6 ms·

Similarly the Clancy book Red Storm Rising really holds up well, and weirdly may be one of the best primers on Russian military practices, culture, and capabili

by stult 1y ago

Similarly the Clancy book Red Storm Rising really holds up well, and weirdly may be one of the best primers on Russian military practices, culture, and capabilities as the force was constituted during the first year of their full scale invasion of Ukraine.

psunavy03 1y ago
Arguably RSR vis a vis Ukraine in 2022 is a great primer on just how much the Russian military had decayed from their mid-80s Soviet peak. You can study histories and interviews from the late Cold War about just how much of a bloodbath the NATO militaries expected a Russian invasion of West Germany to be. The USAF A-10 fleet was expected to have been wiped out in approximately 2-3 weeks of fighting based on expected loss rates, and nuclear escalation was not outside the realm of possibility. What the Ukrainians managed to do in 2022 was impressive, full stop. But to understand what that reveals about the Russians, you also need to understand that the Ukrainians are essentially a JV military as opposed to the US, a NATO force, or someone like the Australians, Japanese, or South Koreans. The bravery is there, but they just don't have the same ability to integrate the details at scale such as fires, logistics, and large-scale joint operations, because they're still trying to shake off their Soviet past. Whereas although the Soviets would have similar problems that come from being an authoritarian military, NATO would have been fighting them AND the entire Warsaw Pact (East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland et al). The Soviets wouldn't have had 30+ years of Russian societal decay and would have had the advantage of sheer mass.
- RajT88 1y ago
  > The bravery is there, but they just don't have the same ability to integrate the details at scale such as fires, logistics, and large-scale joint operations, because they're still trying to shake off their Soviet past. Welllll. I saw posted here last week (cannot find it now), that the US helped them with the logistics and recon a lot more than was previously known. Like, "Shoot your artillery here at this time, and you'll like what happens. If you don't like it, we'll work harder to make you happy."
  - psunavy03 1y ago
    There are two things a NATO/Western military has that the Ukrainians don't fully have yet: the technology and assets you're talking about, but also officers and noncoms who've been brought up in the type of warfighting culture that can best make use of it. There's a great article from the start of the war written by a retired Army three-star here: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/i-commanded-u-s-army-europe-heres-what-i-saw-in-the-russian-and-ukrainian-armies https://www.thebulwark.com/p/i-commanded-u-s-army-europe-her... The reason the US and Western militaries could utterly crush an opponent in places like Iraq is due to having not just cool gear, but a culture that promotes excellence in execution. Junior folks who can excel at small-unit tactics, and senior folks who have learned how to operate and orchestrate the large-scale machine over a 20-30 year career.
    - computerdork 1y ago
      That was a really interesting article. It does show though why Ukraine's relatively small army is able to punch above its weight class vs the more poorly train and led Russians. Was a great read:)
    - somerandomqaguy 1y ago
      I wouldn't say it was just that. The Ukrainians realized they were in trouble in 2014 when Russia lopped off Crimea, and ordered a painful introspective to highlight all the weaknesses of their military. They spent 8 years overhauling their military and learning from invited western forces to prepare for an invasion that they hoping beyond all would never come. And it paid off in spades.
    - creer 1y ago
      Fantastic article thanks! Good look into career postings. And it seems the Ukrainians worked hard in the few years of explicit notice they got.
  - ftkftk 1y ago
    This is the article you are referring to (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/us-ukraine-military-war-wiesbaden.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-k4.bLYE.rD8MYJM9apCL&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/...
- hylaride 1y ago
  > You can study histories and interviews from the late Cold War about just how much of a bloodbath the NATO militaries expected a Russian invasion of West Germany to be. *With the full benefit of hindsight*, most experts that I have read seem to agree that (ignoring nuclear weapons and staying completely conventional) the Russians were as a whole stronger on land in Europe than the west up until the mid-1970s, when western technological advancements started to remove the numbers advantages and were hard for the economically stagnating communist countries to keep up with. By the mid 1980s, the only real direct advantage the soviets had was a closer supply line than the bulk of NATO's power, which was the USA. There are records showing the shock that Soviet military experts had at the effectiveness of the western stealth and jamming equipment that was used in the 1991 Gulf War (that was waged right at the tail end of the USSR's existence). It's much more regarded now that had a full blown NATO/Warsaw pact conflict occurred in the 1980s, the Soviets would have likely lost had they not effectively destroyed NATO's air power early on, though to be fair most experts in the west weren't as sure just how effective their kit would end up being. Even taking air power out of the equation, the armoured kill ratios would have favoured NATO if it was even 1/4 the ratio it was against the Iraqis. Again here, the only advantage the Soviets would have had was if they got complete surprise before NATO could mobilise. > NATO would have been fighting them AND the entire Warsaw Pact (East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland et al). There are mixed signals in the archives we have access to about how well (or more accurately reliable) a good chunk of the Warsaw Pact would have been if the cold war turned hot. Half the Red Army's presence in these countries was to threaten them and keep a lid on any revolutions that cropped up (as they did inCzechoslovakia and Hungary as hard violent examples, and Poland in the early 1980s as a soft one). It was very nebulous with Romania in particular that it would participate in anything other than an full "unprovoked attack" from NATO. > The Soviets wouldn't have had 30+ years of Russian societal decay and would have had the advantage of sheer mass. There was already decay by the 1980s. Corruption was rife in the Soviet army, especially during and after the Afghanistan conflict. There are many documented cases of Soviet officers in Europe selling fuel earmarked for the army to local civilians, among other things. Many also participated with opium smuggling from Afghanistan to Europe as Soviet officers had some freedom to move around western parts of Germany unmolested, in particular West Berlin.
  - 1y ago
- dylan604 1y ago
  you also need to understand that the Ukrainians... really really do not want to be part of Russia again. that's what I take away from it. they like being independent and are willing to fight this hard to stay that way. I can only imagine their utter disappointment with the outcome of the US election. but to your point, it does say a whole helluva lot about the inabilities of the Russians too. The fact they are using NK troops and now reports of Chinese soldiers too says just as much. Like, is Russia reserving its soliders on the Western front for NATO reasons rather than just using everything against Ukraine? Or are they using the why fight with your own soldiers when you can use someone else's like why fund your own startup when you can use someone else's money
  - hylaride 1y ago
    > Like, is Russia reserving its soliders on the Western front for NATO reasons rather than just using everything against Ukraine? The Russian government is treading a fine line domestically. For most Russians, the war is a not relevant to them. They do not want to fight, which is why when it became clear Russia wasn't going to have a quick victory, there was one quick and dirty mobilization that mostly sucked up people from the outer regions, in particular ethnic minorities. Russia is also dealing with acute labour shortages because of a variety of factors, including bad demographics, at least a million people leaving the country, and demand from arms manufacturers. This is why you hear about military contracts being as high as 50x the average yearly salary. This is why there are North Koreans fighting; there was already a program that essentially sends North Koreans to work in parts of Russia as essentially slave labour that the NK govn't gets the money for. This was just an extension of that, with the added bonus for the North Koreans that they will get their first exposure to combat in decades. There are probably a few hundred Chinese soldiers (as well as people from a host of other countries) that are in it for the money, too.
    - dylan604 1y ago
      From all of this, it doesn't really seem like they would be much of a threat to NATO. Except for the nukes. As far as traditional forces, there seems to be a disconnect between the fear of vs the credible threat. Or I'm just grossly misjudging things and it's a good example of why I'm not involved in any threat assessment type of position. Underestimate your opponent at your own peril type of thing
petsfed 1y ago
I mean, aside from the weird civilian rape-to-romance subplot, yeah. Technically it holds up well. Which is true for most of Clancy's novels.
- HeyLaughingBoy 1y ago
  Didn't he save her (Vigdis?) from being raped, though? Your post implies that he raped her, and a romance developed from that.
  - petsfed 1y ago
    I think I was ambiguous on who raped (or attempted to rape) her, but the point still stands. While its certainly possible, it seemed like such a non sequitor to have her fall immediately for her savior, after a rape whose sole point was to make it clear that the russians are the bad guys. I think Clancy was misunderstanding his audience in believing he needed to add rape to all the other bad things, trivializing rape, and probably most importantly for the purposes of this discussion, insisting on a superfluous romance subplot in a techno-thriller. Its been a long time since I read Red Storm Rising, and the main thing I recall is that I hated the romance subplot. It was a human interest story when I picked it up for the guns and bombs and missiles and things.
dylan604 1y ago
RSR is one of my favorite Clancy books, and I return to it quite often. It was the first book I read in my teens with such a descriptive telling of what an attack on an air base could be like. How the attack allowed for the runways still able to be used with "minor" repairs and then reused by the over taking forces. Mike's journey is probably my favorite plot line.
- dugmartin 1y ago
  I make the mistake every few years of picking up my battered paperback copy and then end up spending an entire weekend reading the entire thing again. Such a good set of stories. Mike’s reply to the radio operator when they stress test his voice is probably my favorite passage.
  - dylan604 1y ago
    I always wanted to see this book turned into a movie. I had hopes for it since it wasn't part of the Jack Ryan series. I can't imagine Larry Bond not wanting to earn some extra cash from that kind of deal. Of the Jack Ryan series, I had always hoped for a Cardinal In The Kremlin movie too. I wanted the laser scene to come alive even if they made it along the lines of Spies Like Us. Lasers are cool! pew! pew! was the main part of wanting it as a movie to be honest
Tycho 1y ago
Brilliant novel. I was thinking about it recently. Many years after reading it, I can still remember many of the battle/combat sequences as if I’d seen them on screen. Maybe someone could do a big Band of Brothers type adaptation, given how far along VFX have come.

by stult 1y ago

psunavy03 1y ago

Arguably RSR vis a vis Ukraine in 2022 is a great primer on just how much the Russian military had decayed from their mid-80s Soviet peak. You can study histories and interviews from the late Cold War about just how much of a bloodbath the NATO militaries expected a Russian invasion of West Germany to be. The USAF A-10 fleet was expected to have been wiped out in approximately 2-3 weeks of fighting based on expected loss rates, and nuclear escalation was not outside the realm of possibility. What the Ukrainians managed to do in 2022 was impressive, full stop. But to understand what that reveals about the Russians, you also need to understand that the Ukrainians are essentially a JV military as opposed to the US, a NATO force, or someone like the Australians, Japanese, or South Koreans. The bravery is there, but they just don't have the same ability to integrate the details at scale such as fires, logistics, and large-scale joint operations, because they're still trying to shake off their Soviet past. Whereas although the Soviets would have similar problems that come from being an authoritarian military, NATO would have been fighting them AND the entire Warsaw Pact (East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland et al). The Soviets wouldn't have had 30+ years of Russian societal decay and would have had the advantage of sheer mass.

RajT88 1y ago
> The bravery is there, but they just don't have the same ability to integrate the details at scale such as fires, logistics, and large-scale joint operations, because they're still trying to shake off their Soviet past. Welllll. I saw posted here last week (cannot find it now), that the US helped them with the logistics and recon a lot more than was previously known. Like, "Shoot your artillery here at this time, and you'll like what happens. If you don't like it, we'll work harder to make you happy."
- psunavy03 1y ago
  There are two things a NATO/Western military has that the Ukrainians don't fully have yet: the technology and assets you're talking about, but also officers and noncoms who've been brought up in the type of warfighting culture that can best make use of it. There's a great article from the start of the war written by a retired Army three-star here: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/i-commanded-u-s-army-europe-heres-what-i-saw-in-the-russian-and-ukrainian-armies https://www.thebulwark.com/p/i-commanded-u-s-army-europe-her... The reason the US and Western militaries could utterly crush an opponent in places like Iraq is due to having not just cool gear, but a culture that promotes excellence in execution. Junior folks who can excel at small-unit tactics, and senior folks who have learned how to operate and orchestrate the large-scale machine over a 20-30 year career.
  - computerdork 1y ago
    That was a really interesting article. It does show though why Ukraine's relatively small army is able to punch above its weight class vs the more poorly train and led Russians. Was a great read:)
  - somerandomqaguy 1y ago
    I wouldn't say it was just that. The Ukrainians realized they were in trouble in 2014 when Russia lopped off Crimea, and ordered a painful introspective to highlight all the weaknesses of their military. They spent 8 years overhauling their military and learning from invited western forces to prepare for an invasion that they hoping beyond all would never come. And it paid off in spades.
  - creer 1y ago
    Fantastic article thanks! Good look into career postings. And it seems the Ukrainians worked hard in the few years of explicit notice they got.
- ftkftk 1y ago
  This is the article you are referring to (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/us-ukraine-military-war-wiesbaden.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-k4.bLYE.rD8MYJM9apCL&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/...
hylaride 1y ago
> You can study histories and interviews from the late Cold War about just how much of a bloodbath the NATO militaries expected a Russian invasion of West Germany to be. *With the full benefit of hindsight*, most experts that I have read seem to agree that (ignoring nuclear weapons and staying completely conventional) the Russians were as a whole stronger on land in Europe than the west up until the mid-1970s, when western technological advancements started to remove the numbers advantages and were hard for the economically stagnating communist countries to keep up with. By the mid 1980s, the only real direct advantage the soviets had was a closer supply line than the bulk of NATO's power, which was the USA. There are records showing the shock that Soviet military experts had at the effectiveness of the western stealth and jamming equipment that was used in the 1991 Gulf War (that was waged right at the tail end of the USSR's existence). It's much more regarded now that had a full blown NATO/Warsaw pact conflict occurred in the 1980s, the Soviets would have likely lost had they not effectively destroyed NATO's air power early on, though to be fair most experts in the west weren't as sure just how effective their kit would end up being. Even taking air power out of the equation, the armoured kill ratios would have favoured NATO if it was even 1/4 the ratio it was against the Iraqis. Again here, the only advantage the Soviets would have had was if they got complete surprise before NATO could mobilise. > NATO would have been fighting them AND the entire Warsaw Pact (East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland et al). There are mixed signals in the archives we have access to about how well (or more accurately reliable) a good chunk of the Warsaw Pact would have been if the cold war turned hot. Half the Red Army's presence in these countries was to threaten them and keep a lid on any revolutions that cropped up (as they did inCzechoslovakia and Hungary as hard violent examples, and Poland in the early 1980s as a soft one). It was very nebulous with Romania in particular that it would participate in anything other than an full "unprovoked attack" from NATO. > The Soviets wouldn't have had 30+ years of Russian societal decay and would have had the advantage of sheer mass. There was already decay by the 1980s. Corruption was rife in the Soviet army, especially during and after the Afghanistan conflict. There are many documented cases of Soviet officers in Europe selling fuel earmarked for the army to local civilians, among other things. Many also participated with opium smuggling from Afghanistan to Europe as Soviet officers had some freedom to move around western parts of Germany unmolested, in particular West Berlin.
- 1y ago
dylan604 1y ago
you also need to understand that the Ukrainians... really really do not want to be part of Russia again. that's what I take away from it. they like being independent and are willing to fight this hard to stay that way. I can only imagine their utter disappointment with the outcome of the US election. but to your point, it does say a whole helluva lot about the inabilities of the Russians too. The fact they are using NK troops and now reports of Chinese soldiers too says just as much. Like, is Russia reserving its soliders on the Western front for NATO reasons rather than just using everything against Ukraine? Or are they using the why fight with your own soldiers when you can use someone else's like why fund your own startup when you can use someone else's money
- hylaride 1y ago
  > Like, is Russia reserving its soliders on the Western front for NATO reasons rather than just using everything against Ukraine? The Russian government is treading a fine line domestically. For most Russians, the war is a not relevant to them. They do not want to fight, which is why when it became clear Russia wasn't going to have a quick victory, there was one quick and dirty mobilization that mostly sucked up people from the outer regions, in particular ethnic minorities. Russia is also dealing with acute labour shortages because of a variety of factors, including bad demographics, at least a million people leaving the country, and demand from arms manufacturers. This is why you hear about military contracts being as high as 50x the average yearly salary. This is why there are North Koreans fighting; there was already a program that essentially sends North Koreans to work in parts of Russia as essentially slave labour that the NK govn't gets the money for. This was just an extension of that, with the added bonus for the North Koreans that they will get their first exposure to combat in decades. There are probably a few hundred Chinese soldiers (as well as people from a host of other countries) that are in it for the money, too.
  - dylan604 1y ago
    From all of this, it doesn't really seem like they would be much of a threat to NATO. Except for the nukes. As far as traditional forces, there seems to be a disconnect between the fear of vs the credible threat. Or I'm just grossly misjudging things and it's a good example of why I'm not involved in any threat assessment type of position. Underestimate your opponent at your own peril type of thing

petsfed 1y ago

I mean, aside from the weird civilian rape-to-romance subplot, yeah. Technically it holds up well. Which is true for most of Clancy's novels.

HeyLaughingBoy 1y ago
Didn't he save her (Vigdis?) from being raped, though? Your post implies that he raped her, and a romance developed from that.
- petsfed 1y ago
  I think I was ambiguous on who raped (or attempted to rape) her, but the point still stands. While its certainly possible, it seemed like such a non sequitor to have her fall immediately for her savior, after a rape whose sole point was to make it clear that the russians are the bad guys. I think Clancy was misunderstanding his audience in believing he needed to add rape to all the other bad things, trivializing rape, and probably most importantly for the purposes of this discussion, insisting on a superfluous romance subplot in a techno-thriller. Its been a long time since I read Red Storm Rising, and the main thing I recall is that I hated the romance subplot. It was a human interest story when I picked it up for the guns and bombs and missiles and things.

dylan604 1y ago

RSR is one of my favorite Clancy books, and I return to it quite often. It was the first book I read in my teens with such a descriptive telling of what an attack on an air base could be like. How the attack allowed for the runways still able to be used with "minor" repairs and then reused by the over taking forces. Mike's journey is probably my favorite plot line.

dugmartin 1y ago
I make the mistake every few years of picking up my battered paperback copy and then end up spending an entire weekend reading the entire thing again. Such a good set of stories. Mike’s reply to the radio operator when they stress test his voice is probably my favorite passage.
- dylan604 1y ago
  I always wanted to see this book turned into a movie. I had hopes for it since it wasn't part of the Jack Ryan series. I can't imagine Larry Bond not wanting to earn some extra cash from that kind of deal. Of the Jack Ryan series, I had always hoped for a Cardinal In The Kremlin movie too. I wanted the laser scene to come alive even if they made it along the lines of Spies Like Us. Lasers are cool! pew! pew! was the main part of wanting it as a movie to be honest

Tycho 1y ago

Brilliant novel. I was thinking about it recently. Many years after reading it, I can still remember many of the battle/combat sequences as if I’d seen them on screen. Maybe someone could do a big Band of Brothers type adaptation, given how far along VFX have come.