As Marshal Gian-Jacopo Trivulzio (1448-1518) said, war requires three things: money, money, and more money.
That's what I want to talk about.
Once I watched a film about the coalition war in Afghanistan. The numbers are amazing. It turned out that the cost of maintaining one coalition soldier per year is about $ 1,000,000 (with the total number of the entire contingent just over 120,000 people, we get $ 120,000,000,000). And this despite the fact that about 12,000 Taliban fighters were killed (more precisely, incapacitated) in a year. As a result, the cost of incapacitating one bandit was $ 10,000,000!
"Can not be!" - you say. Actually, this figure should be 5-10 times more, since it does not take into account the costs associated with losses (insurance payments), long-term rehabilitation of injured soldiers, and many other costs. Let's increase the indicator by 5 times. We get $ 50,000,000 for one Taliban terrorist. This amount is comparable to the price of one or even several modern aircraft! It seems to me that this is VERY MUCH. Please note that this is with TOTAL superiority in almost all components of the OBD (lack of air defense, counter-battery warfare, missile and many other types of weapons, etc.). Otherwise, when maintaining a database with an enemy equal in strength and armament, the cost would have increased by orders of magnitude. And I would like to ask a question: do taxpayers know about this or at least guess?
Now about some of the features of how the coalition fought in Afghanistan, which are very indicative and instructive at the same time. Here is just one episode: together with the Afghan Armed Forces, an operation is being carried out to clean up a certain territory (with the forces of one battalion of the coalition and one battalion of Afghans). In terms of time (preparation, conduct, departure), the operation took about two weeks. During this time, the units were fired on several times by Taliban fighters, and only in one case, after countless shootings, watering the territory with automatic grenade launchers and large-caliber machine guns, artillery preparation from howitzers and calling the aviation, the complex of houses in which there were 2 terrorists was erased from the face of the earth.
And now about the money. 1 battalion + gunners + pilots (about 500 people in total) * $ 1,000,000 * (14 days / 365) = $ 19,000,000. We get the cost of eliminating 2 terrorists: $ 19,000,000, or $ 9,500,000 per terrorist, which practically coincides with the estimate given above.
The magic of the $ 10,000,000 number just fascinates me. Gaddafi paid the victims of the terrorist attack $ 10,000,000, the Australians also filed a lawsuit against Russia for $ 10,000,000 for the passenger of the plane shot down in Donbas … How is it: the terrorist and the victim are the same? Well, okay, by the way. Probably just a coincidence. Let's just note to ourselves and remember that the cost of a victim's life today is estimated at $ 10,000,000.
Assuming that for the complete destruction of the Taliban it is necessary to incapacitate 50,000 Taliban, then the coalition will have to pay 50,000 * $ 10,000,000 = $ 500,000,000,000, which is comparable to the annual US military budget. From the above, a simple and at the same time shocking conclusion can be drawn. Under the current model of warfare, the coalition will NEVER WIN THE TALIBAN and ISIS (banned in Russia). There won't be enough resources. Unfortunately, the coalition realized this only 10 years later and began to urgently look for cheaper options for conducting hostilities, the most natural of which was the involvement of local armies, since the cost of human life for these armies is orders of magnitude less than that of the coalition.
However, the reality is much worse. After all, if ordinary peasants were killed in a destroyed house, and they had relatives, then, having eliminated two terrorists, the coalition created, maybe, 4 or 10 new ones who would join the Taliban and wage an armed struggle. It's good if no one else died there, or only one surviving relative enters the Taliban. Otherwise, the number of terrorists will only grow, which is what happened in reality, since the number of Taliban fighters is only increasing, and with the departure of the coalition, he significantly expanded the zone of influence, and significant financial resources are required to keep the situation and the remaining territory under control.
If we look at the whole situation from the point of view of business, then we have a PERFECT picture. The more terrorists there are, the more resources are needed to fight them, and these are growing contracts, jobs and growing profits for weapons suppliers - mainly from the coalition countries. So the circle is complete! Only one inconvenience: their soldiers are dying, and this causes enormous political damage and causes discontent among the population in the countries of the coalition. Although this problem can be solved to some extent by investing in propaganda and manipulating public opinion. But there are certain limits and restrictions in the form of the number of killed soldiers. If these losses are unacceptable, there will not be enough money for propaganda. That is, the balance will not converge (it will be negative), and the current policy will be a failure. So ALL politicians (if they are not complete idiots, which sometimes have to be doubted) have a very good idea of what the "pain threshold" of the population is, and try not to approach it. If the coalition could fight WITHOUT LOSS, then it would fight ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE, since war, if properly organized, is an inexhaustible source of consumption of expensive high-tech resources and a source of eternal development (for arms dealers). And if it is also directed against certain states, which in fact are competitors for the coalition countries (the potential invasion of the Taliban into the countries of Central Asia, the Caucasus, Russia), then it will simply be a fairy tale for the ears and pockets of the owners of corporations from the countries of the coalition. Actually, all the conflicts of recent decades have followed this scenario. Nothing new: after all, money does not smell, and nobody canceled enrichment as a goal …
Now let's move on to long-suffering Syria. Wonderful ancient land, wonderful, friendly people. Looking at the gigantic, mind-boggling destruction, especially in the zone of former hostilities, it is impossible to comprehend HOW all this could be sustained. I adore this people.
Now about the money. Naturally, Qatar and the SA have many times more money than the Syrians, and the outcome of the war was predetermined by this circumstance. But Russia's intervention has introduced some uncertainty, since money decides a lot, but not everything, and Russia is not a poor country either. I remember that in one of the reports Dubovoy from Donbass noticed and commented on a large number of ATGM control wires hanging on tree branches: they say, ATGM is a luxury in Syria … What do we see today? The Syrians scamper from ATGMs at single terrorists and their groups (not tanks, armored personnel carriers, etc.), and our specialists in the comments to these videos on YouTube swear at them for this and demand that they be court-martialed for misappropriating a very expensive resource (ATGM). The picture is almost identical to that in Afghanistan, when grenade launchers were fired at the "spirits", even if it was a single bandit.
And if we see how an ATGM is being shot at a single terrorist, then most likely this indicates the lack of suitable weapons: the fighters are using what they have. After all, when shooting at a bear running towards you, the price of cartridges is nothing compared to your life. So it is in Syria, and everywhere in the world. The price of a weapon is incomparable with the price of a human life. But this is only subject to the renewal of the resource … After all, if you have 1 ATGM or one cartridge left, and there will be no more, then the maximum that you can afford is to shoot for sure and only at significant targets.
If a bandit attacked you and inflicted damage on you, then it is only natural that after he is arrested and convicted, he will have to compensate you for all the damage suffered … Reasonable and logical. And if it is proved in court that this bandit was assisted in any form by his friends, then the court will determine the contribution and measure of responsibility of each in the committed crime and “like a brotherly divide” between the criminals the compensation to the victim. I think this is fair. Oh, if the same rules were used in interstate relations! Just imagine: they attacked Iraq, motivating the war with the presence of weapons of mass destruction, but they were not there. And you have to pay compensation. According to some estimates, more than 1.500.000 Iraqis were killed, totaling 1.500.000 * $ 10.000.000 = $ 15.000.000.000.000 + for the housing and infrastructure destroyed by the war. It will turn out to be 30-40 trillions, which is equivalent to about two annual US GDP. After that, well, they will be very scrupulous and reluctant to approach making decisions about the war … Yes, dreams, dreams!
Let's go down to the sinful earth.
The internet is overloaded with videos. In the footage, we see how tanks and cannons shoot, planes fly, drop bombs, Grads, Smerchi and Buratino work, ISIS terrorists, and government fighters shoot, DO NOT AIM, raising a machine gun over a wall or parapet trench. When you read reports from the battlefields, you are surprised to discover that the losses amounted to 2-3, well, 10-15 bandits … After that, taking a calculator, you try to find out what the price of such hostilities is. And how long you can stretch out financially. After it was revealed in the US Congress that, having spent $ 500,000,000 on training 5 (five) Syrian opposition fighters, which is equivalent to $ 100,000,000 per fighter, or, for comparison, two (or more) state-of-the-art combat aircraft for one opposition fighter, it became clear that their soldiers cost much less ($ 1,000,000 per soldier per year), and the dispatch of special forces to Syria was urgently arranged.
By the way, has anyone seen or knows the real figures of the cost of a database in Syria for Russia, in addition to those that were announced by the president? Of course, they should be several times less than those of the coalition, but not by an order of magnitude. Well, and the most significant factor is the cost of our soldiers … Yes, the cost or the price, if you like, which varied in Russia in time from 0 (Zhukov's famous dictum about the advisability of losses during the storming of Berlin: Russian women will give birth to new ones) to today's 25 salaries for each beneficiary today. Let's take 100 salaries (wife and 3 children) and a salary of 100,000 rubles = 10,000,000 rubles, or $ 200,000. Apparently, this is in line with reality. The Turks offered compensation of $ 100,000 for our pilot who had been shot. Yes, frankly speaking, a little … Especially when from various tribunes they talk about the invaluableness of human life. Actually, the cost of a soldier (like any citizen in general) is determined by the socio-economic conditions in each given country and the prevailing market conditions in the labor market. And any state in this sense is ruthless. In England, for example, Marines are recruited - volunteers from the street, and the main contingent is unemployed, unsettled, undecided in life, very rarely ideological young people who are sent to the war zone after 28 days of intensive training … They teach everything from scratch, starting with how to wash properly, use personal hygiene products and ending with the basics of mountain training, tactics of urban combat, shooting training, etc. Sufficiently intensive training, no outfits (just kicked back into the street), kitchen shifts, washing the barracks and other nonsense … But the sergeants strictly monitor the discipline. People are consciously prepared to survive the war, and everything is subordinated to this main goal. At the slightest violation of the regime, disobeying orders, they are simply kicked out of the gates of the training center, since the punishment does not make sense. It is simply expensive and unfair to cook and transport an inadequate person to a war, where other people or himself may die through his fault (you have to pay for this). So everything is quite pragmatic and straightforward. Cannon fodder costs differently and comes in different varieties. As you can see, war is a very dirty, expensive business, and everyone quite consciously and purposefully wants to minimize risks and costs. Russia, by the way, is no exception.
When you observe and analyze the developing armed conflicts in various countries of the world, even with the naked eye you see the dead end of the existing models and methods of waging wars. All too often, indiscriminate weapons are used against terrorists. Either innocent people die, or the cost of eliminating terrorists brings entire countries to their knees and, in principle, does not solve the problem. An example is the pirates in Somalia. And as an example of the complete failure of the use of indiscriminate weapons, one can recall the indicators associated with the use of US drones to destroy terrorists: the latter turned out to be only 4% of the killed people! That would be legally obliged to pay $ 10,000,000 (and not pay off with ten rams) for each civilian killed by mistake! Yes, go to jail as a war criminal (for life). Lovers of shooting at civilians would have diminished right away. After all, the UN declared the equality of all people on Earth!
In this case, all talk about collateral and unforeseen losses among civilians would stop very quickly. I can imagine how the US President explains to the Americans why the police had to kill 96 American hostages in order to kill 4 terrorists … I think after that oh how many officials would have resigned, and the President himself, at best, would have been removed from office … I don't want to talk about the worst.
What is it: complete incompetence or, on the contrary, a well-planned operation with ALL OTHER GOALS AND OBJECTIVES hidden from the public's attention? Any theory is tested on boundary conditions. Really, with the experience of Korea, Vietnam and many other unleashed conflicts behind it, the coalition got involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria without hope of winning? And with the cost of eliminating one terrorist at $ 10,000,000, the cost of victory becomes simply unaffordable even for the American budget. What made the coalition sit in Afghanistan for about 10 years, spend a total of more than $ 1 trillion, but never achieve any significant results? For some reason, only after 10 years of intrigue, ordeals and absolutely hopeless hostilities, an emphasis was placed on the use of Afghan government forces! And even negotiations began with the Taliban, during which the negotiators tried to motivate the Taliban to fight against ISIS (oh, how familiar it all is!), And at the same time, by all means to minimize their involvement in the conflict, and most importantly, to reduce funding for the Afghan government to a possible minimum, and when the Taliban enter the government, to zero altogether. (By the way, the order of Russian helicopters for Afghanistan was dictated by the desire to cut their own expenses for the maintenance of the Afghan army, and not something else. As usual, business, and nothing personal.) When the operation in Afghanistan began, there was no ISIS. nor Libya with Syria, and the national debt was at the level of two trillion, but now it is close to 20 trillion. So, perhaps, there was simply not enough financial resources, the specter of default loomed (and this would be worse than a nuclear war), or the goal was achieved, and it was not a victory over the Taliban or Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), but a completely different, more global, undeclared and therefore more dangerous goal with unpredictable consequences for many participants who are absolutely not ready for analysis, a new perception of the emerging situation and blindly following the route indicated by the leader.
Have you noticed that if people have money (I mean MONEY), then they become independent? Some of them start buying yachts or football clubs, while others begin to invest in business development, in new technologies, fight for new sales markets, and ultimately displace competitors from existing markets, create new markets, becoming the main players, and reduce the tax base. many states, which in itself boomerangs on the socio-economic situation of the population and, ultimately, on the stability of these states, reducing the possibilities for their further development. In the long term, very quickly, such states cease to exist as independent, independent and completely controlled by stronger countries up to the complete subordination of the economy and all the main institutions of power. An example is all the Baltic states or the monarchies of the Persian Gulf, and for a long time. But this is so, thinking out loud.
So, on the basis of the above, the conclusion clearly suggests itself that there will be no serious war between Russia and the United States or between Russia and NATO. For a very simple reason: the economy of both one and the other country is simply not able to withstand the costs of such wars, no matter how advanced and perfect this economy may be. Even the costs of wars with technologically backward countries become unaffordable for the budget. In a war with an equal or superior in strength and technology rival, these costs should be at least an order of magnitude higher. And I am sure that all politicians (unless, of course, they are complete idiots) understand these realities very well.
And, of course, we need to seriously think about the cost of warfare and set ourselves the task of significantly reducing it (by orders of magnitude), if only we want to LIVE NORMALLY, AND NOT SURVIVE, giving the advantage to economically efficient, not spectacular types of weapons, with the maximum possible unification and standardization - wherever possible.
It seems to me that the time has come to seriously think about creating high-precision, miniature, robotic, with elements of artificial intelligence, means of warfare, the use of which can minimize the loss of civilians, infrastructure, means of production, housing, etc., and ultimately break situation and defeat any opponent in a matter of days (not years). Moreover, all the technologies necessary for this, and most importantly, the brains, are available in Russia.
After all, with the cost of eliminating one bandit at 10 million or even one million dollars, the country will very soon be ruined. There will be some next revolution with a long recovery period, 20-50 years, or even disintegration and complete disappearance of the state from the political map of the world. Actually, this is what the West is trying to achieve, using various pretexts and provocations to achieve this goal.
