# WWIII (2015) - Conservative Russian View



## Kirkhill (26 Apr 2015)

This article, by conservative Russian analyst Michael Khodarenok, was reproduced in the Russian Defence Policy blog - Posted March 24, 2015.

It is curious that one thing that Khodarenkov and the Republicans might agree on is the definition of "liberal".

I like the tone. This Russian has his tongue firmly planted in his cheek.

I felt this article deserved its own topic for discussion.  If there is no interest or once any discussion has died away it can be merged with some of the other Russian threads.




> Script for the Third World War
> 
> One has to repeat yet again:  statements, from time to time voiced by ultraliberal Russian politicians like “the problem has no military solution” and “all wars end in peace,” have no relationship to reality.  Wars end only one way — a crushing defeat for some and brilliant victory for others.  If the phrase “there is no military solution” appears, this means that one of the parties to the conflict simply has no strength for the victorious conclusion of the war.  And if some armed confrontation ends like a draw, it is so perhaps because of the complete exhaustion of military capabilities on both sides.  Of course, there are possible variants with some very minor deviations from this general line.
> 
> ...



{Edit: A great antidote to the "We're all going to die" meme - Kirkhill}


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2015)

While there is a great deal of truth in the article WRT conventional forces, things have changed on both sides of the Dneiper.

Russia faces far smaller military establishments, virtual "toy" armies, navies and air forces. Recent revelations that the German army attack helicopter fleet had precisely 1 operational aircraft underscores that point. So having only a skeleton Corps in Ukraine isn't a huge disadvantage if you are not going to be facing any large formations.

As well this article makes no mention in the huge strides Russia has made in asymmetric warfare (variously known as Hybrid Warfare, New Generation Warfare, etc.), which seeks to attack the social, political, economic and other aspects of the enemy society, essentially disarming them without needing to fire a shot? Since warfare is ultimatley about will far more than strength (look at Afghanistan; the amount of military power *we* could bring was vastly more than what the Taliban had, but *we* are not willing to stick it out for the decades needed to really achieve strategic aims).

It is true that _some_ "vacationing" members of the Alliance have more than enough combat power to upend things in Eastern Ukraine, but once again, to what end? It might actually be better to cut the Ukraine in half and throw Russia the part east of the Dneiper, telling them "Hey, it's yours now, you broke it, you pay for it" will probably do far more damage to Russia than any amount of military power the West could bring (and it also engages them using our long suits of economics and soft power. What are they goig to do, boycot us and refuse to sell things to the West? I've got a pipeline in mind to solve that problem...).


----------

