Collapse?

As the war in Ukraine drags on, it seems more and more likely that Russia is defeating NATO on a grand scale.  Because the West seemed to be winning the propaganda war, things got out of control, reflecting a long time disconnect between the West and the truth.  Gradually, the West is realizing that Russia may be as strong as, if not stronger than, the U.S. militarily.  After 4 months of self-satisfied snickering about Russian ineptitude, along with grandiose pronouncements that Ukraine is winning the war and that economic sanctions will devastate Russia, none of these things are happening.  Both militarily and diplomatically, Russia is mowing down the West.

The irony is delicious.  Because the West believes its own false propaganda, it keeps escalating the conflict.  It now seems likely that Russia will continue the war as long as they are winning, while the ever smaller Ukraine doubles down on its militant  hostility to Russia.  And the pace of Russian victory does seem to be accelerating such that the whole of Ukraine could be conquered by Russia within a year.  Moreover, it now seems plausible that, with NATO's military vulnerability exposed, Russia could take the Baltic states and Poland before the West comes to its senses.

I never before envisioned anything like this in my wildest dreams, and I doubt that Putin did either.  But that's where this war seems to be headed -- a long overdue reckoning with reality.  Peaceful coexistence in the long run should be the goal, and the West seems determined to irrationally resist that for reasons of domestic politics.

UPDATE 7/7/2022:  I didn't sleep well because I kept thinking of problems with this post.  

• Although accelerating, military progress for Russia continues to be difficult and painfully slow.
• Russia under Putin has never shown a desire or willingness to conquer non-Russian, ethnically, territory.  

So while the collapse of the Ukrainian and NATO militaries envisioned in this post is conceivable for the first time, it does not seem realistic.

I've begun to think about military strength, and have read a bit on the subject from both Russian and NATO partisans.  Here are some of the factors which seem to be critical for military success:

• Command
• Clearly defined, achievable objectives
• Efficient decision making
• Economic strength
• Industrial capacity
• Natural resources
• Weapons technology
• Societal commitment and morale

In  my understanding, Russia leads in each of these areas.  

NATO command is spread over too many different countries and interest groups within the United States.  There is no strong leadership.  The strategic objectives are ill defined.  While the main objective is to weaken Russia, this is not a clear military objective.  How will we know when this has been attained?

Russian command under Putin seems united and efficient.  The clear objectives are to:

• Gain autonomy for Donbas and neighboring Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine.
• Eliminate Ukraine as a hostile neighbor with militant anti-Russian elements holding positions of power.

The Western economies seem to be falling into recession, as the sanctions against Russia have backfired and the prices of oil, gas, food, fertilizer, and many other natural resources have skyrocketed.  The long term prognosis is also weaker has the West has lost its unipolar status with regard to economic leadership.  Russia has decades of experience with Western sanctions and seems to be in good shape as the prices of its exports have increased considerably.  It has consolidated its trade and diplomatic ties with the other nations in the BRICS bloc.

The Russian economy is focused on industry, whereas the West has become overly financialized and prone to speculation.  

With regard to weaponry, the U.S. seems to be driven by bureaucratic inertia with emphasis on updating WWII era platforms such as aircraft carriers and airplanes.  Relatively unchallenged since WWII, U.S. weapons development has been largely theoretical, or for the purpose of fighting non-peer adversaries such as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  Russia, under Putin's leadership, has been able to make a fresh start.  In particular, Russia has taken the lead in both missile and anti-missile technologies, which are key to current warfighting capability.  The U.S. spends enormous amounts on aircraft carriers which have been rendered obsolete by Russia's hypersonic missiles. Similarly, the F-35 fighter jet is overly expensive, complicated, and dependent upon the right environment,  

Russia's army is gaining valuable experience integrating modern missile and drone based warfare with traditional artillery and logistics.  While the U.S. NATO observe the Ukraine war from the periphery, Russia is directly involved and has been able to quickly adapt based upon results on the battlefield.  

Finally, Russia has a marked advantage with regard to societal commitment and morale.  Western governments are unpopular, while Putin's government is very popular within Russia.  The disconnects between Western propaganda and results on the battlefield and economically are stark and increasing.  The Ukraine war is a sideshow for the West, and interest has waned as results on the battlefield have disappointed.  Russian soldiers are directly involved in the fighting and the war is more deeply identified with national pride and the national interest.  Ukraine is experiencing a civil war and thus its population is divided.  Zelensky is unpopular and can justifiably be seen as a pawn of the West, complicit in the destruction of the country.

To summarize, the above military considerations underlie the admittedly implausible scenario in which Russia dispatches the Ukraine and continues defeating NATO in military confrontations along its border.  I will be watching for developments which presage some other direction for the war.