Is The US Military Following Russia's Lead In Its Race To The Bottom?
 

We have seen the results of decay within the Russian Military as demonstrated by its failures in Ukraine.

Also, we have seen how Warfare has changed due to technology.

Russian military failures came more from corruption within the senior ranks.

More and more we hear of problems within the US Military and Department of Defense at the Senior Leadership levels.

We saw a disastrous end to the Afghanistan War after almost two decades of fighting there and a similar sad end to the Iraq War.

Under Reagan and Lehman we saw a 600 Ship US Navy that was too big and too costly and now we are looking at a 280 Ship Navy.

The Air Force has major shortcomings in Pilots and aircraft.

The Army is as always very slow to modernize.

Russia and China remain our two strategic foes and the Chinese are building up their forces in size and capability.

Are we headed to a position that would indicate to the. Chinese and Russians that we no longer are as capable as we think. we are?

Remembering one does not get attacked when thought strong...but rather it happens when thought to be too weak.

https://www.oann.com/commentary/u-s-...lIK1CCD5uW3mKk

Short answer no....

Long answer, there are problems for sure but the situation is incomparable to China and Russia.

OAN:-
I find the 75% ineligible statistic very alarming, or is it just journalistic hype? As to the 46% figure, in 1933 the Oxford Union passed the motion that "This house will not fight for its King and Country". When, 6 years later, push came to shove they did of course. Events, dear boy, events...

It seems to me that this:

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army...ng-recruiting/

has a lot to do with it.

Data is a powerful weapon, and if wielded inappropriately will strike the wielder down.

I think every military is having recruitment challenges, starting with the fact that the numbers in the desired 18-25 demographic is at an all time historical low. Physical and medical fitness are also lower than ever. That being said it is still far from a crisis.

IMO the real challenge will be if the institution learn the lessons from Ukraine. The first big one is the fact that era of traditional land maneuver is over. The second big one is spending on building materiel capacity. This means cutting back on the bling in favour of buying lots of boring but vital ammo stocks and repair items.

Finally the theory of an information connected land battle space is now not theoretical anymore it is now non optional to achieve mission success. This has huge implications on doctrine for all three elements and the associated training and equipment.

"This means cutting back on the bling in favour of buying lots of boring but vital ammo stocks and repair items."

I'll believe it's happening when I see a senior British Politican at the wheel of a large delivery truck outside a warehouse

When assessing America’s capacity to engage in hostilities with China and/or Russia, you could also include the capabilities of potential allies in both Europe and Asia.

Unless America is the aggressor, it is unlikely to stand alone.

The US is generations ahead in terms of technical equipment, networking and planning. Up to total dominance.
Nobody is falling back while Russia feels like never having moved forward since WW2 and Stalin.

Hard to say. The crucial factor is in training, which costs money. Readiness accounts come from the O & M accounts, which Congress cuts and boosts in a fickle and random manner. This has been true for decades.
We had problems similar to this in the 90's that I recall - with great psychic pain - yet our military remained an effective fighting force.
One hopes that the lessons learned from what is ongoing in Ukraine at present is being digested and applied for use later on.
Your 'glass half full' take is not agreed.

What do you define as an aggressor?
The US’ has been involved a few fracas around the Globe since WW2 but , you’re right , you’ll never stand alone.
All the UK usually needs is a postcard with ‘C’mon in , the potential war’s lovely...’ writ on it , & our government will do everything possible ( including lying ) to justify joining in!

In 2021 the USA was still spending more on defence than the next 9 nations in the SIPRI list put together - that includes China, Russia, the UK, Germany.........

They spent over twice the estimated Chinese spend and approx 12 times the estimated Russian spend. 38% of worldwide spending on defence is by the USA alone

I really don't think we need to fret very much

This article in The Times seems to indicate the West is staying ahead.

Ukraine is outflanking Russia with ammunition from Big Tech

Snippet:-
Click the link for the remainder, diagrams etc.


​​​​​​​

Spending lots means nothing if you are buying the wrong kit or wasting it on programs you do not need.

Remember that 600 Ship Navy thing.....that could not be manned or supported effectively by the logistic chain?

Or did Reagan just out spend the Russians into going broke when they tried to keep up?

Wasn't it Star Wars that was the. straw that broke the Camels's Back?

"Spending lots means nothing if you are buying the wrong kit or wasting it on programs you do not need."

True - a real problem is that by the time a new "Strategy" is approved, the kit is designed and ordered and then delivered may 10-20 years have passed and teh question has changed.

See the Littoral Combat Ship (or the Zumwalt class) saga - nothing wrong with the idea but the strategy has now changed and we're into Distributed Marine Operations. Still the USN will have a load of reasonably effective small ships out of it to deploy so its not a total disaster.

it's also worth pointing out that it isn't just the West who invests in the wrong kit or has problems getting stuff into the front line sometimes - - most major Russian naval programs are delayed badly

I'm coming at this from a UK perspective but I had a conversation with three people around the age of twenty a couple of weeks ago in which one of them said she'd considered joining the military, but rejected the idea after looking into it. We were astonished as she didn't really seem the type. Further discussion revealed the following reasons for this, which all three agreed on.

- They found military appeals to patriotism laughable and wondered how desperate anyone would have to be to rely on that sort of persuasion;
- They didn't believe recruiting commercials depicting military life as adventurous and fun, assuming that military service would mostly involve living in a mouldy house interrupted by brief periods of standing in the rain absorbing personal abuse for meagre wages. "Worse than prison" was one comment.
- They didn't like or trust politicians and did not want to work for them;
- They didn't want to be forced to participate in possibly-illegal, clearly-pointless wars (Blair following Bush for reasons of his own personal aggrandisement, etc).
- They simply didn't consider the UK cared about them enough to be worth defending, given the poor life prospects of people their age in 2022.

Every single one of them said they'd be more than happy to take any necessary risk to defend things they personally felt were worthwhile and I don't think modern youngsters are particularly more cowardly than those of the late 1930s. Still, whether you agree with these people or not, these are very hard things to change in the minds of potential signers-up, not least because some of them are pretty well true.

P

I think the number one indicator of interest in joining is having a family member or close friend serving or have served. Screwing over serving members or those who have left the Armed Forces to save money, is a particularly good example of cutting off your nose to spite your face as they are unlikely to promote joining up. Sadly the bean counters who run Militaries now seem to only know the cost of everyone and the value of no one.

Nothing changes, parsimonious Treasury

"MESSAGE FROM THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON TO THE BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE IN LONDON -- written from Central Spain, August 1812

Gentlemen,

Whilst marching from Portugal to a position which commands the approach to Madrid and the French forces, my officers have been diligently complying with your requests which have been sent by H.M. ship from London to Lisbon and thence by dispatch to our headquarters.

We have enumerated our saddles, bridles, tents and tent poles, and all manner of sundry items for which His Majesty's Government holds me accountable. I have dispatched reports on the character, wit, and spleen of every officer. Each item and every farthing has been accounted for, with two regrettable exceptions for which I beg your indulgence.

Unfortunately the sum of one shilling and ninepence remains unaccounted for in one infantry battalion's petty cash and there has been a hideous confusion as the number of jars of raspberry jam issued to one cavalry regiment during a sandstorm in western Spain. This reprehensible carelessness may be related to the pressure of circumstance, since we are at war with France, a fact which may come as a bit of a surprise to you gentlemen in Whitehall.

This brings me to my present purpose, which is to request elucidation of my instructions from His Majesty's Government so that I may better understand why I am dragging an army over these barren plains. I construe that perforce it must be one of two alternative duties, as given below. I shall pursue either one with the best of my ability, but I cannot do both:

1. To train an army of uniformed British clerks in Spain for the benefit of the accountants and copy-boys in London or perchance,

2. To see to it that the forces of Napoleon are driven out of Spain.

Your most obedient servant

Wellington

Absolutely no provenance for that letter but of course the Great Duke loathed people second guessing him over his shoulder

Phil_R, that is a very interesting post and those young people seem to have their heads screwed on. It is indeed very difficult to argue with their reasoning.

One might add that having engaged and fought several wars that lasted decades and each ending in less than desired outcomes and all not effectively explained by the Government as to exactly why they had to be fought...then not fought with the full mobilization of the population and our economies....with generations of war fighters who felt betrayed by the politicians.....that might explain the critical views held by the young today. Surely, their family members who did serve and learned the reality of limited war and the lack of forth rightfulness of the national leadership.....and the gross failures of the military leadership to challenge the civilian leadership re ensuring proper goal setting and strategy proves young folks today might be a bit wiser than than their years.