offensive, western military support for Ukraine, and global markets suffer lasting disruption.
Western coalitions have disrupted the Russian economy with sanctions, but China/India provide two major energy export customers.
The west is most prone to economic disruption in Q4 Oct-Dec.
In consumer-led discretionary income dependent sectors, Q4 can be 50% of annual revenue with 25% of annual revenue coming from just mid-Nov to mid-Dec.
If I was Putin I would create and amplify tension targeting western markets and consume sentiment from now until Mid-Dec.
Personally, I don’t worry about a Cold War era Cuban Missile Crisis or 80’s Threads/Day After threat of total nuclear annihilation.
But I do strongly believe we are at greater risk of a limited nuclear display or tactical detonation than at any time since August 1945.
Ukrainian forces have a lot of offensive momentum and high morale, which leaves them vulnerable to hubris.
I am sympathetic and in 100% agreement with Ukraine to defend its sovereignty.
But Ukraine attempting to recover 100% of its pre-2014 territory will likely result in nuclear weapons being used.
My hope it that such a nuclear exchange is limited and that the global economic impact is only 1-3x the ‘20-‘22 COVID disruption.
>A tactical nuclear weapon detonation over Ukrainian combat units that disrupts Ukrainian offensive, western military support for Ukraine, and global markets suffer lasting disruption.
A single tactical nuke would have virtually no impact on Ukrainian military operations. It would only affect a few square km, maybe a battalion strength unit. To decisively influence a significant front like Kherson would take at least a handful of them. To relieve pressure along the whole front would take dozens. Strategic warheads used on the front would do more, but then the radiation and fallout effects would also impact Russian units, and Russia itself. there's also no way to use and EMP pulse to impair Ukrainian front line units without also impairing Russian front line units.
>Western coalitions have disrupted the Russian economy with sanctions, but China/India provide two major energy export customers.
Using nukes would remove all the remaining support Russia has, including that from China and India in terms of trade. It's likely the west would impose a total blockade and interdiction of all Russian ports, sea traffic and air transport anyway.
It might be worth looking at Russia’s unusual nuclear doctrine of “escalate to deescalate.”
I agree numerous tactical nuclear weapons would be required for combat operations, but not necessarily for information operations designed to shape western democratic citizenry.
People like us in the west can more easily afford to have opinions on Ukraine.
People in China, and particularly India can’t afford to have as many opinions when they are struggling to afford food and energy,
COVID related fiscal and monetary inflation is eating a chunk of the real gains made in recent decades.
A bit hyperbolic I know, but India has continued and will continue to purchase energy from Russia as will China even if a small number of nuclear weapons are used within Russian territory, within Russian controlled territory, or within Ukraine.
Food and energy price inflation pressures matter more to many countries than whatever is happening in Ukraine, 3rd world problems rather than 1st world privilege.
True that food and energy security are primary concerns for India and China. Does Russia detonating nukes in Ukraine improve or harm food and energy security? Especially if the west interdict Russian trade in response, as they have with North Korea. The answer to that will shape the response of these governments.
Will west escalate to interdicting Indian and Chinese flagged vessels used to circumvent embargo to bring home even more discounted fuel and food? Because ultimately that's what directly harms the food and energy security of these two other nuclear powers. At the end of the day RU isn't the one disrupting their bilateral trade with "friendly" partners. The real question is how will west make it worthwhile not to trade with RU, and so far it's been mostly sticks instead of carrots which is unlikely to work when it comes to fertilizer and fuel.
India and china do not benefit from turning a blind eye to active use of nuclear weapons for military or blackmail purposes. Remember that both India and Pakistan have a few nukes each. It's absolutely against India's interests to accept the principle that military use of nuclear weapons, or threat of their actual use, is acceptable internationally.
There are two problems with your reasoning. First, you’re assuming Putin’s use of nukes would make him automatically win the war. That’s not how it works. Second, you’re ignoring other possibilities. For example, an interesting response to Russian attack would be an “unknown party” detonating a dirty bomb in one of Russian cities. It’s easy to do technically, wouldn’t result in large casualties, couldn’t be blamed on NATO, and would require absolutely enormous cleanup effort that would likely topple the regime.
I don’t think or believe Putin will necessarily win the war by escalating to the use of nuclear weapons.
I just think he has been very consistent in “doing what he says, and saying what he does” over the long-term.
And that his personal credibility is tied to this conflict, so escalation is likely.
Escalation by Putin doesn’t guarantee victory(or the semblance of it), but de-escalation by Putin is a guarantee of failure(credibility).
The US has just leaked its unhappiness with Ukraine conducting targeted assassination in Russian territory(seperate from train/logistics sabotage).
But a dirty bomb detonated in Russian territory is far more likely to be a Russian casus belli, akin to Nazi false flag action in Poland in 1939 and Putin/Shoigu false flag action in 1999 with the Moscow Apartment Bombings.
Putin said he won't invade. Then he said Kyiv will fall in three days. Then conducted fake referendums, "annexing" territories he doesn't control. Izyum was declared a part of Russia forever from now on, and that "forever" lasted two days. So, this "doing what he says" doesn't quite check out.
As for casus belli - against whom exactly? And why would Russia need any casus belli?
“ >Does anyone have examples of a world power funding a revolutionary force and it ending in peace and prosperity?”
Solidarity in Poland, supported with plausible deniability at arms length by the CIA.
Solidarity was a Polish labour union that grew massively in size from its foundation in 1980 to evolve into a civil resistance social movement using non-violent means to achieve change.
In 9 years Solidarity went from inception to leading Poland’s post-totalitarian communist pivot towards democracy.
In a program called QRHELPFUL, CIA provided cash as well as communicatio/distribution equipment via 3rd party cutouts to prevent the Soviet KGB and Polish UB/SB from portraying Solidarity as a western puppet.
It was incredibly successful, but it would best be described as providing a bit of tailwind to existing organic momentum.
CIA didn’t create Solidarity, they simply backed the right player in a non-kinetic way that has had lasting impact.
Poland’s post-communism pivot initially led by a Solidarity coalition government would be considered a considerable success for the people of Poland in terms of economic value creation and political freedom.
For the Five Eyes(Canada, US, UK, Australia, NZ) that don’t ever need to worry about conventional invasion, it’s far more about national resilience that relates to national defence.
How does a nation rapidly adapt to warfare that is occurring beneath the threshold of conventional warfare, and in some cases general public detection.
It’s not about fighting future trench warfare, it’s likely more about adaption to disruption to the nation of the electrical grid, logistics systems, and digital platforms.
A contemporary civil defence optimised not to defend against nuclear war but to defend against cyber, informational, psychological, and supply chain warfare.
Less continuity of government(as per Cold awards doctrine), more continuity of economy.
That’s just my 0.02c.