Your friend is quite right. I first ran into this observation when reading Ben Rich’s book, Skunk Works – absolutely phenomenal book, I highly recommend it, and have read it many times. In it, Mr. Rich quoted at least one Russian engineer about how Americans build their weapons like Rolex watches – beautifully designed, amazing to look at, but the moment you subject them to the slightest hard use, they break and never work again. Russians, by contrast, design their aircraft and weapons for very hard use.

A friend of mine has told me several times about how Russian Mi-8 and Mi-26 helicopters have to replace their prop shafts much more frequently than their American equivalents, and how the Russians did this entirely deliberately. Compared to a Black Hawk or Sea Hawk, the prop shafts and rotors have much shorter life-spans – but the replacement process is vastly simpler and can be done in the field in under an hour without any real specialised skills. By contrast, replacing the rotors and shafts for a UH-60 is a horribly complex process that has to be tracked and filed from start to finish, and requires highly specialised engineers to manage the actual changes.

This is because the Russian equipment is designed to be used, HARD. They sell them to Indians, who are some of the worst pilots IN THE WORLD when it comes to handling their equipment. And even the Indians don’t lose whirlybirds due to mechanical failures, even though they beat up their helos really badly.

That philosophy extends to Russian airfields as well. It is not uncommon to see Russian forward airbases with grass around the runway and bits of junk on the actual concrete. Yet their jets take off and land just fine. American airfields, by contrast, have to be kept spotlessly and immaculately clean at all times, because if so much as a stray bolt or pin gets sucked into an F-35 turbine, the engine could easily be turned into scrap metal.

I agree that this is an expression of the Russian soul – which believes in practical solutions to difficult problems, and has no problem with something that is “good enough” instead of absolutely perfect. They also have a very strong preference for rugged, dependable lethality, as opposed to extreme precision at the cost of durability – that explains the AK-47’s longevity and ability to operate in some of the harshest environments in the world.

Indeed not. But what difference would a peace treaty make? Given that the Russians are already drawing up plans to implement Russian school curricula in Kharkov (even though they haven’t captured it yet) and the Donbas, and given their actions to break Kherson away from Ukraine, I think it very unlikely that the Russians will permit any sort of Ukrainian sovereignty over those regions that it has captured. The same will be true of Odessa, Nikolaev, and probably even Zaporozhye, all of which the Russians appear to be willing and able to take once they clean out Donbas.

I just don’t see any scenario in which the Russians would agree to joint rule with Ukraine, especially given that the Ukies themselves have ruled out any further negotiations and are apparently willing to die right down to the last Ukrainian.

Ah, but they haven’t settled on a peace treaty yet, have they?

Judging by what the Russkies have done in Kherson and now Energodar, I am not so sure. In Kherson, they have taken down Ukie flags, raised Russian ones, and instituted economic transactions in rubles. They are also aiming to hold a “referendum” to allow the people of Kherson to vote to secede and create a “Kherson People’s Republic”, similar to the LNR and DNR.

We pretty much know how that “election” will turn out, of course. And I expect the Russians will do the same when – not if – they take Odessa and Nikolaev, thereby locking up the entirety of the Black Sea. I do not believe that they will permit joint administration of these territories – they want the entire Black Sea coast, and will not stop until they get it as a true buffer state between Europe and Russia.

I am either contaminated or wise, take your pick, in terms of what might be called “notional sovereignty” by virtue of two tours in the Panama Canal Zone and one in Guantanamo. I expect, at this point, having bled so much, that the Russian goal will not be actual annexation of that portion of the Ukraine east of the Dnepr shown on the map, above, but occupation of all or it, less Kiev, with 2-3 bridgeheads over the river, similar occupation, though perhaps more hidden, in the vicinity of Odessa and Nikolaev, and de facto control of all of it, while both it and the Ukraine agree that the Ukraine is “sovereign.” This will mean that the Ukrainian flag will fly next to the Russian flag, both national anthems will be played daily, and it will mean absolutely nothing but that, with Russia either appointing all civil magistrates or, at a bare minimum, exercising a veto over them.