Skip to main content
Politics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

15
  • 1
    "for example a lack of foresight by Europe in retooling their munitions industry from the start" - but faced with an enemy tooling up for war and interfering in Ukraine, would Russia have then prepared better itself, or struck earlier, so that the tooling was once again incomplete or inadequate at the outset of war? I appreciate the long answer although it meanders somewhat, but the quoted remark here is an instance of what I'm suspecting is the fallacy of "strategism". It doesn't account that the opponent can also adjust dynamically, by themselves upping the ante or striking sooner.
    – Steve
    Commented Sep 30, 2023 at 16:29
  • 1
    Well, one problem with your Q is that it is really, really, unclear whether it is asking about the run up to the war. Or the conduct of actions since the start of the war. Retooling munitions factories from March 2022 on absolutely should have been on the menu and has zero bearing on actions undertaken by Russia in February 2022. What was Russia going to do extra? Double-plus invasion?
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Commented Sep 30, 2023 at 16:38
  • 1
    My question is whether there is any evidence that attempting this tooling-up avoids war, instead of bringing it forward? Or if it did bring it forward, that it was possible to significantly out-prepare the enemy before they triggered the war due to the preparations? People, yourself included, speculate that better preparations may have avoided war or resolved it to Ukraine's benefit. It's not unreasonable to ask, when in history was the last time this approach seemed to work? What seemingly oncoming or simmering conflict died down, once either side turned its munitions factories up to 11?
    – Steve
    Commented Sep 30, 2023 at 16:50
  • 1
    As I say, in the NATO missile crisis of 62-63, the response to the US stationing nukes in Turkey was that the Soviets stationed some in Cuba, depriving the US of any preparatory advantage, but significantly reducing the time either side had to think (or call the other side) and make decisions before any nukes launched would hit. They disengaged from this dangerous situation by moving back from each other again, not by beginning to make further preparations to win the nuclear exchange (which had either side seemed to do so at that crucial moment, would likely have triggered that exchange).
    – Steve
    Commented Sep 30, 2023 at 17:03
  • 2
    "What I don't see much of here is any clear question". Indeed. But it's usually better to VTC such "questions". The OP is already well-known on this site for "discussion starters" and drowning any Q&A with dozens if not hundreds of comments.
    – got trolled too much this week
    Commented Sep 30, 2023 at 17:28