not sure why it should be surprising that an artillery-heavy force in the middle of an artillery-heavy war is producing more shells than air and naval focused forces that aren't in the middle of a land war.
aajailee•2mo ago
Because NATO, EU, and US military officials are lying about it.
My follow-up will be even more shocking.
Thanks for reading.
bigyabai•2mo ago
You should have led with your shocking stuff. My thoughts are the same as the parent's - none of this is shocking or unexpected. Everything in the article conforms to basic expectations of Russian doctrine, for all the good it has done them winning wars the past 70 years.
aajailee•2mo ago
Forensic economics requires lots of thorough analysis. The shocking information sounds like fiction without the citations to back it up.
I'm glad for both of your reactions, because I can tell my work here is needed for the public discourse.
bigyabai•2mo ago
So you're basically just trying to say you have no evidence or conclusive proof of harm.
When are you writing a socioeconomic addendum with the conscription estimates?
Or does that damage your "materiel is strength" narrative somewhat? It must be hard to argue that Russia has enough drones to flatten Dnipro when they can't find enough warm bodies and BMPs to occupy Pokrovsk. You'd think that Russia's "total victory" would include fewer bombed refineries and burnt Tu-95s if their military-industrial complex is firing on all cylinders, no?
topspin•2mo ago
If the differential in pre-war shell stockpiles and on-going shell production mattered as much as some people appear to think, Putin would be in Lviv by now, making deals with obsequious European leaders.
That hasn't happened. So what can be said? Perhaps that tube ammo isn't all that relevant a metric for military power any longer.
inhumantsar•2mo ago
aajailee•2mo ago
My follow-up will be even more shocking.
Thanks for reading.
bigyabai•2mo ago
aajailee•2mo ago
I'm glad for both of your reactions, because I can tell my work here is needed for the public discourse.
bigyabai•2mo ago
aajailee•2mo ago
bigyabai•2mo ago
Or does that damage your "materiel is strength" narrative somewhat? It must be hard to argue that Russia has enough drones to flatten Dnipro when they can't find enough warm bodies and BMPs to occupy Pokrovsk. You'd think that Russia's "total victory" would include fewer bombed refineries and burnt Tu-95s if their military-industrial complex is firing on all cylinders, no?