You just gotta love how US military say everything openly and in their reports. In particular, it has a forecast of US casualties and mobilization reserves in a conflict of this level.
Thesis:
- military doctors project a [KIA and WIA] casualty rate for the US Armed Forces of 3,600\day.
- The combat replenishment rate is 25% or 800 troops per day.
- In 20 years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has lost about 50,000 people.
In a conflict of the Ukrainian level, the U.S. would suffer such losses in 2 weeks.
- The recruitment shortage is a major problem.
- every soldier not recruited today is a strategic mobility asset [IRR or reservists] that the US will not have in 2031**
- IRR was 700K in 1973, 450K in 1994, now at 76K.
- These numbers will not make up for the projected losses.
- the 70’s concept of contract forces is outdated and does not fit the current operational environment.
- The needs of the U.S. Armed Forces for a Ukrainian-level war require a transition to conscription.
Pardon?
I think the implication is that the west has actively painted Russia as weak and “losing” against Ukraine, and now are faced with the problem of having to motivate people into joining up to go and fight. Why would one sign up to go to a war that their side is already supposedly winning?
To be fair, “just one more big push and we’re in Moscow!” would surely sucker some
Most people would rather join a winning side than a losing one
I suppose it depends on what they’re fighting for. If losing means an existential threat, then I’d imagine quite a lot would want to join up, since it would be a necessity. Winning on the other hand doesn’t really achieve much for the average westerner, only the ruling class.