How Much Longer Will The West Help Ukraine?
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 05. 2024
- The are a lot more considerations than getting back the lost Ukrainian territory that impact the geopolitical situation in Ukraine. This was is impacting the whole world, and Russia may be too big to fail, but it's #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT #longs
Music:
EWeapon of Choice - Fabien Tell
Mind Tricks - Experia
Claustrophobia - Lennon Hutton
Trembling Anticipation - Dream Cave
Unlimited - Megan Wofford
Air Spark - Robert Ruth
Big Announcement - Out To The World
Story of the Future - Hampus Naeselius
Footage:
Ukrainian Ministry of Defense
Russian Ministry of Defense
NATO
Shutterstock
Select images/videos from Getty Images
ua Alex
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
References:
cepa.org/article/its-costing-...
cepa.org/article/ukraine-what...
archive.is/M9CQN
www.coffeeordie.com/russia-re...
www.rigzone.com/news/volumes_...
www.reuters.com/markets/commo...
seekingalpha.com/article/2079...
www.reuters.com/markets/commo...
euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/2...
mezha.media/en/2022/12/06/goo...
euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/2...
/ 1605899823491620866
thehill.com/opinion/national-...
thepage.ua/economy/tranzit-ro...
0:00 Intro
0:58 America getting bang for its buck
4:18 Does Russia have the resources to win this war?
7:18 The fertilizer crisis
9:02 Why the west doesn't want to push Russia too much
10:14 Too big to fail ... again
12:17 Will the Western leaders change their mind?
What do you think? Is Russia *too* *big* to fail?
first comment
No , everyone can and will fail
E
No im first
@@dominykaskaunietis5215 no you arent
Too big to fail sounds like the last words of something big that's about to fail.
Sounds like a cheesy name for a pop music album.
Remember the Titanic was thought to be literally unsinkable
Enron comes to mind lol
Big copium right there
Russia cannot afford to let Ukraine join NATO as its too much of a threat to its diplomatic soverenty, and unlike Ukraine, it can sustain this war on its own for YEARS
Russia will win eventually, that or forcing Ukraine to accept neutrality, these are the only two outcomes possible
Well, that or Ukraine shutting Russia down completely by conquest, but such an outcome is extremely unrealistic, if withing the realm of possible at all
Unless, of course, if NATO actually decides to get involved for a reason or another, but that is equally unlikely considering the implications this would have
Well it's not like it's a lie. Russia collapse, there goes all the natural gas the EU depends on. It like GM was too big to fail so it needed to be bailed out. GM isn't on the scale of Russia, but you get the picture.
As Perun has noted several times in his commentaries, the cost of aid, especially for military equipment, is significantly overstated. Much of the equipment, such as M113 APCs, M777 howitzers, and Bradley fighting vehicles were purchased and paid for many years ago and are being taken out of storage. They represent sunk costs (i.e costs already expended) not new (fiscal 2023/23) costs. The real cost is that of reconditioning the equipment, if needed, and shipping it to Ukraine. Instead of costing tens of billions, the real cost of providing equipment is probably in the tens of millions. Nor do these shipments represent a degradation of current military capabilities since they are coming out of storage/stockpiles and are one to two generations behind the systems currently in use. Finally, the weapons are being used for the purpose they were originally acquired for: defeating the Russians.
This
Yep. That’s what I keep telling people on Brit news sites.
These vehicles and arms were designed, manufactured and bought for this purpose.
@@TesterAnimal1 + decades ago.
I suspect the delays in providing heavier weapons to Ukraine is basically the lead time required to develop step-plans for refurbishment, logistics, and training. For some reason people think the US can just put an early generation M1 Abrams on a truck and just send it east. It doesn't work like that. Even the M777's (which are relatively simple devices) require significant maintenance and spare parts, most of which can't be done in Ukraine, and has to be done in Poland. In order to even offer more sophisticated stuff the US has have a plan in place to inspect, test, and refurbish the equipment, have a maintenance plan in place, develop a curriculum for training the Ukrainian operators, and identify and evaluate prospective Ukrainian candidates (who may have to be somewhat proficient in English to even qualify for the job). I don't know if the general public is aware that you can't just drive a tank into Kyiv, toss over the keys and be like "OK here ya go, have fun".
@@TesterAnimal1 Untrue. Most people missed the targets of this war due to such narrow thinking.
Such equipment, at least still justifying book values cos Taiwan and other factions around the world will be expected to be dumping grounds, and this has been the habit or SOP for updating US stockpiles for quite a while.
Unless you expect US to legislate the weapons industry to sell their best and latest equipment to folks around the world, that even F35s are sold outside with reduced functions or restrictions.
In fact, such equipment sent into Ukraine still have eager demands in black market, and if without serious checks, you can expect what sort of demands for them.
To prevent a rotten tree from falling on your house, you don't prop it up and hope it won't kill you in your sleep; you cut it down so you can control where it falls
Let Russia go...It is my opinion would be better for everyone...
@@jorgemanso521 Sure Ivan, sure.
Flying Ukrainian Flags in Guerneville CA. Ironically next to the Russian River. (Temporarily Named Ukrainian River by many.) Slava Ukrani.
@@eleventy-seven idk how this is relevant but ok
Fun analogy however there will be chaos if Russia disintegrates. Trust me there will be no controlling it.
I wish you had touched on the fact that also: much of the US equipment is old equipment that is no longer in service but instead in reserves which will soon be slated for scrapping. And scrapping doesn't cost people nothing. So there's actually some savings in value even though the aid is being evaluated at list price of the items.
You sir or ma'am, are completely correct. I apologize for not touching on that as I expect a certain level of knowledge about the subject matter when I write an opinion. I like what you said and will point out the M113's we sent at the beginning to support your statements.
Not only are the US military getting some value for outdated technology, they're clearing inventory so they can justify higher spend to replace those given to Ukraine.
18.000 dead russian soldiers vs 200.000 ukranian 5.000 nato and 10.000 worldwide mercenariec dead. Sorry but..what was cost effective again?
@@DJAKONDATM "5.000 nato and 10.000 worldwide mercenariec dead."
Are those 5,000 NATO soldiers fighting in Ukraine in the room with us right now?
lol lmao even. How can you be this delusional? 18,000 dead Russians? lol. That's nothing more than cope and you know it. They can't even take a small town from Ukraine and you think Russia has only take 18,000 dead? In an entire year of fighting with almost zero gains to show for it?
Go to rehab and get off that krokopium before you start trying to talk about this war. No NATO troops have died in this war and Russia has most certainly taken far more dead than Ukraine has.
Also, I know it's an impossible thought to you since Russia maintains that Wagner dogs are mercs despite being under the direct control of the Kremlin, but the Foreign Legion aren't mercenaries. There's a very clear definition of "mercenary" and the Foreign Legion does not fit that definition.
Try again.
source: kremlin
Obviously, stopping russia in Ukraine is not the same as defeating russia in Russia.
Orcs will defeat themselves. We wont have to lift a finger
It kinda is. If the russian army is desimated and kicked out of ukraine a lot will happen in russian leadership.
It isn't russia thats the problem, it is putin and his regime.
It's still a formidable accomplishment
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Ah yes, then surely the fact that the US failed to gain control of Vietnam means Vietnam would crush the US on their soil, right ?
Surely supply lines, guerrilla warfare, and defensive structrures & weapon systems are all but a myth yeah ?
To be able to hold such an opinion, you're either extremely uneducated or on a whole tanker of copium my dude
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 very true after all this has happened before and last time they failed the Tsar paid for it with his life Putin is now up shit creak without a paddle his only options are to win this war or die 🎲 a very deadly game indeed
Don't forget that the information gained from this conflict will be invaluable for future conflicts. All the weapons and vehicles sent are being combat tested. The intelligence gathered is being used to improve strategy. The reason Russian equipment is being so easily destroyed (aside from incompetence and poor maintenance) is that NATO weapons were designed to counter them.
All wars between superpowers are proxy wars.
Hasn't russia been designing their stuff to defeat nato stuff?
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 whatever Ruzzia designed to fight VS NATO is in single digits or still in design board. Most show a prototype and pocket the money for yachts.
Agreed 😅
Not to mention the fact that this $40 billion doesn't just disappear. The US military-industrial complex employs a "minimum of 3.5 million jobs" (thanks Google). Those funds just go right back into taxpayers' hands, without the cost of sacrificing the lives of U.S. soldiers. I don't mean to say war is ever net positive for anyone but so far the U.S. is probably the biggest winner in all this.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716yes, technically. On record the Russia army is, indeed, the second largest power. Off-record the money for that was used bought yatches for oligarchs. Russia never tought they would really need to fight.
It’s also a good deal if the accounting is a journal entry from the ‘plan to scrap’ column to the ‘donation’ column for equipment that is planned to be replaced such as Bradley vehicles.
@@SunriseLAW Are you talking about the _same_ Russia that's just invaded Ukraine, or is there _another_ Russia, the one that has a superior-to-the-rest-of-the-world industrial production capability?
@@SunriseLAW Most of the western weapons DID NOT get destroyed. The reason why Ukrainians keep asking for more is because far from enough has been delivered so far: Russians _still_ have several times more pieces of artillery, etc. than Ukrainians. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians' weaponry is more accurate, so what you have now, is more or less a parity that enables Ukrainians to keep Russians at bay, but not enough to start pushing the Russians out rapidly.
@@SunriseLAW you are confusing Russia and the USSR. You can look for how many factories were put out of action in the Russian Federation and laugh at your own words friend
@@SunriseLAW Russia doesn't have anywhere near the capability to produce weapons and munitions you are prescribing it. Even 4 European nations are bigger industrial powers, Russia isn't even in the top 10 industrial nations. And this also goes for their military. They are heavily relient on old soviet stockpiles and for the more modern weapons they need equipment/parts they don't even have easy access to anymore. Moreover it isn't even Russian production capacity vs the west, since the west are also buying munitions etc from non-western countries whenever they need to do so. Russia doesn't really have that capacity except for the 'friendly' Iran and North Korea.
Awesome video! Happy to see how this channel keeps getting better. Covering such a wide topic with this quality is impressive. Learning some fun facts about mil equipment is fun, but videos like this are way more important.
Even Germany adapted in less than a year to not rely on russian gas. As a person living relativly close to russian border, I might be a little biased, but I am optimistic.
No, Germany is massively subsidising gas prices. This will lead to money printing down the line
They start to work with china to get that gas
@@toddberkely6791 oh no, that horrible money printing we are warned about every year that it will cause an immediate collapse of our solar system next year. Debt is not great, but if it pays for something worthwhile, it is not that bad. And fighting a rape-murder army is definitely a worthwhile goal.
What are the long-term economical consequences if energy prices in EU will be far higher than in the rest of the world? Will it be reduced to a second-rate economical power?
Germanys president is Joe Biden
Plus, Western weapon designers and makers are getting valuable realistic field testing of their gear.
Yeah they learn and we learn that their crap really sucks. Plus it gives Russia so much gear to inspect and to laugh at... Lol Ukronazis loved by USnazis.
@@huathai8204 The only crap seen is by Russia.
Yes, the US fails spectacularly.
Let's make the military industrial complex bigger. 20 years from now, the liberals will be screaming that the US spends too much money on Ukraine and then we will withdraw support from Ukraine and then Russia will take over the country in a month just like the Taliban.
So many shadowbanned comments
I just can't compliment the creators of this channel highly enough. The clarity that you bring to matters that involve the military is unrivaled. Your research skills are vastly superior to those of any major news outlet. You ferret out the facts better than anyone else. More importantly, you let the facts speak for themselves; you let the argument be guided by the facts. As such, you are the greatest journalists around. Keep up the good work.
yep saying the us is a god and Russia is a slave isn't really a fact though :3
this channel is too pro western and at that point just yapping things
People couldn't imagine the USSR disintegrating at all until it did, Putin has backed himself into such a corner that an off ramp large enough doesn't exist
Also the first autonomous republic (itschkeria) has declared independence
@@pokiparkassistent Interesting, I wonder if others will follow suit
So what about Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008? Nobody cared then, so why do people care now?
@@HaloForgeUltra because Georgia was more of a grey area and russia didn’t add territory to their country. Achbrasia and south ossetia are kind of independent now.
@@user-hi7jk6fu3f when the chechens remember what their parents fought for and how bad putins Idol Stalin treated them the war will be over soon
"The Soviet Union spans half the globe, with territory from central Europe to the Pacific Ocean. The Soviets have enormous influence across the globe from Vietnam to Cuba and beyond. They have a population in the hundreds of millions and are winning the technology space race. They just finished smashing the Nazi army in the biggest war of human history. There is no way they can fall with the ability to use centralized power over such vast resources and none of the infighting of democracy - they are clearly too big to fail" Someone in the 1950s probably
Defenetly not someone in the 80s
Russia has a population and economy roughly equivalent to Nigeria. It has failed to hold more than a out 14% of the land it tried to take all control of in three days. Their military is dilapidated and of poor quality. Their infrastructure is a shambles. Without buyers for their gas and oil, they are gasping for breath.
So what about Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008? Nobody cared then, so why do people care now?
@@HaloForgeUltra and Ukraine in 2014, and Chechnya before that. The world has known this predation will continue as long as Russia exists. The difference this time is that Ukraine actually had the ability to fight, the training, and the will to see it through. They are about the worst choice for Russia to attack, but someone's ego got too big.
Because they switch from communism to a semi marker economy in the early 1980s
Just a small correction since I'm Saudi, We don't have any major Russian military equipment in our arsenal. The only significant Russian weapons used in KSA armed services are Ak-103 and the TOS-1 MLRS
I think he mistaked Saudi Arabia with your neighbors countries that use tons of soviet-era materials, since Saudi Arabia are one of the most important costumer to the US defense industry.
As we learn from history, no empire or nation is too big to fail.
Indeed. The US is showing all the signs of an empire on its last legs.
@@jonathanjacob5453, and more so does Russia.
@@avrahamkrichevsky4831The Russians will be just fine. They are used to living modestly within their means.
The US national debt is 31 Trillion. The household debt is 16.5 Trillion. This is a ticking time bomb.
The US dollar Ponzi scheme is running out of steam.
That would include us too.
@@ianboard544, yep. If the people of US would not regain their power as the only sovereign of the country, if they will let it slip to the hands of rascals completely, it should happen inevitably.
To see any politician saying we should cut aid to Ukraine is concerning, and I would immediately look into where their campaign funds come from. The reality is (as you stated) that supplying Ukraine with the weapons it needs to defend itself is a great investment for the West. The Russian military is being destroyed at a rate nobody ever thought possible, it's costing the west a FRACTION of what it would have costed if it were NATO going to war, and we're not losing any of our own troops (RIP Ukrainian hero's).
But look at what it's doing to the poor Ukrainians.
What does it matter if Putin or Zelensky are in charge? Six, one way; half a dozen, the other, if you ask me.
@@brianmatthews4323 It obviously matters who is in charge? Ukraine was on an upward trajectory, and evidently most of their people don't want to give that up to become a puppet under an autocratic regime again.
@@xomm You don't think Z is an autocrat?
So you accuse almost entire Republican party (except Mr Turtle) of being on Russian payroll?
@@masoudj1185 Unironically yes.
There is a problem with concept: to big to fall due to nuclear weapon. If Russia win because of this concept, the world nuclear disarmament initiatives will lose it`s backbone(at list morale). Ukraine is "voluntarily nuclear-disarmed", if it obviously lose territory due to the direct aggression of a nuclear country -- that will be very very bad diplomatic case for ages.
Every country will understand that nuclear(or an other unconventional) weapon is your only chance to be integral. Technology is advancing, I`m afraid that it`s easier then you think to intimidate hole world wit mass destruction.
In other hand, if Russia leave Ukraine and get some punishnet all World will sea that unconventional weapon does not make you overpowered...
this is one reason it is essential, not just morally but also for our own security, to still honor a promise to help defend Ukraine against countries that do have nukes. 👍💪🇺🇦❤️✌️
Taiwan, South Korea, Germany, Finland, Japan, Norway, Italy, Australia, Canada, Sweden, and more. All of these nations are 'nuclear latent states' meaning they have the infrastructure and technological capacity to design build and field nuclear weapons on a short timeframe if they so choose. If suddenly nuclear proliferation fails I would in no way be surprised of several of these countries develop nuclear arms.
This is the reasoning why USA would have to get involved in the war if Russia used a nuke in Ukraine (I don't think they will). If Russia used a nuke, on a non nuclear power and "got away with it" nuclear non proliferation would be extinct within 24hrs.
The US and collective West would be forced into destroying Russia's military in the Black Sea and inside Ukraine, what happens after that is anyone's guess.
@LORDOceanus And that's only counting the countries closest to that point. There are many more that could follow if the global situation really called for it.
@@LordOceanus I would take that a step further, especially for Japan, who would be lobbying for American Trident 2's while theirs are in development.
Man, your videos got so good. I really like how awesome they're cut and how you use video sequences to communicate beyond recorded voice.
i hadn't watched a long version of your videos before and I absolutely love this.
When President Bush visited Ukraine in 1990 or 1991 he also insisted that russia is too big to fail. He was clear that we should not fight for independance, because western countries afraid of russia collapsing. Now we're told the same thing - russia is too big to fail.
Just a few months before dissolution. If it was untrue then it can be untrue now.
Why would the world go into war just for one country?????
@@dobrasilaomundo.8086not for one country, but for safety of all. Ukraine gave nukes(3rd place in amount of nukes at time) for guarantee of safety from 3 countries - US, UK and Ru). If Ukraine lose this war other countries will do anything to get nukes for them, just because it only thing that can protect them from those who now possess nukes. In the world now rough 180 countries and plenty of conflicts between them... and if there all or at least most of them will be having nukes - it's just matter of time when nuclear war begin. And if somebody will try to convince them not to get it, this countries will point at Ukraine.
Yeah, he was in Ukrainian parliament convincing Ukraine to stay in USSR
But there is No other way around
"100.000" is the number of dead soldiers reported by UAF, not casualities
Exactly 2-300000 total casualties so far
Russia lost over 100k soldiers already. So many mourning mothers and wives. It's just criminal and putin will pay for every single one.
@@multipl3 I heard say it’s about 100M!
And almost half of this number of dead have picture or video confirmation. Imagine how many more are not captured on camera.
The Pentagon has 100,000 casualties on each side. Military casualties including dead and injured.
The cost of the aid to Ukraine is very much overstated. The vast majority of that aid is in the form of military hardware that is gathering dust in the US. It costs money to maintain this equipment. By giving the equipment to Ukraine, it no longer has to be stored and maintained.
One example is the Stryker. The Stryker is being retired. The US could give all of its Strykers to Ukraine and save a lot of money on decommissioning costs. The aid package would still be quoted as the actual costs of the Stryker, but it would actually save the US money.
The cost is in replacement. paid to US MIC by US taxpayers. Do keep up.
@@docprune9922 that cost would have been paid anyway. And in fact much of the equipment will not be replaced. For example, the Sttykers we are sending are being retired. The M777 artillery is not the top of line eithe5. And the ammunition would have to be destroyed once it expired, at no small cost, which we will save. The new ammunition being manufactured will have a longer shelf life. And we have far more Abrams than we need, so if we send those it won't be at a cost to the taxpayer.
And in return we help a democracy defend itself from unprovoked aggression by a neighbor. A country that is responsible, in part, for causing economic damage to the US and Europe and is one of the reasons why the US has had to spend a significant amount of money on the military.
The defeat and collapse of Russia is in the best interests of the US.
@@Biologist19681 The US spend big on weapons because of the MIC.
Eisenhower warned of that and he was correct.
There is no inherent threat to the US from Russia or China. The US is the problems interfering where they have NO reason to be.
Are you so wilfully unaware of the damage and destruction done by the US to numerous countries around the world, how many are still in utter ruins post your efforts to 'bring dumbocracy'
The US taxpayer spends huge sums building a military that is bigger than the 9 next l, of which 8 are allies (!) Also the single biggest polluting entity in the world, as it goes about its task of invading and destroying to steal more resources and inhibit other economies.
No wonder US is considered to be the most dangerous country in the world.
What hubris tell you that US needs 750 + bases around the entire world?
@@Biologist19681 The US spend big on weapons because of the MIC.
Eisenhower warned of that and he was correct.
There is no inherent threat to the US from Russia or China. The US is the problems interfering where they have NO reason to be.
Are you so wilfully unaware of the damage and destruction done by the US to numerous countries around the world, how many are still in utter ruins post your efforts to 'bring dumbocracy'
The US taxpayer spends huge sums building a military that is bigger than the 9 next l, of which 8 are allies (!) Also the single biggest polluting entity in the world, as it goes about its task of invading and destroying to steal more resources and inhibit other economies.
No wonder US is considered to be the most dangerous country in the world.
What hubris tell you that US needs 750 + bases around the entire world?
@@Biologist19681 The US spend big on weapons because of the MIC.
Eisenhower warned of that and he was correct.
There is no inherent threat to the US from Russia or China. The US is the problems interfering where they have NO reason to be.
Are you so wilfully unaware of the damage and destruction done by the US to numerous countries around the world, how many are still in utter ruins post your efforts to 'bring dumbocracy'
The US taxpayer spends huge sums building a military that is bigger than the 9 next l, of which 8 are allies (!) Also the single biggest polluting entity in the world, as it goes about its task of invading and destroying to steal more resources and inhibit other economies.
No wonder US is considered to be the most dangerous country in the world.
What hubris tell you that US needs 750 + bases around the entire world?
You failed to mention that much of the US military aid to Ukraine is equipment earmarked for decommissioning and as such, whilst it has a book value of Billions it's actual value is negative since they would otherwise have to pay to safely dispose of it.
Yeah, that basic idea tends to get lost. It's even more pronounced in Europe, where the former warsaw pact nations have been eager to get rid of their soviet era equipment.
I agree with both you and @Sphere723. You are absolutely correct that the equipment is no longer in service. However, I would argue the point it wasn't for decommissioning, but for mothballing. I could be wrong as I don't have access to procurement and equipment readiness evals. I would hope we send the most recently decommissioned equipment to give Ukraine the best fighting chances.
@@nilspaar1999 Either way it will reduce cost. In fact mothballing equipment would cost more because there is still a minimal amount of work required to maintain equipment, with vehicles especially maintenance intensive.
When you have a shitton of random out dated equipment that needs to be scrapped, best give it to someone else so you can upgrade on a shitton of *new* random equipment that'll be out dated in a few years
@@martinxy1291 In the meantime, you have fed, clothed and housed the employees of the manufacturers and the employees of their suppliers.
The thing that people in american politics don't understand is that while the face value of teh support was 40 billion its actually significantly less. Lots of military surplus gets sold or passed on every year, often at-cost to the military, and storing equipment isn't cheap. Giving away old equipment to Ukraine actually SAVES the US government money from less costs associated with storage and upkeep. And everything they are sending is surplus, or stuff that is in storage or will never practicably be used in the future anyway. Whats more it was all MADE to fight Russia (soviet union technically). So giving it away to someone who IS fighting Russia is the best possible investment that could be imagined.
@@MS-ii1sv it already was when the hardware was made. It make no tax dollar difference if it is given to Ukraine or decommissioned
And people see the dollar numbers and are shocked, but they don't realise how small the number is compared to the USA
Military budget.
money was also given
Putin has been offered so many exit ramps and has refused to entertain any of them. Right now any such exit would be synonymous with appeasement, and we all know how successful that is long term
Appeasement: have war now or have war later? The ending is the same regardless of the choice made...
@@theotherohlourdespadua1131 right and appeasement worked really well in the 30’s…
@@KanyeTheGayFish69 Non-appeasement in 1939 left us with 70 million dead. So can you really claim it worked that well?
@@KanyeTheGayFish69 Hitler tried to make peace many times, it was Churchill and the other sabre-rattlers who insisted on the war.
@@SweBeach2023 there would have been a lot fewer deaths if hitler had been dealt with sooner
Really enjoying these long form videos!
For you 13minutes is long form? Fucking hell tiktok has ruined attention spans.
@@RustyVaperGameplay Leave it to the internet to jump to conclusions. It’s long compared to YT shorts. He’s also managed to subtly alter his tone and narrative without making it another cumbersome military channel.
@@MRRookie232 I didn't jump to any conclusion. You seem to think 13 minutes is long.
@@RustyVaperGameplay CZcams "Shorts" are considered vertical format videos that are no longer than 1 minute. We make 3 of those each week.
The "regular" videos, in land scape format, which are usually a few minutes long, we refer to them as "long" videos. In contrast to the 1-min videos, these are long. That's all 😉
@@NotWhatYouThink Which pays more per minute?
Nuclear weapons make a country seemingly invulnerable even if unused. This is why many smaller nations like North Korea pursue nuclear weapons so vigorously.
Obviously ,they don't, USSR had more nukes than anyone, and they melted like the morning mist,the same fate awaits this kleptocracy.
This is very interesting video and very informative! Thank you)
Great analysis! Never really thought of it this way...
"its not to big to fail! it can fail at any time!!!"
these comments missed the entire point if the video, its not that its impossible for Russia to fail and fall apart, its that its to dangerous for the rest of the world for it to fail
No, it would make the world safer. It is only a matter of time that this Russia will start a new war somewhere.
Same could be said about the holder of the world reserve currency.
@@BobSacamano666 i dont know, nuclear weapons getting into the hands of terrorist grounds sounds just a little more dangerous to me
More dangerous than an aggressive expansionist country who has been in over 10 wars since the 90's?
@@jamsbean4383 their massive nuclear stockpile suddenly having no supervision and no one willing to trust nuclear umbrellas now that the invasion of Ukraine happened, a country that gave up its nukes in exchange for absolute protection from both the US and Russia, was outright invaded and threatened by use of nukes by one of the parties and the other is just sending basic aid. thats the main concern addressed in the video and at least in the eyes of the world powers, is in fact more dangerous even if the average person doesnt
Ruzzia is now selling its oil for about 55 USD per barrel and not the 110 USD initially after the start of this war. Since it is estmated that the production and transportation costs for Ruzzia is at least 50 USD per barrel, then its actually profits, if any, have been recently dramatically reduced. Its national deficiet is so severe that it had to drastucakky reduce its already low health, education and social services expenditures. This is a country already spiralling down to bakruptcy.
It doesn't cost ANYBODY $50 usd for a barrel of fuel. You're way off and just a democrat shill
32 trillion American dollars in debt have entered the chat
@@khizerqureshi2492 Western apologists like you entered the chat. Now shudap.
@@eleventy-seven not sure what western apologist means but your display picture says that you stand with ukraine which means you stand with nazis and NATO (North Atlantic Terrorist Organization)
@@khizerqureshi2492 except that US will still be able to pay their debt. Nobody in their right minds would lend their money to an about to fail economy.
Don’t forget that large parts of the aid was paid for before the conflict, things like Bradley May face decommissioning if not used. Same for ammunition stockpiles, they degrade overtime if not used.
18.000 dead russian soldiers vs 200.000 ukranian 5.000 nato and 10.000 worldwide mercenariec. Sorry but..what was cost effective again?
@DJAKONDA way to be a 🐑 🤣🤣
Depends on the conditions of the warehouses ammunition is stored in. A lot of people are still shooting Turkish 7.92mm surplus that was made during WW2.
I think you nailed it.
What a good video, many strong points. Thanks!
That was very interesting and covered stuff I didn't know. Thanks!
This is a VERY informative video on the situation, thanks for explaining it like that, I might be a geopolitical nut, but half of the information on this video I didn't know!
I can assure you that more than half of this info is a lie, or just twisted.
First of, American aid to Ukraine is not 40 billion, it’s over 110 billion, “Of the $113 billion approved in 2022, about three-fifths ($67 billion) has been allocated toward defense needs and the remaining two-fifths ($46 billion) to nondefense concerns such as general Ukrainian government aid, economic support, and aid for refugee resettlement. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided cost estimates of the four funding packages at the time each was passed.” But what ever, I guess the this article from American media is a lie.
Second, 2:30 Russia losing 8600+ military vehicles is just a fkn joke….. that it’s 23 trucks per day, in 365 days. That’s almost 1 truck, every single hour, for an entire year….. does that sound possible to you? If it does, than you know nothing about modern combat.
2:08 “destroying nearly half of Russian conventional military capabilities” facepalm…. Khrushov in 1998 said Russia can produce bombs like sausages, and now apparently it lost half of everything in a year…. That economically makes no sense at all.
2:18 “according to US officials, Russia lost over 100k casualties, with 25k dead” first of, Ursula von der Leyden came out and said that UKRAINE lost 100k soldiers (dead) and 20k civilians dead. Not Russians, but what ever, I guess she is a lier too…. You can CZcams search that video btw. Second, even if it is the Russian part, 100k casualties are not dead, so they are not lost.
2:45 “it’s a clear bargain for the US, American weapons, and Ukrainian blood” that sentence is solid, XD let the Ukrainians die, for something that Americans need.
4:00 other countries were buying cheaper Russian military equipment are now considering to go to Americans? My lord, what a joke that is… I guess by “military equipment” he refuses to tanks and trucks, and russia has never sold those to anyone past china. As for conventional weapons like assault rifles and such, I guess the whole world is stupid, for buying AK-47’s because they are “poor performance” XD
Half the crap said in this video is a lie. And you don’t have to take my word for it, you can do your own research. Everything i said is searchable on the internet.
even with the lowball stats, the amount of casualties in this war is just sickening. It's can't be overstated just how much russia is weakened by this war. And it really makes you wonder what its neighbors will do
Russia is having a hard time being a big bro to the CSTO. Armenia has been dissing Russia constantly since the second attack by Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan is in a shooting war again, and Kazakhstan explicitly declared they are against this war from the get go...
Better pray that china doesn't shank them while their down
Those neighbors will join NATO where possible or at the very least try to align with the US/West/NATO for protection against Russia or the next 'bad actor" in the region. Does anyone with at least half a brain REALLY think that Poopin would not decide Poland or Estonia or Latvia or some other country in the area does not also need to be 'De-Nazified"??
You have been brainwashed
@@springbloom5940 So anyone that is pro-Ukraine in this conflict is "brainwashed"?
Does that mean that YOU think Poopin's "special military operation" is going well for him?
If you believe that, please provide some sources for your information that leads you to believe that this situation is "going well" for the Poophead in Moscow.
Wow, you put it to and easy understanding to many of us.
I love your coverage!
I really like that you don't do only shorts anymore
Reminds me of the Revolutionary War. One side was vastly outmatched but the other had an unmotivated army. The war had a very positive ripple effect on the rest of the world as whole and it transitioned into what we know now today. (It was such a huge win for us Americans. You guys have no idea how big it is.) Im cautiously optimistic that Ukraine will win due to their faith in themselves and belief in their country. Fighting against an occupying force that wants nothing more than to get rid of them permanently for more space of their own. Even though their army doesn’t believe in themselves much if at all.
Все ваше оружие сгорит при ядерном ударе, а Украина покроется слоем стекла, песок превращается в стекло при большой температуре, У нас есть 6000 ядерных ракет при желании мы можем вернуть Аляску себе так как это исконная Русская земля.
Yes....Americans were vastly outmatched and lost every battle....until the French decided to use the colonists as proxies against the British Empire.
So what about Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008? Nobody cared then, so why do people care now?
Dude America wouldn't have won without the French. US schools tend to gloss that over but France basically carried the war
You won't find many mainstream historians, American or otherwise, who think that becoming an independent nation was a big win for Americans.
There are dozens of massive negative things that came out of the revolutionary independence of America. And no positive ones.
America would have been much better off if it simply gradually became independent like Australia or Canada.
Is amazing how you repeatedly connect your video’s sequences when you mention “falling into wrong hands…” amazing 😂
Fascinating analysis. Thanks for this!
This is one of the best videos out there outlining the political and economical of all the major parties involved in the war in Ukraine. 👌
Well it's got the highest views for Ukrainian propaganda. I'll it that.
is one of the cheapest pieces of propaganda out there "the russian federation only exists becuase of the noble western nations allow them to continue united" GTFO
@@marcv2648 alright, so what’s the propaganda?
@@baneofbanes Telling us to invest our tax dollars in their war campaign. Telling you it's a good investment.
@@marcv2648 that’s not propaganda, that’s just true. We unload a shit ton of military equipment that’s in storage and that’s we’re replacing, and in return the Russians get humiliated and crippled.
Trying to prevent something falling apart doesn't prevent it from falling apart, in the long run. If you look at history, empires collapse all the time, and the aftermath is dealt with. Nukes make it more complicated, but Russia breaking up might not be a bad thing. It might even make the former Soviet republics (and Europe) safer
It would be a bad thing for everyone in Russia
It is the West that is flailing and failing.
@@docprune9922 You think Russia's losses & defeats are part of Putin's plan? They're losing deliberately?
@@stephenphillips4609 They aren't losing.
UkroNazi propaganda.
Change the channel.
Nearly we can hold our own at home with civil war even with internal silly problem. Instead of wasting money giving away our tax money why not fix the country. We have not interest in Ukrain just more unpaid unending waste of materials not even ukrain can paid it all the borrowing…. It would be funny 😆 see what happens next.
Very thought provoking. Thank you
Amazing report and thank you.
As far as the Platinum/Titanium/Uranium mining and Ammonia production goes, there are options to increase demand elsewhere. It doesn't HAVE to be from Russia, especially the titanium mining as Russia isn't even in the top ten for titanium reserves.
For these following reasons, I do NOT think Russia is too big to fail:
For Titanium, The top two spots are China (230 Million) and Australia (191 Million), with India (92.4 Million), Brazil (43 Million), Norway (37 Million), Canada (31 Million), South Africa (36.5 Million), Mozambique (26.89 Million), Madagascar (22.4 Million), and Ukraine (8.4 Million) taking the rest of the top spots. So Russia isn't even in the top list of Titanium reserves by country list.
(Numbers are proven reserves as of 2021 in units of metric tons)
For Platinum, top reserves by far go to South Africa (69,000 Tons), Russia (3,900 Tons), Zimbabwe (1,200 Tons), United States (900 Tons), Canada (310 Tons). Clearly, South Africa controls this mineral industry. (Numbers are proven reserves as of 2020 in units of metric tons)
For Uranium, top reserves are Australia (2,049,400 Tons), Kazakhstan (969,200 Tons), Canada (873,000 Tons), Russia (661,900 Tons), Namibia (504,200 Tons), and South Africa (447,700 Tons).
So, we can simply boost production in Australia and Canada to compensate for Russia's lost of production. Also, Ukraine is the highest Uranium reserve country in Europe with 186,900 tons, so after the war, the EU can simply start pulling from Ukraine more as well (would help rebound their economy).
(Numbers are proven reserves as of 2019 in units of metric tons).
For Ammonia, the top producers are China (48.2 Million tons), Russia (12.5 Million tons), India (11 Million tons), United States (9.8 Million tons), Indonesia (5.2 Million), Trinidad & Tobago (4.8 Million), and Saudi Arabia (4.5 Million tons). While China and Russia are the top 2, there are other options available too. Might could boost production in places like India, China, United States and Trinidad & Tobago to aid any offset by Russian ammonia production losses. (Numbers are production numbers as of 2019 in units of metric tons)
So, as far as resources outside oil and natural gas go, there are options for pulling away from Russia.
I support your argument, raw resources are no longer scarce in a world of globalized mining industry with ever more efficient extraction processes and ways to ship material cheaply from anywhere. This would be a mere matter of recalibration, market adjustment in the next several years until Russian markets are fully displaced.
About 40% potash comes from Russia and Belarus, which is extremely important for modern agriculture. India is moving to Nano fertilizers, and within 3-4 years, we won't need any fertilizers from Russia. The problem is natural gas, and LPG as Iran and Russia are big producers.
From the point of view of net reserves of resources - you are right, but you do not take into account a simple point - resources must be mined, processed and delivered. It's one thing just explored reserves, and another thing is well-established infrastructure. Just for example - Norway has a lot of natural gas, but it cannot take and satisfy the needs of Europe at one moment, simply because explored reserves are not equal to those produced.
It's the same with uranium. You are clearly not in the subject, because you do not understand how much energy you need to spend to enrich it so that it turns into fuel. And Russia does it better than anyone and many times cheaper than the United States.
Sure we can live without Russia, but at what price. Globalisation =)
Very good analysis of the situation on a objective global level.
And this is what happens when an entity becomes "Too Big To Fail." We're doing what's economical, not what's right. Let the Russian Federation fall a part and give those people Freedom. Worried about nuclear weapons? Send in the international Nuclear Regulatory Commission. With an escort. More expensive food? Well, then you have government subsidies to combat that. Make the 1% pay their taxes again. Isn't that what we sent Al Capone to jail for; federal tax evasion? Now it's the 'In-Thing' to do in the Corporate world...
Basically US/Western propaganda in a Ukrainian accent.
Twaddle.
No😹, this is western propaganda so blatant no grown ass adult can seriously believe it. I watched it because of interesting video content, though.
Great video... thank you
Love the video, but not the worlds current circumstances.
🍻 to a brighter future for all.
We need a new analysis on the Russian-Ukraine war. A lot has changed today… Ukraine has failed a massive counteroffensive and the Russians are beginning to start their own. The Russians seems to have also rapidly started rebuilding their armoured force that has been lost at the start. The people of the West are also starting to change their view on Ukraine and Zelensky. So I wonder how you will analyze future scenarios that Ukraine is going in.
Ye, Russia uses old stockpiles of tanks which costs around 300 - 700k to make, whereas Ukraine is using western anti-tank weapons that cost millions + ammonition that cost 500k - 1.2m to make. It is the same as throwing the worst stuff out which will deplete your enemy fully. Even military experts came out and said if Britain were to fight Russia, it would last 2 weeks with the stockpiles and ammunition it has left.
Really nice video. I appreciate the way you compare and contrast everything factually but still try to bring some gravitas to politics of the whole situation.
Factually 🤣
Very interesting perspective. Thank you.
One of the elements left out by this video, is how much the US miltary industrial complex is profiting from the war, Lockeed Martin alone gained $22bn in market capitalisation, since the war started and triggered a global rearmement. The 40bn could be seen as a very profitable subsidy to the US arms industry.
I haven't seen all the numbers, but I strongly suspect that even if the fall of Russia turns out to be a negative to the world, long term it would still be a net positive thing for humanity. In general, "too big to fail" tends to be "too big to be allowed to exist"; and it's the type of mistake that must be corrected for the good of humanity.
The choice is between a unipolar world of US dollar dominance of EVERYTHING commerce, trade and policy wise, for the benefit of a predominantly white elite OR a multipolar world where all nation's sovereignties are respected and all countries trade and work together for the greater overall good, using a basket of currency.
ie Do you want US oligarchs and corporations to run the world or countries to look after their own affairs, cooperating with each other?
That is the choice here.
Either way, dollar hegemony is gone, the US/West are in decline.
It can only get worse.
@@docprune9922 You won't have a world where "all nations' sovereignties are respected" if Russia is allowed to get away with what they've been doing.
You want a world run by and for US/Western elites?
@@docprune9922 "...OR a multipolar world where all nation's sovereignties are respected and all countries trade and work together for the greater overall good, using a basket of currency."
This is not the choice being put forward by Putin. Neither the collapse of the US empire nor the success of the Russian army will lead to a world of multipolar cooperation. Human nature proves otherwise.
@@docprune9922 Do you want a world run by people like Putin?
Great and different point of analysis !
And what is more, the money value on these packages is just the value of the equipment being sent plus the cost to deliver it all. The equipment of which has already existed for years. Those Bradleys we sent? We had 2000 Bradleys just sitting in storage plus 2600 in operational use.
your channel is so great
I love learning about history with these
The collapse of Russia might be what needs to happen, the question is whether or not that will lead to nuclear conflict.
people can just buy the nukes when Russia superstates don't exist anymore. It is how Oligarch existed in the first place, when Soviet superstate suddenly collapse, random Russian bought the orphaned industry and became superrich. Ukraine also left with orphaned Soviet nukes, which is given to Russia.
Western hagemony is what need to collapse...
Why would that need to happen? What kind of nonsense talk is that? Seriously, explain why.
That's what they said about Iraq, libya, syria look what that caused total chaos and countless deaths but hey America said it's ok!
@@user-qw3gz9qx4y lol that’s not happening
Outstanding geopolitically, simplified review.
A legendary video congratulations
Amazing video, glad you could clear up the possibly economic ramifications of a total Ukrainian victory
18.000 dead russian soldiers vs 200.000 ukranian 5.000 nato and 10.000 worldwide mercenariec. Sorry but..what was cost effective again?
OMG what an in-depth analysis! Thank you again for the quality in which you expose NWYT
This looks like a Ukraine propaganda account with comments full of Ukraine propaganda. I'm tired of my taxes being sent to zhitholes for no reason.
A very well needed reality check
Very insightful information, congratulations.
Arestovich is not so popular, we’re just joking about him
“The war will end in 2-3 weeks” ©️ Arestovich
Good way to get your weapons systems tested in the field as well.
I'm so glad you posted this video, I've been trying to explain the incredible bang for buck to no avail.
Prayerfully our aid is not hurting Ukrainians, as I would hope the Ukrainian Soldiers were pointing the HIMARS the right way. This is an interesting piece of propo; decent job of choosing your words very carefully.
To some degree this hearkens back to the Great Power jockeying of the 1800s, where said powers consciously positioned smaller nations as buffers and switched alliances as necessary to keep other powers from becoming dominant. Of course, that didn't turn out well in 1914 when combined with factors such as *16 paragraphs later*. And history only rhymes.
But still, planning to keep a Power down but not out may be relatively peaceful in the near term ('only' tens of thousands dead from two nations), but result in vastly more destruction in the long term. Russian collapse now could be more peaceful in the long term. Or its disintegration now might result in loose nukes and close term catastrophe. I don't know the right answer.
And they've already resorted to digging trenches again. Luckily this time they can save money on wmds and a second world war.
To the west, the war in Ukraine is a surprisingly good investment and while the loss of life is tragic on both sides, this can help prevent any future conflict that the west might have with Russia, because now they see that the one of their biggest enemies is weaker than they look like while seeing effectiveness of their own equipment against an enemy with a large army. Not only that but European countries are actively seeking other ways to gain oil and gas and not be dependant on Russia. At the end of the day, it's a win win for the west.
Another thing is. If the supplies and sorts is part of a lend lease act that wasn't publicly stated. Then every piece of equipment, munitions, fuel etc would be part of a bill which once ukraine is done will have to pay which will take decades to do so.
Informative
Balkanized Russia? "Please don't do that, don't give me hope."
There is no reason for russia to be balkanized lol maybe only some regions in the caucasus should get independant but the rest not
This spend the money at home always cracks me up.
A big chunk of the stuff sent to Ukraine is older stuff that the Army does not want anymore and/or stuff that is close to the end of its shelf life. It's just 40 billion on paper.
You can't use outdated artillery pieces and shells at the end of their storage life to pay for investments at home.
To the politicians that say they will spend that money at home : will you? Why did you not do just that up until now?
We have so much surplus military equipment. Really the only cost is sending it over the ocean. I mean we have entire desserts filled with tanks 🤠 that actually get rotated out and get regular maintenance.
The Soviet union was also too big to fail...and they were bigger...
Thats why it was bailed out.....
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716The new Russian state under Yeltsin was bailed out.
Great video!
If the used money is such a tiny fraction of the budget then why are politicians reluctant to use it?
This video is on point. Great bang for buck!
I can't see a scenario where Ukraine would ever except peace treaties without being given back all the land that was taken from them. As an American sometimes are foreign policy is disgusting to me. If it was one of our states that was taken we wouldn't rest until we had taken it back no matter what the implications were why should they have to settle? I also saw a video from wendover productions about shell discovering a huge oil field off the coast of Southern Africa that could rival the Russian oil fields. I think our dependency to Russia is coming into an end.
Oil field discoveries are great but require years of investment before they make a meaningful impact on global supply. Especially offshore drilling.
Ukraine has huge oil reserves off the coast of Crimea and huge natural gas fields in the east of the country were discovered in 2013, one years before Russia invaded
Yeah your right the soviets should take back all their old states, Ukrain being the first...
@aedensmith1333 A person from Idaho and a person from Indiana are both Americans.
A person from the former Ukrainian SSR and the former Russian SSR and *not* both Russian.
This is a false equivalency. It's like saying Italy should retake France, Spain, and Britain because the Roman Empire used to control that land.
@@thewhiteknightman the original post said if we lost a state America would fight like hell to get it back. Russia is doing the same thing.
Another benefit, Ukraine regains the oil fields they were exploring off Crimea.
The map at the end. Is that from GUR Budanov’s office?
Very very very good video!
As a Canadian living in Waterloo, Ontario, I am all for supporting Ukraine. That said, I can't help wondering how much of my tax dollars will keep being sucked into this war for how many more weeks and months, despite every "expert" is asserting on TV everyday that Ukrainian victory is just around the corner?
The irony is, despite all the dismissal of Russian military as nothing but a incompetent butcher house of its own men, the Russia military today still occupies 1/5 of Ukraine and had not been losing ground for 2 months. It's in fact gaining ground right now at Bakhmut😳😱😵
How the fxxx is that even possible?????
Keep in mind Russia NEVER had too much advantage over Ukraine to begin with, apart from the initial element of surprise, which was badly squandered. Russia's population is only 3.5 times that of Ukraine (143 millions vs 42 millions). Its entire ground force is only 280,000 strong, of which about 150,000 have already been committed in Ukraine - the maximum force it's capable of deploying there. In contrast, Ukraine force had swollen up from 260,000 before the war to 700,000 since the last April (according to its official statistics), of which 600,000 fight in the ground force - more than twice Russia's number. (The force sizes of both have remained largely steady, as fresh recruits/conscripts have been mostly used to replace the casualties.) Further more, *it's NEVER just Ukraine vs Russia - Ukraine has 25 Western countries flooding it with endless torrents of supplies, weapons, equipment, aids, and pretty much everything else it needs. It's Ukraine + 25 of the world's richest & most technologically advanced industrial giants pitting against Russia - a single country languishing under the crushing weight of hundreds of sanctions.* The aids Ukraine received in 2022 stood at staggering $108.8 billions - in comparison Russia's entire annual military budget was only $66 billions. If we set aside the stereotypes and examine the actual statistics, *in almost every single aspect of one-on-one military strength comparison, the multi-national Ukrainian side enjoys overwhelming superiority over the solo Russian side.* Precisely because of such advantage Ukraine was able to pull off the successive offensives in September & October. (As confirmed by BBC, in so many sections where Ukraine achieved breakthroughs, Ukrainians out-numbered their opponents at ratios from 5-1 to 9-1.) However, instead of pressing on its growing advantage and steamrolling the far out-numbered, out-equipped, out-supplied and out-trained Russian force, who Ukraine has been contemptuously laughing at and confidently declaring its readiness to completely annihilate over the past two months, there is no sign of Russians' annihilation. The offensive tapered off and stalemate resumed. The billions and billions of aids, arms, ammunitions, equipment, etc. the West pumps into Ukraine every day and night don't seem to have turned the tide of the war, as Ukraine has promised again and again. All we have is endless trash-talking of the Russia in the media and the endless prediction of its military's upcoming collapse. *But why is the war still going on Ukraine as of 2023? Why are the Russians actually on the offensive right now as opposed to disintegrating into oblivion? Given the enormous advantage - both quantitative and qualitative - Ukraine and its allies currently enjoy over Russia, the 700,000 strong Ukrainian army, buoyed by the inexhaustible inflow of Western aids, should have long crushed Russia's 200,000 weak invading force (with excruciatingly inferior qualities across the board) many many many weeks ago.* (The Russians' head count already includes the Wagner Groups mercenaries.) As per common sense, the Russian military would have long been pushed out of every square inch of Ukrainian territory and reduced to reliance on nuclear deterrence to halt Ukraine's march to Moscow.
Why is this not happening? Why Russia - a joke of a country and a joke of a military as every mainstream media piece is telling the public on-end in the past 8 months - is still NOT compelled to accept unconditional surrender???🥴🤔🧐🤯😵💫😓
Callus is growing on my eardrum now from the 24/7 soundbites of politicians and news anchors who flood the space of civic conversations with nothing but upbeat reassurance that Putin the Pathetic is hanging by a thread, and Russia - "a gas station disguised as a country" - is imploding literally this every second. On the basis of that rationalization millions of hard-earned dollars from the tax payers are siphoned from the public coffer and poured into a foreign blackhole EVERY SINGLE DAY while the inflation back at home hits double digit. All that taxpayers get in return is just the endless victory laps over a "victory" as rhetorically oratorized but materially elusive as the food in North Korea's granary.
NO accountability, NO honest debate, No tolerance of dissent, as anyone daring to point at the obvious are immediately shut up and shamed as "Putin apologists". Never thought this is what Canada could have become one day. In terms of Putin's supposed agenda of "destroying democracy", it seems he had lost in Ukraine but unexpectedly won in places his soldiers didn't even set their boots on.
In the meanwhile the political & media elites keep playing the same trick they have been playing for 8 months - promising Ukrainian victory as imminent, predicting Russian defeat as imminent, and demanding money from their own taxpayers with NEITHER promise NOR prediction as to the peace process, which is clearly NOT imminent.
brainwashed shit XD
Good points, but west become dictatorship and it is impossible to hear balanced views. No wonder that 150 countries of the world did not impose sanctions against Russia and are seeking dialog. NATO and a few satellites are pushing hard the narrative of evil Russians.
If you check Russian political videos and experts - there is very little chance of breaking the country into smaller pieces. main reasons are: 1) no previous experience of being standalone subjects (compare to US states or european regions from middle age), 2) no real cultural difference: thought there are many languages and nations, Soviet era legacy of moving people aroung whole country and shared language and cultural code are quite a strong glue, 3) new economics was built on top of Soviet planned economics which means that regions are not really self sustainable - one has heavy machinery, another has agriculture, so together they have much more economic benefits than being out on Russia.
So I think better scenario is to deoccupy Ukrain as soon as possible, which means more support from West and which will be cheaper in the long run, compared to prolonged conflict.
so something that some people are missing is that, the US has not sent any goods or supplies that we don't have reason to. all "money" sent to Ukraine thus far is only "$" on an accounting book. but in reality those "$" are pieces of equipment. the actual monetary aid sent is far less.
what we have sent is:
>outdated Equipment that we are seeking to replace.
>Excess equipment that is nearing its end of life.
>Old equipment and munitions that are ending their maintenance cycle/shelf life or are no longer apart of our doctrine.
>Equipment stored for the purpose of releasing for such a scenario.
>used and new equipment as apart of a lease program.
>courtesy munitions sent under a loan program.
This is all sent on a lend-lease program, meaning we will be paid for it.
Direct monetary aid is sent, but used for things like:
>Training on US/NATO military bases
>Food, Fuel, and Personal Equipment
>Network and Data usage.
>Aid for civilian refugees.
>Aid for solders in the field (medical and medicinal)
>Regular operations of the Government of Ukraine.
In addition we have been overseeing the sale of used or new equipment to our allies, who are dumping their assets on Ukraine either through direct sell, gifting, or lease.
So while I agree that domestic policy is important, from my perspective the US Government has not sent any money that could already be used to resolve domestic issues, and that no monetary amount beyond some minor utility use and necessary operating aid should be sent. the rest should be tacked up on a "you are our friend and ally" loan with generous options for repayment.
the rest is US domestic policy.
By the way, every single thing you mentioned could be replaced by at least the "B-IC" part of the "BRICS" block (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa).
Интересно, если произойдёт desintegration of Russia и падение режима Путина, возможно яо окажется в руках ультра правых и будет применён на территории Украины
Этого Запад и боится. По этой причине и был проведён Будапештский меморандум, чтобы ослабить Украину, боясь что в будущем, ультраправые силы захотят использовать ядерный потенциал для привилегий или шантажа запада.
Так и будет, к бабке не ходи
No country is too big to fail
So, if the US disintegrated, you don't think that would be catastrophic for the world?
That's what the phrase, "Too big to fail." means. It doesn't mean a country can't actually fail.
Those who oppose aid should grow a pair. At the very least a mortal enemy was taken down a peg or two, and all we had to do was supply the firepower. The Ukrainians are doing all the hard work.
Danke!
Thanks very much! Glad you enjoyed the video :-)
so america is battle field testing their own equiptment by proxy?
The last thing they need is more places to test their equipment lol.
They finally admitted it hahaha
Yes
Not really. Nothing the US has sent is state of the art that needed battlefield tests. It’s mostly late cold-war era stuff.
You mean like Russia in Syria?
Hi from Kyiv. As you told us at the beginning of this video - they are Big. But remember what revolution Kolt did in the USA? (He equalized everyone). New weapons - like HIMARS and new tanks from England and the USA- did this. This is not about how they are Big. This is about how they can do war. As a result - 100K are dead, and about 300K are no more warriors. Yes, they are adaptive people (This is a cool argument of the gaslighter, indeed). But as the described result above, you can see that the genuinely adaptive/smart warriors are the ЗСУ (Armed Forces of Ukraine).
PS/ЗЫ:
Please investigate how many Ukrainians were officers at the beginning and at the end of WW2? This is the question.
18.000 dead russian soldiers vs 200.000 ukranian 5.000 nato and 10.000 worldwide mercenariec. Sorry but..what was cost effective again?
@@DJAKONDATM Hahahahahahaha, only in your dreams, pal. Your numbers a totally made up.
@@thomasbaader6629 this are MOSSAD and american numbers. Are you banned from reading the others point of view?) pity
@@DJAKONDATM "this are MOSSAD and american numbers" *No, they are not. I pity you for believing this.*
@@thomasbaader6629 i get this information from Douglas Macgregor, Scott Ritter. american journalists Seymour Hersh and Tucker Carlson. They inform of 257.000 ukranian dead, however MOSSAD declares 157.000, + 5000 nato and 10.000 worldwide..i hope you are able and allowed to find this document of MOSSAD on the net by yourself. Anyway, both sources prove Putins information of 1 to 8 casualty, which is also official russian publication. It is also official 18.000 ukranian military hostages and only 300 russian hostages. Now think. Goodbye
Deal of the century. : )
The west had the same paranoia about the disintegration of the USSR. Yet nothing happened, including in the freshly independent countries with nuclear arsenals.
Western leaders can also decide to stop weapon supplies to Ukraine completely, but they can't really force the country to enter peace negotiations. The internal consensus on continuing the war until all of Ukraine is free is way to strong.
Also, the countries of Eastern and Central Europe propably won't stop helping Ukraine even if Western Europe and North America ask them to. The political wisdom of the latter states regarding Russia is not held in a particularly high regard by the former.