Quibble, while I agree that Russia has more forces that they could theoretically use in Ukraine, one of the big problems they face is the amount of their forces that are totally unsuited to operating in Ukraine. For example, they could shutdown air defenses across most of Russia to send the operators to Ukraine, but they probably don't want to do that. Similarly, they could transfer all the personnel of the Strategic Rocket Forces to Ukraine, but I doubt they would want to do that either.
While there is an obvious mismatch in defense spending and manpower, Russia's problem is that a lot of its spending is committed to things that are important to its great/superpower pretensions but are useless against Ukraine. The Russian navy is largely useless. Aside from the dwindling Black Sea fleet and the missile corvettes in the Caspian, the surface warships and submarines of the Baltic, Pacific, and Northern fleets contribute virtually nothing to the fight against Ukraine. The SSBNs do nothing. The Strategic Rocket forces do nothing. The extensive air defense system inherited from the USSR does little, although it does help in that there are lots of S300 missiles both for SAM use and as second-rate surface to surface missiles.
Certainly, although I suspect the portion that was completely useless as opposed to committed elsewhere was smaller. Unfortunately for Russia, they aren't in the position of the US in 1950-53, with roughly 40-50% of global GDP at its disposal. IIRC someone said that Russia was trying to have a military that could compete with the US on the UK's military budget backed up by Canada's economy.
Although thinking some more about it, the US had a greater proportion of its military at least theoretically useful in 1950-53. There were no ICBMs or SLBMs so they were not a useless portion. The only parts of the US defense establishment that could not be used were the US based air defenses (I think all the coastal artillery was already gone).
Even strategic bombers could have been used in the conventional role in Korea and B-29s were used. The forces in Europe were tied down defending Europe, but personnel and equipment could be rotated into Korea. Similarly, since Korea is a peninsula in the Pacific not a country with a seacoast in the Black Sea, much more of the USN is useful for everything from shore bombardment to carrier airstrikes up to the Inchon invasion.
The US Army between 1945-50 was thoroughly gutted. Part of this was isolationist tendencies, part of this was paranoia over militarism, part budget-minded, and part Communist 5th columnists who didn't want a large American Army that could intervene globally.
The troops who went to Korea were overwhelmingly new recruits who went through boot camp on the boats while in transit. They also were armed with weapons that were obsolete in 1945, as modernization was not a priority and lots of ammo dumps were blown up. Those in Europe were little more than a tripwire that would cause the Air Force to carpet-bomb the USSR with nukes.
In contrast, Russia has had time to prepare for the war with Ukraine, but went in hoping that the war would be short enough to not need much of a plan. They tried to rely on paratroopers as shock troops (bad idea, even in WW2), and their logistics were run by civilians with ties to the Russian mafia (no quartermaster corps!). So they can't send more troops because they don't have the ability to supply them.
Quibble, while I agree that Russia has more forces that they could theoretically use in Ukraine, one of the big problems they face is the amount of their forces that are totally unsuited to operating in Ukraine. For example, they could shutdown air defenses across most of Russia to send the operators to Ukraine, but they probably don't want to do that. Similarly, they could transfer all the personnel of the Strategic Rocket Forces to Ukraine, but I doubt they would want to do that either.
While there is an obvious mismatch in defense spending and manpower, Russia's problem is that a lot of its spending is committed to things that are important to its great/superpower pretensions but are useless against Ukraine. The Russian navy is largely useless. Aside from the dwindling Black Sea fleet and the missile corvettes in the Caspian, the surface warships and submarines of the Baltic, Pacific, and Northern fleets contribute virtually nothing to the fight against Ukraine. The SSBNs do nothing. The Strategic Rocket forces do nothing. The extensive air defense system inherited from the USSR does little, although it does help in that there are lots of S300 missiles both for SAM use and as second-rate surface to surface missiles.
Similar things could be said about the situation of the US Armed Forces between 1950 and 1953, n'est-ce pas?
Certainly, although I suspect the portion that was completely useless as opposed to committed elsewhere was smaller. Unfortunately for Russia, they aren't in the position of the US in 1950-53, with roughly 40-50% of global GDP at its disposal. IIRC someone said that Russia was trying to have a military that could compete with the US on the UK's military budget backed up by Canada's economy.
Although thinking some more about it, the US had a greater proportion of its military at least theoretically useful in 1950-53. There were no ICBMs or SLBMs so they were not a useless portion. The only parts of the US defense establishment that could not be used were the US based air defenses (I think all the coastal artillery was already gone).
Even strategic bombers could have been used in the conventional role in Korea and B-29s were used. The forces in Europe were tied down defending Europe, but personnel and equipment could be rotated into Korea. Similarly, since Korea is a peninsula in the Pacific not a country with a seacoast in the Black Sea, much more of the USN is useful for everything from shore bombardment to carrier airstrikes up to the Inchon invasion.
The US Army between 1945-50 was thoroughly gutted. Part of this was isolationist tendencies, part of this was paranoia over militarism, part budget-minded, and part Communist 5th columnists who didn't want a large American Army that could intervene globally.
The troops who went to Korea were overwhelmingly new recruits who went through boot camp on the boats while in transit. They also were armed with weapons that were obsolete in 1945, as modernization was not a priority and lots of ammo dumps were blown up. Those in Europe were little more than a tripwire that would cause the Air Force to carpet-bomb the USSR with nukes.
In contrast, Russia has had time to prepare for the war with Ukraine, but went in hoping that the war would be short enough to not need much of a plan. They tried to rely on paratroopers as shock troops (bad idea, even in WW2), and their logistics were run by civilians with ties to the Russian mafia (no quartermaster corps!). So they can't send more troops because they don't have the ability to supply them.