Interesting topic, but I don't really see the connection between Andrei Belousov becoming Russia's new defence minister as an economist and Russia's rearmament. So why exactly did Putin choose him? I don't think Russia needs to budget with all the commodities they are able to mine in their own country. And how is it that even though Russia is building new factories and has all this new technology, it is still a war of attrition and no new territories are being conquered?
1. Russia obviously has a budget just like every other nation has a defense budget. Although they currently have a higher revenue stream thanks to the higher oil prices, the money is not fully ending up being spent for the military. In addition they really have to get a bang for their bucks as they're not only competing with Ukraine but also with the whole west, who are not only sending financial aid, but also replenish Ukraine's stockpile with their own.
Because you are german you may not understand how nations with a serious military handle the defense ministry position. In Germany the defense minister is just another position, like the family ministry for another cash and power grap. The people that hold this position (in Germany) usually have no military experience nor expertise and no talents in general (look at kamp-karrenbauer).
In Russia, USA and China people get appointed because of merit. The Defense Minister position in these countries holds much more value and the appointment makes much more sense and usually indicates where a nation is headed. I'll give you an example. During Covid in 2020 President Biden wins the election and appoints Lloyd Austin, a war hero, with immense expertise in logistics.
But because has retired from the military Austin just recently, he technically wasn't allowed to hold such a high position in the government and had to get approved by the Senate. during the debate of his appointment Biden said that the distribution of Covid tests and vaccines was heavily assisted by the military and that a logistic wizard is a necessity. Austin's background perfectly matched that description, as he was not only a war hero but also the man that organized the drawback from Iraq. Biden probably also had the Afghanistan drawback in mind and wanted someone who had experience with it to hold this powerful position. Chinas defense minister for example is Dong Jun, an Ex Admiral that was in charge of the South Sea Theater, but also held a high position in the East China Sea fleet. The geographic role of Taiwan may explain his appointment. Taiwan parts East China Sea and South China Sea. That Taiwan is Chinas current priority hopefully doesn't need an explanation, does it? So the current Chinese defense minister has been in charge of the water around the sought after isle and probably has extensive experience with navigating conflicts with not only the Taiwanese but also with American patrols.
As I tried to show in these two examples, the appointment of the defense minister always has a meaning, atleast nations that take their military serious. So the appointment of one of the most distinguished economist Russia has to offer probably means that the military industrial complex Russias is becoming an overhaul, which is definitely needed as I tried to show with my example of Stankomash most of the Soviet industries don't exist anymore and have to be built up from ground.
Why the Ukraine war is a war of attrition if the Russians have new technology and great production?
It is not that the Russians are not advancing. they are but slowly. In my opinion this can be attributed to the fact that they have a strong opponent. The Ukraine probably has the strongest military in western and central Europe and it should also be pointed out that Ukraine has been rigorously prepared by UK and US to withstand a Russian attack since 2014. It is also worth pointing out that Russia claims to play for a long game. That means that they are not trying to beat Ukraine fast but that they are slowly advancing, trying to destroy as much western equipment as possible. If Ukraine then runs out of equipment the west has to either send more equipment or Ukraine is finished. This can already be observed for example at the firing of artillery shells: Ukraine only shoots one shell for every three russian shells. And Ukraine is probably not being so stingy with their artillery because they want to but because they are running low.
Interesting topic, but I don't really see the connection between Andrei Belousov becoming Russia's new defence minister as an economist and Russia's rearmament. So why exactly did Putin choose him? I don't think Russia needs to budget with all the commodities they are able to mine in their own country. And how is it that even though Russia is building new factories and has all this new technology, it is still a war of attrition and no new territories are being conquered?
1. Russia obviously has a budget just like every other nation has a defense budget. Although they currently have a higher revenue stream thanks to the higher oil prices, the money is not fully ending up being spent for the military. In addition they really have to get a bang for their bucks as they're not only competing with Ukraine but also with the whole west, who are not only sending financial aid, but also replenish Ukraine's stockpile with their own.
Because you are german you may not understand how nations with a serious military handle the defense ministry position. In Germany the defense minister is just another position, like the family ministry for another cash and power grap. The people that hold this position (in Germany) usually have no military experience nor expertise and no talents in general (look at kamp-karrenbauer).
In Russia, USA and China people get appointed because of merit. The Defense Minister position in these countries holds much more value and the appointment makes much more sense and usually indicates where a nation is headed. I'll give you an example. During Covid in 2020 President Biden wins the election and appoints Lloyd Austin, a war hero, with immense expertise in logistics.
But because has retired from the military Austin just recently, he technically wasn't allowed to hold such a high position in the government and had to get approved by the Senate. during the debate of his appointment Biden said that the distribution of Covid tests and vaccines was heavily assisted by the military and that a logistic wizard is a necessity. Austin's background perfectly matched that description, as he was not only a war hero but also the man that organized the drawback from Iraq. Biden probably also had the Afghanistan drawback in mind and wanted someone who had experience with it to hold this powerful position. Chinas defense minister for example is Dong Jun, an Ex Admiral that was in charge of the South Sea Theater, but also held a high position in the East China Sea fleet. The geographic role of Taiwan may explain his appointment. Taiwan parts East China Sea and South China Sea. That Taiwan is Chinas current priority hopefully doesn't need an explanation, does it? So the current Chinese defense minister has been in charge of the water around the sought after isle and probably has extensive experience with navigating conflicts with not only the Taiwanese but also with American patrols.
As I tried to show in these two examples, the appointment of the defense minister always has a meaning, atleast nations that take their military serious. So the appointment of one of the most distinguished economist Russia has to offer probably means that the military industrial complex Russias is becoming an overhaul, which is definitely needed as I tried to show with my example of Stankomash most of the Soviet industries don't exist anymore and have to be built up from ground.
Why the Ukraine war is a war of attrition if the Russians have new technology and great production?
It is not that the Russians are not advancing. they are but slowly. In my opinion this can be attributed to the fact that they have a strong opponent. The Ukraine probably has the strongest military in western and central Europe and it should also be pointed out that Ukraine has been rigorously prepared by UK and US to withstand a Russian attack since 2014. It is also worth pointing out that Russia claims to play for a long game. That means that they are not trying to beat Ukraine fast but that they are slowly advancing, trying to destroy as much western equipment as possible. If Ukraine then runs out of equipment the west has to either send more equipment or Ukraine is finished. This can already be observed for example at the firing of artillery shells: Ukraine only shoots one shell for every three russian shells. And Ukraine is probably not being so stingy with their artillery because they want to but because they are running low.