Unherd sure likes their sabre-rattling op-eds. It's wild that American politics have devolved in this way, to a pendulum of righteousness that oscillates between administrations. And essays like this demand a form of mindless outrage by design, intended to suggest notional inferiority and intense number-crunching without actually nutting up for the comparison.

In fact, I think a number of Western publications (if not the current administration) has fallen into the trap of simplifying realpolitik like this. Bombing the shit out of Iran did not make them surrender overnight or force regime change; invading Ukraine outright failed compared to the relative success in Crimea. The response we see from all parties involved is their posturing, not their personal reaction. Russia stands to benefit from making their enemy think they can fight forever, one month before collapse. Iran can only benefit from surviving an air campaign that forces a land invasion in such a massive country. This is grand strategy - the combination of your circumstances with the tactics you use to achieve a desired outcome.

You can argue that Russia has a tactical advantage, or quantitative edge in the war - you might be right. Their circumstances are awful and the window of maneuvering they can do to attain their desired goals is rapidly closing. From an outsider, realpolitik perspective, this of course means that Putin wants to maintain the illusion of a climbing escalation ladder. After all, he only stands to benefit.

> In AI, for example, China has caught up with the West

Lines like this really shouldn't make it past an editor's desk when the internet exists. Oh well.