CMV: economy size / GDP and true military capabilities are very loosely related things
I often see people comparing Europe and Russia with the tone like "well, Russia's economy is like 15x smaller, it's ridiculous we are getting bullied by them". Or "they can't even take Ukraine, of course it's ridiculous to think they have any chance in Europe".
This is IMO a dangerously naive view. High GDP means you likely have a lot of high tech, a developed service economy, probably some very advanced military tech. But it absolutely doesn't guarantee that:
- you're spending large % of GDP on army to begin with
- you have a large and actually trained army that that combat experience in any large war, or large number of people in the population with some sort of military training you can quickly draft
- you have huge stockpile of ammo, artillery shells, oil/fuel to maintain some 100k people army for a year
- you have leaders willing to go to war
- you are willing to enact marshal law and boost defense spending by 3x or 5x or 10x.
- your population will have enough volunteers to go fight, or you could efficiently forcibly draft enough people without causing massive social unrest
- you are willing to lose million people dead and wounded without colossal shock for the country
At this point, this solves one problem while creating another and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone This probably isn’t the last word on it. That’s just my read on it.
Reaction: They both have a serious jaw condition so it should be a fair fight
From where I sit, there’s a gap between the message and the outcome and that’s where it gets complicated That’s what makes this interesting.
From the outside, the wording alone shifts how people read this That’s the key detail here.
To be fair, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified Time will tell.
this depends heavily on what happens next and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone Others will probably see it differently.
the wording alone shifts how people read this and that friction is hard to ignore That’s the impression it gives me.
Reaction: Me_irl
From a neutral view, this depends heavily on what happens next That part stands out. Hard to say where this lands long term.
Reaction: me_irl
the follow-through is what will decide this
this comes across more reactive than planned and that’s where people will push back This could age very differently in a week. That’s the impression it gives me.
From my side, the timing matters more than people admit and that’s where the disagreement starts That’s the key detail here. Interested to see the follow-up.
this feels rushed rather than thought through and that’s the part people are stuck on That’s what changes the context. Feels like there’s more coming here. That’s just my read on it.
To be fair, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so and that’s where the disagreement starts Hard to say where this lands long term. That’s the impression it gives me.
Looking at this, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here That’s just how it reads to me.
the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here so the response doesn’t surprise me That part stands out.
this depends heavily on what happens next and that’s what people are responding to Others will probably see it differently.
Reaction: Too real..
the way this is presented changes how it lands so the response doesn’t surprise me That’s the key detail here. That’s the impression it gives me.
this comes across more reactive than planned This could age very differently in a week.
From a neutral view, the way this is presented changes how it lands and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone
Reaction: Why am I scared? Probably because one time my grandma got pulled over when I was a kid and she told the cop that her bad driving was because of me and he came to my window. I didnt do anythi
Bluntly speaking, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified That part stands out. Not convinced this is settled yet.
Reaction: very shocking
this solves one problem while creating another Time will tell.
From the outside, this feels more about execution than intent That’s what changes the context. That’s just how it reads to me.
Reaction: me_irl
Trying to be fair, the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage so the response doesn’t surprise me
Bluntly speaking, this reads stronger on paper than in practice That’s the key detail here. This probably isn’t the last word on it.
Honestly, this depends heavily on what happens next and that tension shows up immediately
Looking at this, the wording alone shifts how people read this That’s what changes the context. Curious how this plays out.
To be fair, this solves one problem while creating another and that friction is hard to ignore Others will probably see it differently.
From my side, the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that’s where people will push back That’s what changes the context. Not convinced this is settled yet.
there’s a gap between the message and the outcome and that tension shows up immediately
this feels like a half-step, not a full move which turns this into more of a debate That’s just how it reads to me. That’s the impression it gives me.
At first glance, this comes across more reactive than planned
the logic is there, but the execution is uneven so the response doesn’t surprise me