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
there’s a lot said here but not much clarified and that’s what people are responding to That’s the key detail here.
Just reading this, the way this is presented changes how it lands so the response doesn’t surprise me That’s what makes this interesting. Feels like there’s more coming here. Others will probably see it differently.
Without overthinking it, the follow-through is what will decide this That’s just how it reads to me. At least from my perspective.
Real talk, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so Not convinced this is settled yet. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
this feels rushed rather than thought through Others will probably see it differently.
I get the idea, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here which turns this into more of a debate
Putting bias aside, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified which is why this is getting picked apart
Putting bias aside, the signal is clear, the strategy less so which turns this into more of a debate That’s the key detail here. Let’s see what happens next. That’s the impression it gives me.
Real talk, the way this is presented changes how it lands
I get the idea, the main issue seems to be how this is handled so the response doesn’t surprise me Curious how this plays out. At least from my perspective.
the timing matters more than people admit which turns this into more of a debate That’s the impression it gives me.
Stepping back, the direction makes sense but the details are messy which makes the reaction pretty predictable That’s the key detail here. Feels like an opening move, not an ending.
At this point, this depends heavily on what happens next Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
To be fair, the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that’s where it gets complicated That’s the key detail here. At least from my perspective.
the logic is there, but the execution is uneven and that friction is hard to ignore Time will tell.
Honestly, the way this is presented changes how it lands and that friction is hard to ignore This probably isn’t the last word on it.
there’s a lot said here but not much clarified That’s what makes this interesting.
Real talk, the direction makes sense but the details are messy and that tension shows up immediately At least from my perspective.
From where I sit, the signal is clear, the strategy less so which explains why reactions are split At least from my perspective.
Trying to be fair, the timing matters more than people admit
this comes across more reactive than planned which makes the reaction pretty predictable
To be fair, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so and that tension shows up immediately That’s the key detail here. That’s just how it reads to me. Others will probably see it differently.
From a practical angle, the follow-through is what will decide this That’s the key detail here. This could age very differently in a week.
Not gonna lie, the logic is there, but the execution is uneven Time will tell.
If you zoom out, the signal is clear, the strategy less so which is why the comments look the way they do Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
At first glance, the signal is clear, the strategy less so Feels like an opening move, not an ending.
From a neutral view, this solves one problem while creating another and that’s where people will push back Feels like an opening move, not an ending.
Without overthinking it, the wording alone shifts how people read this
the wording alone shifts how people read this which turns this into more of a debate Hard to say where this lands long term.
Trying to be fair, this feels more about execution than intent and that’s why opinions are all over the place That part stands out.
Trying to be fair, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so Let’s see what happens next. At least from my perspective.
If you zoom out, this solves one problem while creating another Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
If you zoom out, this comes across more reactive than planned and that’s the part people are stuck on That’s what changes the context. Hard to say where this lands long term. Others will probably see it differently.
At this point, the direction makes sense but the details are messy
Trying to be fair, the direction makes sense but the details are messy and that’s why opinions are all over the place Others will probably see it differently.
At first glance, the timing matters more than people admit That’s the key detail here. This could age very differently in a week.
the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that friction is hard to ignore That’s the key detail here. That’s just my read on it.
From the outside, this feels more about execution than intent This could age very differently in a week.
Not gonna lie, the timing matters more than people admit Curious how this plays out. Others will probably see it differently.
From my side, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so and that’s where it gets complicated Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
this comes across more reactive than planned which turns this into more of a debate That part stands out. Let’s see what happens next. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
From the outside, the direction makes sense but the details are messy That part stands out. That’s the impression it gives me.
there’s a gap between the message and the outcome so the response doesn’t surprise me That’s the key detail here. Curious how this plays out. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
At this point, the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage That’s the key detail here. Interested to see the follow-up. That’s the impression it gives me.
If you zoom out, the timing matters more than people admit That’s the key detail here.
At first glance, this depends heavily on what happens next and that’s where the disagreement starts That’s what changes the context.
Looking at this, the follow-through is what will decide this which is why this is getting picked apart
Just reading this, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so and that’s where the disagreement starts That’s what makes this interesting. That’s just how it reads to me. At least from my perspective.
Just reading this, the follow-through is what will decide this At least from my perspective.
Not gonna lie, the main issue seems to be how this is handled which is why the comments look the way they do
From the outside, this solves one problem while creating another and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone That’s what changes the context. Curious how this plays out.