Cowbee [he/they]

Sure, so from what we do know China is ahead of the US in productive capacity and relatively equal in tech, slightly behind in some areas and ahead in others.

Information on quantities is minimal, but from what we know China is further along and these fighters have been spotted. Spending in China goes a lot farther thsn it does in the US.

The USSR dissolved, yes, that doesn’t mean the US is destroying the Russian Federation.

Because that’s not how economies of war work. Russia doesn’t need to waste their best equipment when they are doing well with their current equipment, they just need to gradually proceed as they are to minimize their own casualties. Avoiding mines, encircling strongholds before taking them, etc wouldn’t make any sense to field the best stuff that also costs the most to replace.

No, China is surpassing the US in industrial output and tech. China’s 6th gen fighters are further along than the US’s F-47, and China has far more industrial capacity. The tech is close enough that it won’t make more than a marginal difference, but the industrial output absolutely will.

The US is not destroying Russia, sanctions have just pushed Russia closer to BRICS. The largest social instability, I would say, is an increasing desire to return to socialism among the populace.

Russia has tools like Oreshnik and T-90s that they aren’t fielding. There’s a lot of ways the war can escalate without relying on nukes or civilian targets.

No, not “next to,” at this point China has surpassed the US and Europe in manufacturing in all but a few specialized fields.

Secondly, saying that NATO can’t field war against Russia doesn’t mean that NATO can’t try, or that Russia would single-handedly destroy all of NATO. Russia would win like Vietnam won against the US, by NATO failing to accomplish their goals without nuclear war.

If it was China and Russia against NATO, it would similarly be devastating for all involved, but NATO wouldn’t succeed in crushing Russia and China without nuclear war.

Chinese industry is some of the most advanced on the planet. I use US as an example, because industrial output is lower. Your list is measured in terms of dollars, not actual goods and output.

Industrial level is lower in the US. Cost of living is inflated because it’s an imperialist country, and siphons vast sums of wealth to the imperial core. The US and Europe have hollowed out their productive capacity and shifted it all overseas. Goods are made in China for cheaper because industrialization is higher, as is productive capacity. Russia is heavily sanctioned, and largely produces for itself.

Spending 10 times as much does not mean you are getting 10 times as much out of it.

Cost of living is higher in the US, ergo wages are higher, ergo production costs more. This is true across all fields, plus the lack of industrialization means it’s more difficult to manufacture. Why are all of your goods made in China, Vietnam, etc?

Privatized industry also costs a lot more, especially the millitary industrial complex. I’m aware that the US has drones, I’m also aware that the drones of today are entirely different and far cheaper to produce.

They may be marginally less effective, but it isn’t a linear scale, and often times millitary contracts end up being overly complex and thus less efficient than cheap drones. That’s why Yemen is so effective.

You’re confusing the monetary price with actual, qualitative results. The same widget costs more money to produce in the US than it would in Russia, Russia has lower labor costs and higher industrialization. There’s also effectiveness, drones are cheap and can often achieve the same or better results than traditional ballistic missiles that cost more. The fact that the west spends a lot is due to the millitary industrial complex. To equate capital investment across different economies is an error, you can find the same medicine in the US for hundreds of times the price as you can in Canada, as an alternative example.

Things like Oreshnik don’t make sense to use at scale against Ukraine, as an example, but would be valuable in fighting against NATO countries that are further away. Other tools like the stock of T90s they have are potentially being stockpiled for a later, large-scale offensive after wearing down Ukrainian troops and supplies, or for fighting against a NATO power.

An alternative is asking why the US doesn’t approach Yemen with aircraft carriers, and the answer is because of the economics of war. It’s far too much economic risk to bring your better tools out when cheaper tools are effective.

There’s also the fact that Ukraine publishes inflated numbers of casualties, the real casualty numbers aren’t as high as Kiev reports. I imagine Russia is underplaying it too, which means the real answer is likely somewhere in the middle.

NATO outspends Russia 10-1. That doesn’t translate to actual firepower or sustained war capacity. Russian production is much cheaper for comparable quality.

There’s more issue than just that it would be a war between nuclear powers, large-scale conventional warfare is still devastating for all involved groups, but the threat of nuclear war is massive, I agree.

Yep, when it comes to Russia liberals start thinking about their actions, past, present, and future, in terms of how evil they are, rather than as another country. It’s always too weak yet too strong, always capable of steering foreign elections and taking on all of Europe but also about to collapse, etc. It’s tiring, because after the dust settles the liberal cope will always be that NATO didn’t support Ukraine enough for them to win, which will always be an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

And thanks, I appreciate it comrade!

It costs more to build in the US than it does in Russia, because the US has a lack of industrialization. Capital utilization for the war economy can’t revive the last century of declining industrialization. Russia is steadily achieving their goals, and when the dust settles liberals will look back and act like they always said Ukraine should’ve conceded rather than drag out their defeat for no gain whatsoever.

Russia is steadily achieving their aims, they don’t need to rapidly advance because they aren’t trying to take all of Ukraine. They have the industrial capacity to be steady and thorough. Ukraine is putting up a fight, but can’t actually last for much longer.

Secondly, regarding the profit motive, it will always result in less efficient investment. Industry is hollowed out, and can’t be built overnight. Missiles, drones, etc cost far more to produce in the US than in Russia for comparable results.

No problem! If you want something like that, Hexbear is like at least half queer and is overtly leftist.

The MIC runs on the profit motive, it’s far more expensive to develop comparable tools than compared to state-run industry, and the west has already holowed out its own industry.

No, Russia has tools like Oreshnik that just don’t make sense to use against Ukraine at scale.