Is NATO running out of weapons to supply Ukraine? (no)
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 06. 2024
- This war has produced some truly interesting takes - so many that I'm already planning my next myth-busting video as we speak.
But one recent one stood out as as both particularly strange, and also as a good opportunity to discuss a serious topic. Recently a number of media organisations ran stories suggesting that the shipment of American missiles to Ukraine were dangerously depleting American supplies to the point where urgent measures are necessary or American security would be threatened.
So yes, I'm going to deal with the idea that sending Stingers to Ukraine is a danger to the USA, but I'm also going to talk about how deep American weapon stocks are, what it means to have your security threatened, and why America probably shouldn't rush to crash-manufacture Stingers just because they're finally using the ones that were in storage. Defence procurement decisions have lasting impacts, and while the decision to ramp up Javelin production is an obvious one, I think we should be wary of the idea that Stinger should be resurrected without other options being considered.
This is a shorter video that serves in a stand-in while I edit and re-record the longer video that was originally scheduled for this time (if I'm going to talk about Poland, I want to do it justice). And because I wanted to hold off the video on Finland and Sweden joining NATO until they had formally applied for membership (so expect it soon).
Thanks as always for watching and supporting me and the channel.
Patreon:
/ perunau
Perun Gaming:
/ @perungamingau
Timestamps:
00:00 INTRODUCTION
00:25 What is this???
01:13 What am I covering?
01:43 WHAT'S THE CLAIM?
02:25 Is any of that true?
03:34 Should the West panic?
05:39 Should the West panic? - replacement
06:31 US ARMS STOCKPILE
07:30 That's a lot of metal
07:48 And the real reality check
08:55 There is more than one way to kill a tank
09:37 Direct and indirect substitution
10:50 There is more than one way to kill a tank (cont.)
11:13 America is armed
12:26 WHAT ABOUT EUROPE?
14:54 Impact on Euro forces
16:01 Expenditure is not one sided
17:29 Expenditure is not one sided - UA isn't just throwing these things out
19:01 SO WHAT NEXT?
21:15 CHANNEL UPDATE
Without the Javelin, all the Army has left to fight enemy tanks will be M1 tanks, large mortar systems, Paladin howitzers, towed howitzers, MLRS rocket artillery, Engineer-made obstacles, Bradleys with TOW missiles, Apache Longbow helicopters, anti-armor Stryker variants, Carl Gustav rifles, AT-4's, and LAWs. Or it can call on the Air Force with its AC-130 gunships, A-10 Warthogs, drones, fighters, and bombers. Or it can call on the Navy to let fly with its own attack aircraft and cruise missiles.
Without the Stinger, all the Army has left are its Patriot Missile batteries. Or it can call on the Air Force's thousands of fighter jets, or call on the Navy's swarms of fighter jets.
If all that fails, the President still has three distinct nuclear buttons to push.
If all that fails, America still has more privately-owned weapons than any other country, and has the land mass and population of a small continent. And that population likes to fantasize about Red Dawn scenarios.
I think the U.S. will survive shipping some man-portable missiles to Ukraine.
I have the distinct feeling that Senator Blumenthal isn't so much concerned about US military readiness as he is about the fact that he, or people to whom he is connected, stand to make a mountain of money if panic and political pressure cause a sudden defense procurement order for 30,000 Stinger and Javelin systems at any cost.
More charitably, he's hoping for pork-barrel jerbs to come to his constituency, which is tantamount to the same as option two above, but the people making that money will _ostensibly_ be trickling some of it down to Joe Average. In theory.
@@ShadowDragon8685 That was literally my first thought, though not as eloquently worded, when I heard the Senator's concern over the missile depletion. Always follow the money.
Even without pork barrel politics or depleted defence fear mongering the defence industry is going to explode in the next year. European countries will be buying up systems to improve their defences not to mention any resolution of the Ukraine conflict will involve in its aftermath a huge beef up of Ukrainian defence systems, since you couldn’t trust Putin not to rebuild and then 5 years later try again.
@@ShadowDragon8685 Trickle down theory is a myth and has been found to do exactly the opposite of what it claims to do, so no one downstream will see any significant increase in monetary wealth, except of course the company and those who took the kick-backs.
Besides..if all else fails: taxi cab and bus drivers of any major metropolitan area are more than capable!
"Frankly, I'm not convinced a couple battalion tactical groups could take Houston from its police force and civilian population, let alone the National Guard or United States Army". That shit had me rolling lol.
Battalion tactical groups, not Italian.
@@rawpotatofella9654 My fault. Edited.
@@rawpotatofella9654 Why can't it be Italian tactical groups? whatchu got against Italians?
hehe
@@adervishagentred Admittedly the Italians would probably have better odds than the Russians
Fvck even local texas militias can do toe to toe to a BTG units.
When Estonia sent 500 Javelin to Ukraine on the 2nd day of the invasion they also sent a note that basically said "We would rather these be used to destroy Russian Tanks in Ukraine rather than destroy Russian Tanks in Estonia."
Every piece of Russian Armor destroyed in Ukraine is one fewer system that can be used to invade the Baltics.
That is the mindset of everyone to the east of the Elbe.
@@eugenohanka Except for Hungary and Serbia, it seems.
Very true. A lot of these NATO weapons being used on Russian armor removes the need for them to be stockpiled in the first place. For Estonia, this is very true. But the US has more potential battles to prepare for. Regarding Javalins, apparently the rate of use of them in Ukraine is pretty significant compared to the production. US has been making Javalins since 1996. Now, for the first time they are really being used. The rate of usage seen in Ukraine is way way bigger than the rate of production&stockpiling. So the US needs to set up production lines for many of these weapons.
Thats also why the us security isn’t threatened. They produced javelins mainly because of russia army. If russia looses there tanks there is less need for the javelins overall. Just because it isn’t used by the us doesn’t mean its the same target it was designatedfor
That's a good point. Attriting Russia in Ukraine is better than defending Estonia in Estonia. The problem is that the US is looking over its OTHER shoulder at China/North Korea too. Javelin and Stinger are older systems, but there are only so many of them and I'm getting the impression that Taiwan may be the next power that will need them to defend itself. Using these systems in Ukraine is good, but NATO needs to keep an eye on replacing them because I don't think this will be the war that breaks Putin's back. We'll see I guess.
Perun- "guys, you are really really REALLY well-armed."
US- "Why, thank you!"
*laughs in American*
its kinda kept us from having to do it down here in Australia so yeah, cheers for that US of A haha
* Blushes * “Aww stop it” -US
So wholesome
@@andresmartinezramos7513 indeed lol
Putting the “no” in the title just earned my loyalty as a viewer forever this is a real content maker
Anyone not resorting to clickbait headlines immediately earns immense good will from me these days.
It gets even better when you view the videos in 'tile' format, like I do. The 'no' is the only thing masked out of the title, but you see the ... so in hovering over that, the full title - and the 'no' - shows up. I know it wasn't intentional, but it certainly added to the impact. 🙂
The whole series so far has earned massive respect from me; my minor in college was Poli-Sci, so I've been fascinated by these in-depth views that are delivered in a calm manner. Just the fact that its being delivered as if its a lecture is a great change of pace, given today's general presentation of nearly all political subjects.
Yes, this! I hate clickbait with a passion.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
@@yt45204 deadly like an aroused emu....
So to sum it up,
The weapons being shipped to fight Russia where designed and stock piled to fight Russia and because they are fighting Russia with the weapons designed to fight Russia there is no need to panic about a reduction in weapons designed to fight Russia.
Masterfully summed up. The only question is what will be left of Russia.
@@mononoklegymen8947 an ongoing train wreck, as has been the case since the mid 1800s
@@mononoklegymen8947 My biggest question is how do you get through the thickening barrier of propaganda that Russians are being subjected to through state television and dwindling external sources of information. If that can’t be done at some point during or after the war, it’s only going to create more problems down the road. That needs to be broken first if they are going to eventually re-join the world.
@@goofball3056 Not even sure there will be enough train left in the train wreck...
Love it
Anyone who’s been through Houston knows that a couple tactical battalions couldn’t take it cause they’d be too stuck in traffic.
This made me curious and by a very rough eye test, the Houston Metropolitan Area is at least half the area of the Donetsk Oblast.
It would be like the Mongol invasion of Japan, bog them down in traffic until a hurricane comes through and wipes them out.
@@SrGunnar Houston is a funny example, but not a bad one. The sad truth is that Huston is far less well-armed than the average Texan church. The example I'd like to see played-out in real-time is Chicago. They have interstates and bridges that cut the city into manageable pieces and ethnic/geographic divides that would make an assault far more interesting. The downside is that an invasion might actually unite the Crips and the Bloods and MS13, and after the invasion is repelled the city would be a new Paris Commune for all intents and purposes.
True. But some well placed explosions in that sprawling industrial area of oil,.gas and chemical plants would render the place uninhabitable for quite some time.
Or perhaps even some ugly accident that gets out of hand - Tianjin style. That shit is never completely out of the question.
@@captainmaim >United the Crips, the Bloods and MS13
Had a good chuckle over that
I love how NATO has always aid "we're not anti-Russian..." and the second part of the statement unsaid is "unless Russia decides we are and acts on it." And then Russia has repeatedly acted on it while continuing to cry about how everyone is against them.
I hope in the future will exist a peaceful, democratic Russia 🇷🇺 integrated in EU and NATO against the rising eastern autocracies.
@@emib6599 lol no.
but the wolf cried "nato expansion" while the wolf has a history of gobbling up weaker states next to it.
want to hear a joke that took 36 years to make? warsaw pact.
all of the former warsaw pact countries with the exception of ukraine, belarus and russia are in nato.
to me thats the ultimate irony
“Boo hoo NATO stole all my friends :(“
Actually, without Russian help, it was possible for NATO to devolve towards having no other use than having ready joint command for some peace keeping missions.
The myths around this war are pretty annoying. I had to explain last week to someone who was otherwise well educated that, no, the retreat around kiev was not planned from the beginning and yes, russia has lost aircraft in ukraine. This is getting somewhat tiring.
These days, somewhat intelligent and somewhat informed is much more dangerous than completely ignorant.
That's an information war.
I don't know why more people aren't willing to fall back on "I don't really know for certain and any opinion is educated guesswork" rather than "the western mainstream media is blatantly bs so I'm going to blindly trust anything that isn't that".
To be fair, people think silly things about the Russian side too. Like that their tanks are missing armour inserts from the base armour (whjen you can see the plates blown apart next to the vehicle) or claim that normal troops are using Mosin Nagants when those are rear-guard units.
Kyiv
the tiny (no)- award for most honest titles of all time.
It saved me a heart attack 😁
Honestly, if a video has a question as a title, then the answer to that question is NO 99% of the time.
Good video btw. Hope to see more :)
I guess Perun didn't want to come off clickbaity so he just gave us a tl;dr, lmao
also, it's some of his really decent humor, I enjoy it
@@avendite7206 this.
And a title containing "you won't believe" or being phrased " THIS is the reason..." or " shocking discovery" or " mother surprised to find THAT in ..." or "Russia says..." (You get the idea) can always be ignored.
I really value that on Perun. He knows long form army logistics videos are pretty niche topic, he knows retention is what algorithm wants, but he still puts answers in his titles and TL;DR slides into his longer videos. He wants to bust myths and put good quality information out there, even to people that might not watch or watch only a bit of his videos, even though it might lower his engagement.
I spent 11 years in the US military. I am used to "death by PowerPoint". But you actually make all of this so much more interesting. Your analysis is fascinating. Your presentation is amazing. Your structure makes sense. This is first rate stuff my man.
If members of the armed forces got pp presentations like this, the format wouldn’t be so hated.
As a college student, yes.
My 8YO got a homework to do a power point & a talk. It was way too much. Most adults don't have the ability to structure one properly. That's why when you find a good one it stands out.
I take some comfort from the fact that she had to sit through several hours of monotonous waffle and word salad - let the punishment fit the crime.
When. Started in the army it was death by transparancies…..then evolved into pp death!
@@cowboyx9380 got out a couple of years ago. Transparencies were when I was in grade school.
“I’m not convinced a couple of tactical groups could take Houston from the police force and its civilian population let alone the national guard or the United States Army”. Lol. That’s a classic line. Love it.
Tfw the neighborhood suburban cops are getting MANPADs
Something something, **rifle behind every blade of grass intensifies**
@@ctographerm3285 Well, they are or were getting MRAPs, and I'm pretty sure have vehicle mounted machine guns.
Honestly, given the whole Killdozer incident I wouldn't be surprised if they already had one or two...
Thing is half of the armed population would side with the Russians. More if farty Don told them to.
@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 funny how they flip between hating communism because freedom, but like Putin.
The point you made that Europe's donated weapons are serving exactly their purpose of stopping Russian expansion was one I haven't heard so far and it makes so much sense
@@sionnach_ And potential Nuclear Escalation. Like you say, Ukraine is already fighting the war that we don't want to have to fight. Let's bankroll them.
You can even argue the viewpoint that *using* those weapons is more efficient than continuing to store them.
Stockpiles need to be redundant and over-estimated. That meant building and storing multiple ATGMs for each extant soviet (now Russian) vehicle, duplicated in multiple depots. Using one, or even a few, to eliminate that vehicle turns duplicated stockpiles into a comfortable over-supply of munitions.
The Russians might start thinking about what happens when Ukrainians are trained on heavy NATO equipment. NATO isn't holding that back because they want an even fight. The only reason it isn't being supplied is training, and it's likely that at least small teams are being trained.
@@sionnach_ Yes, exactly! And the USA should also help Ukraine defeat Russia WITHIN Ukraine, because if Russia actually invades a NATO country, the USA will HAVE to engage actively
@@sionnach_ "Another way to think about it: Europe/NATO countries are providing weapons so Ukraine can fight the war that they don't want to have to"
you don't even need to think about it.
a senator on twitter said it was a proxy war to bleed russia as much as possible and weaken it, basically trying to make Ukraine the next Afghanistan.
The easy way to frame it so people understand, is comparing the balance of weapon stocks to numbers of their potential targets. Fewer launchers, but also fewer tanks/planes.
You’re killing it, I have no idea why your PowerPoint presentations are so captivating. Great Content and structure. Glad to hear you’re feeling better!
Good pictures. Great points. Direct. Deep.
It's the font.
It's becasue he uses the PowerPoint to underscore and renenforce his oral points, not to make them.
@@inamortz2372 and the accent... LOL
The voice clarity is astounding.
Two comments:
1) All the NATO countries use common ammo, fuels etc. This means any NATO country with a supply shortage can be resupplied by other NATO countries.
2) Logistics. NATO has has an immense amount military logistics available to move it around. The cornerstone is the US Air Mobility with over 400 aircraft.
2) Not to mention the "fat" aspect analogy in economics videos. If somehow much of these is destroyed and situation is dire enough there's HUGE capability in civilian sector to both transport things to FOBs (although relying on some infrastructure) and huge industry to pump out new vehicles
Something I came across the other day was that in terms of official military budget the US has used around 3.5% of its budget. This does represent a massive commitment. But at the same time Estonia and Latvia have each sent approx. 30%-35% of their respective military budgets as aid to Ukraine. (I think Germany was somewhere around 1.5%-1.8%)
Sure in terms of the raw figures I think the US aid is comparable to everyone else combined (or thereabouts). But some countries have already committed 10x more than the US has, as a function of total budget. That really is something that cannot be overstated.
Well, military budget is yearly; Estonia and Latvia couldn't sustain 30-35% expenditure per quarter without a 20-40% increase in military budget, for example.
@@RRRR-jr1gp Regardless of the actual timeframe but still thinking in practical terms, afterall we aren't talking 10 hours or 10 years here, the levels committed by Estonia and Latvia are quite large.
Also to note is that the longer everything goes on for, the longer Ukraine has the opportunity to train on more complex, modern, western weapons systems. In a way it really doesn't so much matter who exactly sends what or when. Old stock will get sent first in any case. In practical terms this can mean nations close in proximity to Ukraine send a wave of old soviet stuff then later on, if the war is still ongoing, more and more NATO (or western in general) stuff makes its way there. Meaning in this general situation, nations like Latvia would not need to sustain this level of aid for any extended period.
Provided things stay conventional, there are only so many ways everything can play out atm.
Thankfully this is an unfortunately great use of our tax dollars, unlike the war on drugs…
The weapons were supposed to be used against Russia anyway, that was their intended use.
So it's not like they are being wasted.
It's actually a chance for the weapons to get out, 'enjoy some fresh air' and do their thing.
And also produce real World combat data* without the issue of Nuclear holocaust or even Western casualties.
_"What is the purpose of this weapon son?"_
"To blow up Ruski's sir"
_"And what is it currently being used for?"_
"I see your point sir".
*The real world data of their combat effectiveness and the effectiveness of Russian weapon systems in return is invaluable information for Western Militaries.
A lot of assumptions have been destroyed or clarified, and Western Military planners will be making changes to both doctrine and equipment priorities.
And other players like China aren't liking the results so far. …
Exactly. Russia has lost thousands of vehicles so far. Thousands of vehicles they no longer have for any hypothetical war with NATO, so it's not an unreasonable trade by any means...
Don't just write of Ukraine as "non western lives" yea its convinient to test this stuff but the cost is high and the rest of us could still be forced to commit
and in a very dry political sense. most politicians would rather have Ukranians with stingers fighting and dying rather than their people fighting with those stingers. 2,401 American's dying is a war that lies heavy on the average voter. 500,000+ in the middle of ethiopia is a "what? that happened?" (Tigray war)
now im not diminishing those 2,401. no way. but what I'm trying to say is that, in political cost for Western Politicians, Deaths aren't equal. nor should they be politically.
Very good assessment.
The question becomes how long does it take Russia and China to learn their lessons and adapt their policy and equipment. Probably more than a decade for Russia but China may be able to adjust more quickly.
European defence spending has been focused on containing the Russian threat.
Sending weapons to Ukraine is deploying that spending in its intended use.
Preferring to save such weapons instead implies that the nation would prefer to use those weapons themselves, and as cynical as it may sound, I would much rather that a Ukrainian soldier risked his or her life to take out that Russian tank than me. As an added bonus, if we give those Ukrainians better tools, that risk to their lives should be greatly reduced and thus the totality of lives risked decreases significantly.
I agree 100%
Its a slightly selfish view but doesnt make it wrong.
Especially if that Ukrainian soldier might still fight even without NATO weapons
Or you could take the view that keeping them is the more selfish one as you are abandoning allies to defend yourself
Mistral 3 & Piorun are both way better systems than a Stinger. The US really needed a redesign anyway.
@@MrBizteck same for me
I love the anti-clickbait titles of this channel. It shows that it's being factual, responsible and not sensational, and respects the potential viewers' time. It's an indication of trustworthiness.
(Other channels would leave out the "no" and use a scaremongering thumbnail to give the impression that the answer is "yes".)
One thing to emphasize in this whole "we're running out of weapons inventory" is that the war is actually doing us a favor, by letting us clear out our storage stocks of obsolescent older weapons so that when replenishment happens, sooner with DPA or later in the natural order of things, today's frontline equipment will be going into storage as reserves, while our active forces will be getting the absolute latest and best versions of everything. We get a rapid modernization program automatically. Of course the same is true for Russia, but their fiscal resources are so much more limited that it will take them a very long time to get back to where they started in terms of numbers, especially considering that they're going to have to rebuild their internal infrastructure as well from the damage that sanctions have done to them.
The real damage is happening in Europe and the US!!! We're already almost bankrupt and those sanctions are hurting us more than Russia!!!
Yay more Perun!
"Running out of Stinger if you're the United States is like saying the bar's run out of bud lite. I'm sure its an inconvenience to someone but there are a lot of other things out there that do the same job and quite possibly do it better." - Perun
Quotables!
That was beautiful....
best cross topic comparison i heard in a long time ^^
People are acting like the US wouldn't be happy to ramp up production of all sorts of equipment to meet any demands. People were banging on forever about the military industrial complex and now act like its not the largest in the world...
agreed, always happy to see more vids from Perun. Also, awesome quote
yay more dead people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wooooooooooo woooooooooooooooooooo. napalm strike in da hoouuuuseeee
11:00 so basically, everyone is forgetting that we've sent a high percentage of our stock of things that are useful to *Ukraine* and not a high percentage of what's useful to *us*
Yup, the real joke here is that not only is the tech we initially sent to Ukraine literally obsolete by several decades, but it's still doing what it was designed to do, obliterate Russian equipment on the cheap.
Which is either a huge compliment to 1980's US military equipment design, or a huge chastisement of contemporary Russian military equipment design.
@@cah11111 it's like they 1) didn't already lose their ass to Stinger missiles in the '80s; 2) didn't learn anything from it; or 3) wasted so much of their GDP maintaining a oligarchic kleptocracy that none of the lessons could be applied
@@cah11111 I'd say both
Yeah we pretty much sent them a good chunk of our VCR's. Don't worry guys, we can still watch movies ;).
@@reignman30 Speaking of vcrs...doesnt Hollywood let EVERYONE KNOW...How to do it American Style....within 90 mins...without intermission...
Not sure I agree. Once, I would have said there's no chance of the US facing a home-soil invasion by Russian tanks, but now I'm not so sure...I've seen some of those turrets fly pretty damn far!
If a turret crosses the Atlantic its only because its been storing more ammunition than its designet for.
Didnt the Vietnamese say the same about US troops running away.
I think the Koreans said the US troops were pretty good at running too?
@@billjane5522Running from what? An ambush? Followed by igniting the whole countryside the fighting happened in, killing a bunch of the attackers, and driving the survivors into hiding?
We left Korea and Vietnam, but only after we wrecked their standing military and infrastructure. Seems difficult to call that a loss.
Like, sure, we didn't accomplish what we went there for, because what we went there for was more complex than the removal of a threat. When it comes to wrecking a people's ability to mount offensives beyond their borders? The US military's damn good. It just has a hard time with dug-in insurgencies using guerilla tactics... like literally every other national military in the world.
You can say a lot about Vietnam, Korea, and the role the US had there, a lot of it true (like it being a tragic waste of lives). But to try and imply that our performance there means the military is weak is absurd to the point of being funny.
It makes sense. Reserves just sitting there doing nothing aren't really usefull and cost money, not to mention that they eventually expire anyway. Having it used against the intended enemy without you yourself having to fight is just smart. Moreover this could also allow an opportunity to modernize your armed forces equipment, which need to happen sometime (or continuously ofcourse).
Exactly. You also reduce the needed total amount of them because russia is already weakened and is the enemy force were most of it is orientated at
Thanks for pointing out that European security isn't at threat by fighting the only danger in Ukraine for free. As a German I'm annoyed every time I heard the argument, thinking: against whom are the weapons going to be used if not against a Russian Invasion.
I'm sorry. It must be so hard being a German who understands what is happening. I have seen some of the weird dialogue coming out of Germany. Scholz seem to struggle badly with reality.
Yes, the perception here is totally weird. Like he said, it is not like we send those weapons and they throw them into a pit and destroy them. They actually use them for what they were build. Seemingly it never comes to mind, that we do not need that amount of weapons when the threat we build them for is gone or at least shrinked. The media has to rethink their purpose. Right now all they are willing to do is to tell only half of the story while leaving out the really important parts and instigate unnecessary fear in each and everyone.
@@nian60 don't feel sorry for Germans. Others are worse off. In fact I growingly optimistic about the magnitude of Russian defeat. It's just a shame about the suffering of Ukraine.
Regarding Scholz: I'm a firm believer in democracy. While not perfect, it's reasonable good at preventing evil. Scholz is unfortunately the precise product of democracy.
@@nian60 Reality do not pull any punches. Some (a lot) people a bit dazzled, just about decade to late. Sadly events unravels bit slowly, only in history books it looks all fast and action packed.
Exactly no one else is going to be invading European nations in the near future. May as well help beat back the Russians now. What worries me is the future of Ukraine, its been devastated already by the war and the economic impacts will be massive. It needs help to maintain the war and hopefully end it on favourable terms. However the world is also heading into an economic downturn which is concerning. However if that's the price of freedom and security so be it.
So to summarise:
Oh no, we are running out of 1980s outdated missiles, now we have to rely on our overpowered airforce and tanks, which are unmatched in the world!
Outdated? Not even close
@@kevinzurek3431 by NATO standards it is. Still effective, but outdated compared to what they have now.
the problem isn't using overpowered modern technology, it's keeping it's capabilities little known to russia, who is extremly good at stealing US stuff, since US can't keep their secrets
Top 3 out of 5 air forces in the world - Air, Army & Navy air forces - Amazing.
@@JamesC785 Don't forget that the Marine corps is the 7th largest air force on earth. Out of the top 10 air forces in the world 4 of them are a part of the US military
These briefings are a blessed antidote to the mountains of media-driven BS out there. Thank you for your formidable research.
That weapon was born to fight Soviets and it has a chance to do that right now in Ukraine, and you don't need to loose your soldiers!
The US army decided many years ago that the best way to destroy armor is 155 mm guns firing M549A1 shells with M1156 Precision Guidance Kits (PGK) - Guess what Ukraine has?
Hi Richard Quick II - I love your nuggets of information popping up from time to time - thanks !
It is good news to hear that the Ukrainians are getting shells with the PGK. The only other thing I heard about guided ammunition for Ukraine was Canada supplying Excaliburs. If the PGK, or a version of it, could be fitted to 152 mm shells this would be a great boost to the use of existing Ukrainian assets.
@@Bruce5359 Ukraine makes and has significant stockpiles of an indigenous guided shell for both the 122s and the 152s that they call the Kvitnyk. It’s pretty equivalent to the M712 Copperhead.
A meat popsicle.
and less expensive than the Javelin!!
I have been worrying about the US's ability to supply Taiwan if they send everything to Ukraine, but after thinking about it there's 2 differences: First, anti-tank weapons probably aren't the main priority there, although I'm sure a Javelin could wreak havoc on a landing craft. And second, in that war there'd need to be direct US involvement anyway, because there's no sneaking supplies in. China could just blockade the island. So either the US sends in their full naval and air power, or they send a postcard expressing their condolences. Taiwan can't be a proxy war. In Europe's case, they don't have a better use for those weapons than Ukraine. This is the war they were made for. And every destroyed Russian tank makes Europe safer.
If the Chinese build 10,000 landing craft and put a million men on them, the United States or Taiwan have to build 10, 001 Harpoons. Game, set, and match. I truly don't understand the problem unless the Chinese Air Force is going to pick off all the Harpoon launchers first, i.e., destroy every truck on the island. That's a lot of PGMs.
The United States Navy can defend Taiwan with one hand behind its back, let alone escort a few freighters and tankers. Nothing lives in the Pacific Ocean without CINCPAC's permission, it's just as simple as that.
Taiwan is a different story. Even if China could take the island, it doesn't have nearly as much geographic value as it does economic value... which would be destroyed in an invasion.
The only reason for China to invade in this case would be to stifle competition (in the integrated circuit production market), but China is NOT the next competitor - The US and Europe are (in fact most of TSMC's tooling comes from Europe)
So an invasion of Taiwan to stifle competition might be reasonable in 5 or 10 or 15 years, but right now it just doesn't make sense for China to do so. It would cost a lot and gain little.
We ARE running up against some physical limits for chip production now - Taiwan has more or less approached that wall, so very soon competitors will catch up, in about a decade.
As a 48 yr old mum of 2 who didn't really find this type of video interesting I just want to say thank you so so much as the way you explain everything in a way I can understand and also I love the fact you give a list of what you're going to cover which means I can go back and re-watch if I need to. Also I now feel way more reassured about life as a result of your videos. Glad you're feeling bit better 😊
As a US citizen I think it was great that you mentioned NATO countries contributions in relation to their total reserves. All in all another great video!
I had this discussion two weeks ago with some European friends. They weren't naysayers, but they simply didn't understand the scale of American defense infrastructure. Instead of 20 minutes of bullet points, I simply showed them photos of Letterkenny, Sierra, Red River, Anniston, and Davis-Montham. No more questions about the US weapons inventory after that.
I should have cut in some decent satellite shots of Sierra and co, just to get the point home.
Exactly I think a lot of people here in Europe and around the world (even in the US) can't quite get their heads around how powerful the US is.
@@nutyyyy Agreed, ESPECIALLY tankies and sovietphiles or whatever. The US is just waking up with the arms supply, wait till they see the US in actual full fledged war. Hint hint; they armed UK and USSR while having another battle in the pacific.
I just show Europeans the picture of what I have in my basement. Then tell them that 60 firearms and 20k rounds of assorted ammo are rookie numbers here in America.
@@dotwill And you can shoot simultaneously all of them and you can carry all the ammo in your backpack. And you can defeat a battalion alone. Nice to meet you Rambo :)
It bugs me hugely that people don't recognise that the delivery of systems to Ukraine most likely net increases European security.
This actually depends on how good the Ukrainian soldiers are at using them. If they threw them away or broke them before use, it would be bad. But since it seems that they make effective use of them, it looks good so far.
What? You are saying they don't just burn all equipment they send to Ukraine in a huge pile? Impossible.
@@MichaelDavis-mk4me You forgot the sarcasm tag. But this is just experience with other groups. Like the army in Mali. Let me tell you, that is a total charlie foxtrot. And I said it above: It seems as if the Ukrainians are tougher and better soldiers than most.
@@donaldduck830 Of course, we saw what the Afghans did with their equipment. It's why leadership, discipline and moral is important in a war. A soldier who does not give a crap won't take care of his equipment or just waste valuable assets like ammo or rockets. Or just surrender with all the equipment. No one could a better job than Ukraine with the gear they receive.
.... maybe so,but it increases mainly their financial coffers ! .....
So many journalists today don't have the intelligence to actually dig into a topic ... thanks for your hard work.
because every goverment pays as much that their reality shows to the people dosent matter is western or eastern
The “running out of stingers is like running out of bud light” line got me rolling. Lol.
Running out of Bud Light is a feature, not a bug.
I'd be more worried for our national defense if we run out of bud lite than stingers and javelins, our last line of defense, hillbillies Buded up might collapse.
If anyone still remembers the tankies claim that Russia was sending old stock first to soak up the damage before finishing the war with their best.
Well this is ironically more true of the west than for the Russians.
haha, didn't even catch that. There is so much projection from that side.
Just assume the opposite of what tankies and pro-Russians say and you'll know the truth.
What is a tankie?
@@golfilloz A tankie is usually a leftist person (communist/socialist) who defends the actions of Russia during the Soviet Union. Whenever people of other countries rebelled and demanded democratic elections, the Red Army was sent rolling in with tanks to squash the protests. So they're called "tankies". There is a faction of the left which despite not believing in the current Russian form of government, still have sympathy for the formerly communist country and have anti-American/anti-NATO opinions that make them take Russia's side on many issues.
@@golfilloz Not sure about Titanium Rain's answer. Where I come from a "tankie" is a tank crewman or former tank crewman.
I think Titanium is describing an "armchair tactician" with tendencies toward believing blatant Russian propaganda or maybe " a left-wing Muppet".
To be fair to Hellblaze......all Russian tanks are "old stock". Even the T-90 is a slightly improved version of a mediocre 1970's tank.
When I saw the headline about America running out of weapons, I just started laughing. Anyway after days of laughing I put it aside and never thought about it again.
Glad you're covering it because all I can do is laugh at the claim
To quote Bender on seeing that claim: hahahahahaha oh wait you’re serious, let me laugh even harder. AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAA
America? Run out of guns?
You'd have an easier time making a case for why the war isn't going badly for Russia.
@@ebnertra0004 when Putin tells the truth
It's just click-baiting from the media. There are people dumb enough to fall for it. The media doesn't care that the info is blatantly wrong. The rest of the world will run out of weapons long before the US ever does.
Javelin replacement: UK's Martlet Lightweight Multi Role Missile was being used in Ukraine almost without announcement; we're ordering 1,000+ for Royal Navy and British Army stocks so it's new and well in-production, and if I've understood Lend Lease correct, Ukraine has a nice big cheque book to... 'encourage' production. Same for Brimstone in its various iterations; we can replace our older ones with new ones or SPEAR 3; even the old ones were designed exactly for laying waste to Soviet armour columns.
I'm with you Perun, happy to empty our stocks, Ukraine's need is greater than ours. Slava Ukraine.
It's even possible that the US may decide on coming up with a version of the UK or Euro weapons as perhaps they are better suited than the Javelin is, or something that encompasses all of them, with additional capabilities, and more easily portable like a stinger is, or at least as portable as a Javelin. Certainly making them take a hard look the values of a serious drone defense being very much needed, along with the need to defend against standoff launched missiles..
The martlet isn't really in the same classification as the javelin along with it having to small of a warhead for what the USA wants
as anyone who's worked in defense manufacturing 'depleted' in military terms means we have room in the store room. I've seen the airforce use emergency funds to procure 10 years of a spare part because they thought their reserves were too low and we had already been supplying them with the part on a regular basis
Exactly! Those of us who border Russia have built our militaries specifically to defend against Soviet Union/Russia. People in countries further away from Russia tend to forget this fact. Soviet Union and Russia has been a threat to their neighbours for many decades. We have adapted to that constant threat over a long time.
Yeah. Every Russian tank destroyed in Ukraine is one that will never roll down my home street, every plane downed is one that will never bomb my home, every soldier killed is one that will never rape my family.
Sending weapons to Ukraine should be the easiest sale to make ever.
Many decades or...hundreds of years.
"Those of us who border Russia"... you mean, like the United States?
Precisely. Why are NLAWs designed by Sweden? Why not Colombia? Well, there’s that little thing called Geography again…
@@KnightofAges No, he means those whose capitals are within a 15 minute flight by fighter-bomber of Russian borders.
00:00 Introduction
00:25 What is this???
01:13 What am I covering?
01:43 What's the claim?
02:25 Is any of that true?
03:34 Should the West panic?
05:39 Should the West panic? - replacement
06:31 *US arms stockpile*
07:30 That's a lot of metal
07:48 And the real reality check
08:55 There is more than one way to kill a tank
09:37 Direct and indirect substitution
10:50 There is more than one way to kill a tank (cont.)
11:13 America is armed
12:26 *What about Europe?*
14:54 Impact on Euro forces
16:01 Expenditure is not one sided
17:29 Expenditure is not one sided - UA isn't just throwing these things out
19:01 *So what next?*
21:15 _Channel update_
Australia sent 20 of 1,000 bushmasters to Ukraine and a couple of people complained that we might need them. These were surplus from the Afghanistan war.
heck, australia should send their spiders, those are terrifying enough.
I admit that I fell about laughing when I first saw this myth. I have some idea of American reserves. On a sadly serious note; we Europeans would rather have the fighting be done on Ukraine's land than ours. Ukraine is doing such a good job of smashing the Russian forces that they are actually removing the threat to Europe.
Person looks into the most well stocked refrigerator in the world: "Honey! We've used up one third of the nearly out of date low fat apple juice!"
😂😂
I love this analogy... but maybe change fat to sugar, since apple juice really does not and should not have fat! heh
@@whitewolfsix7109 Its america, you never know
More accurate would be a person looking at the food department of a Costco and saying that the sample cup of low fat apple juice is running low. hahaha
@@whitewolfsix7109 >no fat in apple juice
spoken like someone who has not experienced true freedom 🇺🇸🇺🇸😎🇺🇸🇺🇸
I vividly remember standing on the upper deck of HMS ARK ROYAL watching about 20 or so E2C Hawkeyes doing training circuits around and around the airfield at Chambers Field, whilst we were alongside in Norfolk, VA. Behind them were dozens of other assorted aircraft, and these were, I believe, some kind of smallish reserve squadron doing continuation training. It suddenly struck me that in this one location, I was probably looking at more airworthy aircraft than the UK had in its entire inventory at that point in time. It was this encounter which was a tangible, physical representation of the enormity and the scale of the military equipment and resources of the American armed forces that forever left an indelible impression on my mind. Is NATO running out of equipment to send to Ukraine? It has barely scratched the bloody surface!
I laugh my ass off every time someone even tries to pass the idea off that the USA would be at risk of an invasion. The military is many times more powerful than the next 6 or so nations combined, and has a long history of moving said military half way around the world without breaking a sweat. Suddenly being put on the defense, that logistics issue is thrown out of the window. Whatever poor sods stuck on that invasion force will be reliving what it was like storming the beaches of Normandy, but with a far more intangible threat. Precision munitions are kind of the American bread and butter.
Plus, people think the Ukrainians fight hard. Wait till they see a bunch of Christian extremists screaming about how this was their God given land, and they can't have it. About a third of the population are Evangelicals; that's a ball of crazy I wouldn't touch with a 10ft pole. Lmao
@@Rafael_Fuchs Even if the entire United States Army disappeared overnight, the US would be at no risk of invasion whilst there's several thousand miles of sea between it and the nearest hostile power and it has even two aircraft carriers let alone ten plus a whole lot of "it's not really an aircraft carrier it's just got a few planes on for decoration" assault ships.
@@AshenVictor wdym two? Yeah we have two FORDS but like 8+ Nimitz class CVNs iirc
Admittedly Norfolk is probably the single largest concentration of US forces on the East coast.
@@Rafael_Fuchs Whose going to invade us? I know those Canucks can be a little shifty & all but still… ;-)
My only contribution is I believe these articles may in fact be an attempt to drum up production and manufacturing stateside in cahoots with those same manufacturers. "Oh noes, we're running out of Javelins! We better get a big order and ramp up production" -Raytheon
_"Expenditure is not one sided"_
Thanks for pointing this out. And not only are the Russians losing equipment at a rate which must be pretty alarming to the Russian high command but also it would be my guess that their losses are becoming more and more asymmetric as they are facing combat against better and more effective equipment from the West.
Are you suggesting we exhume Jan Sobieski and send the Winged Hussars to show those Cossacks what happened at Vienna? I'm in.
Perun, i share your frustration about the general obliviousness in the public sphere.
You are doing one hell of a job here to put things in perspective.
Thank you so much for your efforts!
We've got a huge number of people who watch Fox news and think it's news. It's only a right-wing propaganda mouthpiece with a guy who's the inspiration for the Buffalo NY shooter as its main star. Fox needs to be shut down.
Honestly the best part of this video from my perspective on a security angle was the whole "European Military systems were designed to halt/cripple the Russian Military" thing. It helps to point out that whether its in Ukraine or Poland: Expending those assets to weaken the Russian military is a strategic win.
Personally from the perspective of some random in the UK: I'd support sending basically everything being held for defensive purposes if it was strategically effective to do so, it's not as if there's some great enemy on our doorstep waiting for any weakness that would exploit the situation before stockpiles could be rebuilt
Well there is a great enemy at out doorstep, but we have the possibility to cripple them militarily and economically for years to come.
@Lynx: That's a reasonable attitude with a continent of allies between you and the nearest plausible threat, and an ocean moat to boot. ;)
You say that, but Sealand is angry over their war with Germany and scared of global warming, and rearing to seize some mainland territory.
Not to mention, like Perun said, we all have allies that would come to our aid even if we gave up all our best weapons. We Americans certainly have your back.
@@neolexiousneolexian6079 Oh right, I forgot about the most pressing crisis of our time. XD
That’s just defense contractor propaganda. “We’re running out of weapons, better buy more!”
Exactly, they know that replacing all these weapons (with the newest versions) will be long term high profit contracts, so they're sending out their senators to fear monger to improve their bottom lines.
I’ve seen these headlines, so your video came at the right time to the right pair of eyes. On point and perfectly presented. Thank you.
"the A10 is always looking for a reason to justify it's self when the budget comes around" 😂😂😂
Unleash the warthogs!
@@machintelligence the biggest irony is that the A10 is still effective against tank columns…because it can carry a shitload of PGMs. Doing gunruns is a waste of time and a massive risk in a high intensity AA environment.
That said, I still want to see at least one brrrrt on a ruskie position before they get retired.
@@brilobox2The Hog’s 30 mm Gatling gun is still pretty damn useful for popping armored vehicles. And it’s more cost-effective against most targets. Using PGMs on low-value targets is a waste of money.
Which frankly, it does. Both Gulf Wars proved this. But it's not invincible, just very adapted to it's task.
Here in Serbia on a video report about the war in 1999, journalist said ''do Western taxpayers know about the waste of their money'' xD. Often bombs were droped randomly every day in the area of combat. Sometimes even with armor being out in the open, the bombs would fall near, or damage an empty building with apcs or tanks parked outside.
Every weapon we supply to Ukraine is a weapon we don't have to use ourselves just later.
I total agree, NATO needs to send Ukraine as many advanced weapon systems as possible. Break the back of the Russian military and NATO doesn't have worry about Russia for at least a decade if not longer. If Ukraine is willing to spill their own blood to kill Russians the least we could do is give the weapons to do it.
its almost like we have the ability to produce these weapons at any given point
You missed the point of the video lol
Honestly, sending older (already paid for) stockpiled stuff to a place where it will actually be used with the intent it was stockpiled for in the first place, is probably the best bang that buck is gonna give lol.
They bought that stuff in case they need to use it against an enemy, it's already paid for and it will only pay for itself if it ends up destroying something more valuable from whatever opponent. By sending it away they lose some hypothetical efficiency of the weapon (you assume your own forces are superior overall and if not atleast better trained on the weapon system) but they lose the risk of losing trained soldiers as well.
Oh you literally have the same argument, I didnt finish the video before replying lol
"OMG! We are running out of weapons to send to the Ukraine! We need to double the defense budget immediately" - A a US senator who is totally not a recipient of donations from the military industrial complex.
“I’m not convinced a couple BTGs could take Houston from its police force and local population.” Love the honesty 😂
Can you imagine the Russians in Chicago? Sheeesh
Send Chicago to Donetsk. Russ problem solved.
It was a great line, pretty bluntly funny.
Austin, on the other hand....
The saying is that Austin isn't so much a part of Texas as it's surrounded by it.
@@terryfaugno9242 They'd take Austin in 5 minutes - but could you imagine the carnage if they tried to stumble into Killeen?
Another thing - NATO can replenish their stocks a lot faster than Russia will be able to. And less wastefully, considering the amount of corruption evidently present in Russian army and military industry.
Jebediah Kerman can't make it to the mun and back before America can rearm... it's our hotkey 1.
NATO will be able to stock up on US gear.
So true just look at America during ww2 and how much production they have
activating T-62 s sounds to me like a very desperate situation on armoured vehicles stockpiles
My employer is currently working an effort to address some of the DoD's needs. This was happening prior to Ukraine, but I imagine the efforts we thought were possible will be moving forward now, for sure. No worries on supply. Trust me.
I just stumbled onto this channel. I found this clip to be a wonderful and thorough analysis that - most importantly - begins with a good questioning. Really like the thought process behind the contents. Thank you and subscribed.
This is probably the only time I've watched PowerPoint presentations and been enthralled. I appreciate you covering this topic. It's absurd to think that the US is running out of firepower and this is a fantastic break down of that. Thank you!
The US has been donating MRAPs to police departments because they have nothing better to do with them.
It's not the form, it's the content. If the content is information-heavy, I think it's actually better to not have bells and whistles so you can focus on what is relevant.
The great thing about these videos is that you don't have to *watch* them. You can just listen to them, play them in the background while doing something else. Or, I suppose, play them on the foreground while doing some routine, background tasks, because you want to focus on the video content.
try watching "Well There's Your Problem: an engineering podcast with slides"
Don't miss Puran's point that it is not only the US' firepower. Unlike the US ones European reserve stocks have the advantage of being tightly focused on exactly this sort of war against these particular enemy weapon systems. French and UK weapons systems would be fairly useless in helping Taiwan break a naval blockade or even in fighting a guerilla war in the ME but are exactly the sort of weapons Ukraine needs.
@@kenoliver8913 Here here. We in the UK really need to expand our naval efforts drastically including the next type 45 destroyers urgently, But on top of that we really need to be able to show that we can produce far more NLAWs than we already have on a proper industrial line rather than one off bulk orders that take years to arrive so they can get to Ukraine ASAP. Ukraine has stated that they really love them as a weapon of choice so we need to be able to get more of them to the front lines ASAP as they don’t have anywhere near enough. Although the best option would be for us actually to train them on Challenger 2 tanks and also get our goddamn Mastiff and armoured tracked vehicles to Ukraine, which were ‘supposed to have arrived weeks ago by now’ yet we haven’t seen any video or photo confirmation of them being anywhere in Ukraine yet.😣😖
So the militaries of the West are using a "FIFO" system when choosing which units of a specific system get sent to Ukraine.
First in, first out = FIFO. It means the oldest missiles in inventory are always being shipped out. Sent all the 2002 Javelin? Start sending the 2003 Javelins.
Ukraine probably won't get any "new" Javelins, even as production ramps up. Ukraine will get Javelins, but increased production just frees us to draw from our older Javelin stockpiles when packing shipments for Ukraine. So yeah, it's not like the US military is giving up much of their own Javelin capability. If anything, the average and median reliability of all Javelin systems in US stockpiles have increased since we've pruned the older ones. It's no problem at all, in actuality.
It makes sense to send out the oldest stocks first, there is a finite shelf life after all. This way you don't have to spend money and time inspecting, repairing, reconditioning or disposing of them.
Man, i was not expecting to see my Accounting classes to be mentioned in this type of video. Yeah, FIFO is the way that works, and it's pretty great with stock that has short expiration date. Feels good to see something i'm actually knowledgeable to here.
@@TheAndradeCS Funny enough, FIFO works best with tanks, because those pieces of junk turn into expensive expenditure traps really quickly. A properly stored MANPAD can easily be forgotten about for 30 years, but even if you put a tank into climate controlled, dust free storage, the fucking thing will still need hundreds of thousands in repairs done after a month.
The US will use LIFO if it's necessary to protect itself.
FIFO is much better than FISH (first in still here)......
Speedy recovery, thanks for all of your hard work. We appreciate you.
You actually pronounced "Panzerhaubitze 2000" quite well, I'm impressed😂😂
Keep up the good work!
Greetings from Germany🇩🇪❤️
Always kinda surprised when people complain about the US sending Javelin (etc) stock that is close to expiring. There is a reason these are sent! If you don't use them soon they will *become* unreliable.
If our only system of defense was Cold War Era MANPADS, then we lost a long time ago.
better to use them and butcher a potential enemy, than let them go to waste
What's even more fun is that these are first generation weapons. The newer stingers make the old ones look like junk and the newer javelins have had some decent improvements which just makes Russia's tactics and losses a great advertisement for our military's weapons.
Note: Every Russian tank killed by a Javelin in the Ukraine is one less tank that Nato has to kill in a potential future war with Russia, thus one-five less Javelins required by Nato. The real calculus is use it now to reduce Russian capabilities, or save for a possible rainy day that may or may not come in the future.
Yes, the video said as much.
It's China the USA should be worried about. That's gonna be a mess when China attacks Taiwan because the USA will be forced to defend Taiwan because we cannot let the CCP have a stranglehold on Taiwan and the chip market
Hi Perun, Glad you are feeling better. This was a really interesting subject - thanks for covering it. Also looking forward to your forthcoming topics, as covered off in your housekeeping at the end. As for why you last short form vid didn't take: I have no idea about CZcams algorithms, etc but I nearly didn't watch it because I didn't understand from the title what the content was about. I did watch it because I have been watching all your Ukrainian coverage, I am familiar with what you are doing and value your opinion. Just a thought. Thanks again - congrats on the 100K!
The USA and NATO has “Prepositioned war Reserve”. Which are maintained and cycled thru training actions and long term refreshment contracts. These reserves are immense
I believe standard NATO doctrine has been to defend against a massive land war against the USSR in Europe. The part of the US military I was in, was about on the same footing, except we trained for a massive war against N. Korea and/or China (it was the 1980s). We're the US. We've got stuff.
The US does Europe not so much NATO ran low on weapons during the Libyan intervention.
@@kekistanimememan170 That's what happens when you refuse to spend your bare minimum 2% on defense.
@@WaspCameraInSpringfield they were warned during the last administration
@@ericmckinley7985 Yes, by the "Putin puppet" Donald Trump no less. That sure aged well!
Small correction the 7 german howitzers are out of refitting programs and don't come directly from our armed forces(so they are technicaly not part of the 121 of the army). Otherwise the armed forces would have cried about loosing their own stuff which would be politicaly problematic.
Small............................but huge point. Thank you.
They ARE part of the 120 of the Heer, just currenlty part of the Umlaufreserve, not the 108 directly attributed to the artillery batallions.
Which is why the GI Heer DID cry loudly - while he wont miss them right now, he will miss them in 3 months when he has to turn in another batch for refit and then will have none to replace them.
Still the right decision, as RUS lost >300 big guns itself, but its a problem, as GER is in charge not just of the EFP Lithuania (where it just increased its PzH number) but also critically of the Nato quick reaction force (NRF and VJTF) 2023, which also heavily depends on having a good number of GER PzH available.
As far as I know the Bundeswehr has 108 active Panzerhaubitze 2000
Germans do need more of those self-propelled howitzers, they are perhaps the best in the world.
@@mattblom3990 A year ago most Germans might have said they don't need any of them.
Using some of them now might reduce the need for more in the future. Not providing them now could mean that far more will need to be built.
YT might not like your short forms but I do ! Also I found the Lend lease topic fascinating.
65year old Aussie female here and your channel is one of my favourites!
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
American here. Our supplies of defensive equipment is exactly as you say. However, if someone can lend/lease us more intelligent, reasonable politicians -Senators, congressmen what have you, we'd be eternally grateful.
@Sterling perhaps Margret Thatcher could ride from the grave and run for president, she'd be less fucked in the head than 3/4ths of our politicians anyways...
Glad you're getting better. I'm a big fan of both your long and short form videos regardless of what YT thinks, and this one was another hit. Thanks for doing this.
I'd highly recommend people search for the Russian officer who spoke on the Russian TV show "60 Minutes". He gave a long talk about the challenges facing Russia and openly criticised their media for portraying both Ukraine and NATO as weak adversaries.
There may be small issues with NATO's supply chains ramping up to support a conventional war of attrition, but the Russians have started to realise they are facing Ukraine's coalition of 40+ countries that have a tremendous amount of monetary and industrial power behind them. As you yourself mentioned Perun as time goes on the Russian military industrial complex won't be able to either easily replenish their losses or compete with the West's military supplies for Ukraine.
I saw a short clip of that Russian guy. I'm amazed that he is still alive. He told the truth a while ago too, but less detailed. I expected him to "disappear" after that. I guess Putler doesn't watch Russian TV.
@@nian60 I guess your brain is damaged.
@@nian60 One of the most interesting things that he spoke about was Russian "allies". The TV anchor, Olga Skabeyeva, was quick to blurt out that "India and China are on our side. Why do you prefer London over India?"
I thought the retired colonel did a decent job of pointing out that neutrality from those two countries is not the same as a coalition of nations with 50% or more of global GDP making it their sole aim to defeat the Russian army through arms deliveries and support to Kyiv.
💯 this! czcams.com/video/ulL5M4sO9sQ/video.html
@@alexanderfenn4457 Interesting, I didn't see that bit. Thanks for the info. Exactly. AFAIK Russia's allies are not pumping in tons of weapons into Russia, as we are doing with Ukraine.
I was wondering why so many pro-Russian people were saying this, and as an American I found it laughable.
Never heard of this claim in russian media.
Welcome to the information war
@@kyraga Not sure where it is coming from then, but I definitely have been hearing this for the past week. Really ramped up after the US signed a policy to allow Ukraine to lease equipment.
Thing is, it's also valuable to militaries that want more funding/expansion. The same reason the US military vastly overestimated Russian capabilities.
Ivan is a busy boy
We Europeans enjoy an incredible luxury - we can literally fight Russian aggression with our money and equipment *without* our people. If it wasn't Ukraine, it could be Poland, Slovakia, the Baltics... we all could be the ones paying with lives, yet we don't have to. That's why these donations are incredibly important for European stability and security.
Thank you for putting out all of your videos. I very much appreciate the points you make and spreading the word to the world that we all need to help Ukraine 🇺🇦.
Love the honesty of that title, exact opposite of burying the lead
The goal is that even if people don't watch the video, maybe some of them will register the title and the myth will be battled - at least in some small way.
@@PerunAU nothing but respect for that. Screw pandering to the YT algorithm and just address the facts. If only more content creators followed your lead on it.
Click bait in good faith.
Great point! Minor nit: the correct spelling is "burying the lede".
@@BitJam Wait what? Lede is a valid word in English?
Excellent point that Western weapons supplied, when used effectively by Ukraine, reduce the threat to NATO.
It's not just a political gain, it achieves a strategic purpose as well.
what threat to nato?
@@Castragroup Very little before and absolutely none now that Putin has had his offensive combat units mauled in Ukraine
@@Castragroup the russian military
@@christianweibrecht6555 you mean Russian tourists because we can’t call them a army anymore.
@@captiancholera8459 good so lets end the war
Thank you for these videos and all the work you have put into them. I know you haven't been feeling well these past couple weeks with Covid so I appreciate you taking the time to still make these videos. When I see a video from you get uploaded I instantly click and like/share the video!
Long format is the win for me Perun. Other channels can crank out short videos, but only you can go really in depth and offer new and complex insights backed up with theory and clear explanations.
Thanks for this video, I look forward to the next one and wish you a good and sustained recovery.
I couldn’t agree with you more. As an American, we are using these weapons for their intended purpose. This is exactly why the American tax payers bought them for.
And a good portion of the US populace have roots in Ukraine or other nations that are being threatened by Russia like Poland, Lithuania, etc. So a lot of Americans are not only OK with the stuff being used, but enthusiastic about it being used.
It's so good to have some knowledge-based, commonsensical info like on this channel. Right now, for the moment, Russian stockpiles are being diminished at a relatively low military cost (the cost is high for Ukraine, civilians and civilian infrastructure, but the Ukrainians seem to be inflicting a very high military price on the Russians at a relatively low military price). What Western stockpiles and preparations is concerned, this is almost an ideal scenario. And, really, we all owe the Ukrainians already. The only real questions are: how do we keep supplying them in the long run, and how will we all make up for it when it's over (hopefully sooner rather than later). I know the EU is already discussing how to support Ukraine in rebuilding. That is the right way to think about all this.
We have a diesel shortage, can't feed newborns, and are in stagflation, where exactly is this money coming from?
I hope they support Ukraine in rebuilding by confiscating Russian foreign reserves/oligarchical wealth and assets (sell all those shiny yachts). There's absolutely no reason the Western taxpayer should pay for Russian aggression.
@@aaronely759 The infant formula thing happened because we allowed a single corporation to monopolize that product. The main factory that produces Infant formulas was shut down due to contamination and won't be back up and running for 6 to 8 weeks.
America is the richest nation on the planet, we make around 21+ trillion a year in GDP. We gave Ukraine a drop in the bucket, most of the aid was in the form of weapons and supplies.
@@Masonicbrother diesel shortage, fertilizer shortage too. You send them YOUR money.
@@aaronely759 Well since i'm a working taxpayer, i do. Helping Ukraine defeat Putin's right wing Russia is worthy of my tax money. Weakening them to the point of sideling them off the world stage is a win for all the Western countries. It also puts China on notice not to do what Russia has done. So yeah, money well spent.
I'm so glad you mentioned the damage being done to the Russian military as I was practically screaming (in my head) about this right up until minute 16. Of course, the additional benefit is that the Russian military industrial complex is so weak that they will take far longer to replenish their stocks than the West, assuming they are capable of ever replenishing their stocks.
They cannot get the parts to replenish as those are Western technology which is now blocked from them.
"Frankly, I'm not convinced a couple of battalion tactical groups could take Houston from it's police force and it's civilian population, let alone the National Guard or the United States Army." 🤣
Always thought provoking presentations Perun.
Putin has nearly solved the US defense requirement of being prepared to fight two fronts simultaneously. He's united Europe to defend themselves as a combined force. He's squandered any credible threat of having a strong conventional army, navy, air force. He's brought more advanced militaries into NATO and repulsed some of his own regional allies.
US is now free to focus on the Asia-Pacific. The recent strategic goal of the Pentagon over the past decade.
who is fighting for Nato? former Soviet satellite states,
@@lunafringe10 Agreed. Putin could have shown former Warsaw Pact nations and the Central Asian 'Stans' how beneficial it is to associate with Russia.
Instead he threatens, foments separatist movements, base troops there, use their forces as proxies, and several times invaded. Twice in Chechnya.
Satellite nations move to NATO only because of fear of Russia.
Russia extending it's hand for friendship would have yielded much better results.
Well, that doctrine (of Two Major Theater Wars) was well.... abandoned some time ago.
@@piotrd.4850 It was officially, but remained a necessity regardless as shown by how quickly the situation in Europe turned into war.
The decision by the Pentagon to publicly remove 'Two Fronts Doctrine' was also not exactly a popular change. Recent history has shown why it was unpopular. Reality doesn't care about doctrine. Choosing to ignore one front in favor of another does not change the situation.
Another stellar overview. When I saw the “closet is bare” news last week, I was concerned. Your coverage of the issue here is helpful and (frankly) reassuring. Thanks
I'm a Canadian civilian, when I read that news headline I laughed so hard. I know just from watching a few documentaries that even if the states had given 75% of jav/stinger stock they'd have enough non nuclear munitions to defeat Russia's entire armed ground vehicles at least 1.5x over
sadly lot of mainstream media wants to spread FUD, fear uncertainty, doubt, which in this case is not good. Though it has done it for decades.
When I see someone claiming that the US needs to make more weapons, I immediately assume they would personally benefit financially from this, either directly, or indirectly via campaign financing. Military/defense scaremongering is a tried and true strategy for short term political gains that still works on too many Americans, but an increasing number of people across the political spectrum are waking up.
Maybe, but I think it's valid to replace those stocks with more modern ones. The Javelin is the main squad level ATGM for the US Army, and the US Army has a lot of infantry squads. Burning through the supply and not replacing it is a bad idea. But a worse idea is procuring dated systems to replace dated systems. I hope there is a newer block of Javelin or other ATGMS to replace them. And as much Perun slammed the scare mongering regarding shoulder SAMS in the Army the thing to remember is that the USAF and USN aren't always around when a fly NEEDS swatting. Sometimes you HAVE TO HAVE a GI with a SAM to knock something annoying down. Maybe we don't need 100,000 of them, but we do need some. I agree though, we shouldn't be getting more Stingers. We should invest in the next generation.
@@rcgunner7086 I assume (perhaps naively) that people with real expertise and interest in our military preparedness would be working to get the right stuff made. My comment was more about the spectacle of a politician tweeting about it. When the office copier is running low on paper, I should refill it or order more. I’m not going to post about it to social media unless I think I’ll get some benefit from the attention.
Hi, Military/defence scaremongering as a strategy works, not only on Americans..
What part of "if you want peace prepare for war" do you not understand?
For a moment there I thought Perun was gonna quote Bismarck: "The Americans are a very lucky people. They're bordered to the north and south by weak neighbors, and to the east and west by fish." Still holds true though. The moment Stingers and Javelins become a necessary part of defense Canada or Mexico has been Polked into the union or the world has probably ended in atomic fire as you'd need a force of apocalyptic magnitude to get past the US Navy, Air Force, Strategic Missile Command and heck, the Coast Guard.
Why does everyone forget the Marines?
@@stephaniewilson3955 For hope our opponents do, too.
The border with Canada has been described as 'the longest undefended border in the world'. For good reason...
@@JohnSmith-gd2fg If I read on the news (or saw live, here in Detroit) that we were being invaded by Canada, my first question would be what we did to deserve it.
Tankies: they running out or ammo, we will win!!
LazerPig: Shhhhh (no)
Oh I ABSOLUTELY cannot wait for the vid he promised bhe would do about Ukraine once the war is over.
It's gonna have to be a series at this rate!
Ukraine 3 Electric boogaloo (warcrimes edition)
LazerPig is a fun channel but he makes many mistakes too and is quite biased.
Still like the guy, but he is far from more professional military creators in quality or knowledge.
@@CharcharoExplorer quite in agrement with you, it's a opinionated point of view but it's still good content
@@CharcharoExplorer Agreed its a funny channel but he's not an expert by any means, does make a lot of assumptions and incorrect statements but overall I enjoy his content.
I will tell you as an American that the stinger alarm-ism is mostly about domestic politics and politicians seeing an opportunity to spend money, this happens alot over here, more specifically whenever anything can be called a crisis. For my part I was always more alarmed by the drawdown in German War/Emergency stockpiles then anything else, they're closer to the front afterall.
I think there’s an element of Americans not understanding American military doctrine. They think we need shoulder fired AA missiles to defend against air threats, but we ARE the air threat.
Running out of Stingers isn’t really a problem because the AMRAAM is the main AA missile of the United States.
Germany didn't spend the NATO required 2% of their GDP on self defense.... Ever!
That's why they have squat for reserves.
Politicians want to spend taxpayer money on buying votes. There aren't many votes in developing new weapons. On the other hand, there are lots of votes in paying off student loans.
Another awesome video; keep them coming!! Very pleased to hear you're continuing to recover... I'm pleased to hear you'll be going back to long form maybe; the deeper dive, the more information, the clearer and more detailed and nuanced your analysis, the more I learn and I'm selfish so I love that!
Take it easy, and thanks again for all the effort you're putting in to actually inform with facts.
I really appreciate your level headed analysis and unbiased takes on this subject. To hear what I believe is a unvarnished, well balanced take on the conflict is a rare thing and much needed. Keep up the good work.
The other timescale to keep in perspective is how long the Russian army can sustain current attrition levels without collapsing. Yesterday British intelligence said that the Russians have lost 1/3 of the forces they sent into Ukraine. In 11 weeks. At a very generous linear estimate they only have 22 weeks - five and a half months - before the last grunt is dead and the last vehicle wrecked. In actuality (a) their losses will accelerate as they lose combat power, and (b) you don't have to destroy all the units in a formation to mission-kill it. The Russians will almost certainly run out of army before the West runs out of munitions to ship the Ukrainians.
> Russians will almost certainly run out of army before the West runs out of munitions to ship the Ukrainians.
I can say with confidence that the Russians have long run out of combat power before the west has even turned all it's production on. The Ukrainians are hard countering Russia so hard, one should start asking what they're supposed to do with the 20 billion that might reasonably be left at the end of this conflict.
But will the Russians run out of army before the Ukrainians?
@@lamwen03 it's difficult to be certain, but I'm optimistic. The Ukrainians have done an excellent job so far of fighting sneaky and smart and exposing their forces to minimal risks for the objectives gained.
@@lamwen03 yes
It will go much faster than that. The artillery we are sending now is going to crush their artillery. Like 5 miles longer range and precise targeting
13:44 Polish Dank tonations have been quite dramatic, indeed. Love you Perun, Tank you x1000 for the Video!
So it wasn't just me to hear it this way
Long form! 100k+ subs! Poland! Myths-busting! Yes, bring it all on! Glad to hear you’re getting better. Best wishes from California!
I love both the long and short form videos. Whenever one of your videos pops up on my Subscription notifications, you can rest assured that it is the first one I watch.
Thank you for your informative, intelligent work.
"Guys, you are really, really, really well armed."
I can hear the Texans and Arizonans cheering in the distance.
There goes their excuse to buy their 7th AK.
Ummm shouldn't every state be cheering? Dang, I was hoping my country would be left vulnerable.
@@reignman30 you're damn right they should
I would like to stress, Americans, deep down inside, always belive they can have, and should have more in the way of ammo and weapons. It's just how we are.
And we love you for it..................................because warts and all, without you, russia would be ''the worlds policeforce''. or rather, there would just be russia
Because nothing says ‘Freedom’ quite like my bubba’d up Davy Crockett Nuclear Bazooka.
Though it's funny that while in era of the Spanish-American War, the American military were penny pinchers that weren't interested in the next modern weapon, they preferred slow firing sporting rifles that would preserve ammunition in an attritional fight. That's why we end up with rifles like the Krag, which has a smooth bolt, you can reload with a round still in the barrel while the Spanish had the stripper clip loading Mauser.
Those weapons and ammo would do more good in Ukraine right now than in some basement in Alabama.
@@mark8544 The Soviet World Union. Those 45 years of nuclear chicken were pretty dicey.
Please tell me that our leaders have people like you explaining these topics to them so clearly.
There definitly SHOULD Be but even when there is (which most of the time definitly is) it then becomes a matter of wheater they Will Listen to them and if they do there's STILL the matter of how limited they will be or let themselves be by Fucking Politics.
There definitly SHOULD Be but even when there is (which most of the time definitly is) it then becomes a matter of wheater they Will Listen to them and if they do there's STILL the matter of how limited they will be or let themselves be by Fucking Politics.
One point not mentioned is that the US military as it currently exists is not designed for national defense, it's designed to maintain the United States as a world power. For national defense the Atlantic and Pacific oceans do most of the work of protecting America. Our military would only need to be a tenth of its current size if its purpose was solely to defend our nation. But because we want to be the dominant world power, our military must be much larger. The only real threats to this power status since WWII have been the USSR (now Russia) and China. Using our weapons to diminish one of these powers is, as you say, the intended use of those weapons.