Who benefits more from a long war in Ukraine?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 сен 2023
- This video takes a very detailed look into the politics, economics and military aspects of a projected multi year long war in Ukraine. Which side might benefit more if the war does indeed last for years more?
Our previous video on Russian military increases can be found here:
• Can Russia, despite sa...
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov
You can also browse for other Binkov merch, like T-Shirts, via the store at our website, binkov.com
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / @binkov
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
As a Binkov fan for many years, it hits you differently when he doesn't use the word hypothetical.
"The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions."
-Robert Lynd
First push from Russia with 100k soldiers was only 2 force Ukraine 2 negotiate not accepting NATO and honor Minsk agreement.
yet they predict it every dam time
@@bjornregts8202 that is laughable and you know it. Ukraine offered to be neutral and stay out of NATO but Putin rejected the offer and went to war anyway. Putin literally said he wanted to demilitarize and 'denazify' Ukraine but you know the reason for this genocidal war better than the person who started it? Idiotic. You're acting despicable trying to justify Russia's war to end the Ukrainians as a people. Siding with lies and evil is not good for your soul. Turn around.
Just give up they have very weak consciousness they think what they are being told they can't think for themselves.@@bjornregts8202
@@bjornregts8202ya, and that’s why there now stuck in the mess they can’t win.
"No nation in history has benefited from prolonged warfare" -Sun Tzu
only uncle sam
because tey have a wall of two oceans on either side to protect them@@dogaredeemer2711
there was no america during sun tzu's time so makes sense why he didnt get that one right
@@sussyimpostaer2270 We don't really benefit from our own wars all that much... Now other people's is a different story.
A very well researched and balanced video in my humble opinion, and that might be why many of its commenters haven't watched it or have decided it doesn't fit their perspective. These days we treat everything that doesn't fit our point of view as heresy or blasphemy. We must bring back defending our opponents' ability to say what we didn't like.
Its crazy to think people expect a fast counter attack. As a combat engineer the defense in depth of the last year is DEEP.
Ukraine captured only one village in 3 months losing 40000 KIA for that, why people think that's too much?
@@Gstyle1 So says the Wagnerite - isn't it about time for you to roll over again?
its been over 3 months of counter attacking after a year of planning and getting ready,,,, its a failutre
@@MasterBlasterSr you do understand that the 1 year of planning, applies to Russia as well right? It's not like Russia just sat there doing nothing for 1 year waiting for UA to counter attack.
@@user-yb1wt2mq8c yup thats why the CO failed big time.
One point that needs to mentioned, wars will go static while both sides prepare for the big offensive to when the war. But Ukrainian 'byte and hold' attacks might not look all the effective but they could be more wearing on the Russians than they appear from a distance. The key is 'byte and hold' attacks are not aiming at breakthrough immediately but gain strategic dominance on the battlefield which will either force a withdrawal or counterattacks by the Russians. Both options have there inherent risks.
That might be valid if no man's land was 500kms wide and Russia didn't have both air and artillery superiority. With bite and hold tactics Ukraine is always advancing into prepared positions (the bite) or sitting in unprepared positions where they'll be easy targets for long range guided munitions and drones. For Russia counter attacking it's the opposite, they're either defending in well prepared positions or advancing into the unprepared positions Ukraine had to destroy in order to take.
@@samoldfield5220 lol no.
@@samoldfield5220”Russian air superiority”. Blud managed to nullify his comment from that phrase onwards 💀
How many terrabyte?
One is sitting in their trenches with air cover and higher firepower.Other has to move on open terrain with no air cover.
Anyone reading the comments section is definitely NOT a winner in this war
There are no winners in war, only survivors.
the map graphics on this channel keep getting better and better, great job Binkov!
While American commitments might hing on the 2024 elections, the broader EU support seems to be locked in for several more years now that most such governments have made muiltiyear pledges and arms industry rampups. Worst case you could see support drop to half current levels in the 2025 time frame, if that bullet is dodged then it's clean sailin to 2028, and Ukraine would have made major progress by then.
European support is just a fraction of what the Americans commit. If the US stops providing the Ukrainians are finished.
Most of the aids come from the US. Without the US Ukraine can't stand.
The warmongering WEF-owned leftist governments in power today will be replaced by based conservative governments that will make peace with Russia and don't give a flying fuck about a corrupt Ukraine.
RUclipsrs seem to be making it pretty good off the war in Ukraine. :)
Yesss milking the topic in whatever possible way. Hmm they can milk a bull for that.
You sound jealous.
@@LiezAllLiez Mildly annoyed at the clickbait videos sometimes. Binkov (and a couple others) have done the anti-imperialist US backed shenanigan videos more than a couple times. Reality would be much different if NATO weren't involved and the insinuation they're milking it for dubious reasons is pretty gross. Slow escalation prevents massive retaliation and gives the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world all the yellow lights to back out of the war somehow. Hopefully before their country goes into full collapse and a dozen ex-russian fiefdoms take control of it. Much as I would enjoy Poland rolling steel across Belarus and right up into the middle of Moscow, I also enjoy not having to take iodine pills or wear a radiation suit outside.
@@LiezAllLiez i don't sound, i type
@@GrimnirsGrudge Nobody is going to drop nukes. Thats is all thats certain. This mess can hardly be called a war (even if the media try their damnedest to portray it as dramatic).
As for youtubers profiting from news? Pff. Gotta live off of something.
Binkov is kind of chaotic in his reports, but you can kinda find some interesting stuff in these from time to time. Theres worse youtubers around (or better), who either provide pure propaganda of either side, or promote complete bullshit.
As a Pole i can tell you this, though: were not interested in rolling into Moscow. Were also not interested in helping Ukraine. Were content with sending weapons to the weaker side, and watch ruskies and banderists slaughter each other for our amusement. The longer this war lasts, the better off we will be. Preferably, the war never ends, Ukraine runs out of population, and Russia becomes something of a feudal system, with a total pop of 10 million combined... at which point chances are were going to extend our political influence over them, and whatevers left of the ruins of ruthenia. Sorry, politics arent exactly subtle or pleasant.
India and Vietnam are slowly phasing out their Soviet weapons and opt to Swedish, British, American and German weapons, which is a major blow to russian weapon industry
Lol no they're not
They can check with Turks how great German technology is, especially with all strings attached.
The "ten day special operation" looks more and more like the "thirty year Blitzkrieg" 🤔
The breakthrough to the Azov sea u mean?
@@imperialofficer6185 began in the second year of the ten day special Operation, and while admitedly not that successfull, is still going less bad then the conquest of Kiev.
@@comentedonakeyboard what happened to the beach party in Crimea you were planning though
@@GoofusPlays the same thing that happened to your victory parade in Kiev
Lockheed Martin
Let's not forget Ursula von der Leyen her "Ukraine lost 100.000 serviceman killed" statement like 9 months ago that got deleted. So these numbers are probably worth nothing.
She misspoke and wanted to say 100i casulties. This is much more in line with the most reliable estimates.
@@samuel.andermatt There is a reason why ukrainaian casualties are opaque. Of course NATO knows the exact number, they have a ton of satellites and aerial recon above Ukraine. If they dont publish it, means, it is actually worse than those estimates. But it doesnt really count Ukraine can sustain those numbers, NATO knows it and they dont want to demoralize the troops.
Ukraine is not USA problem fuck Ukraine hope Russia wins .down with one world order
@@donhiggins629 You're a complete fool. It actually is our problem according to the Budapest memorandum, but even if that wasn't the case, the US is making out like a bandit with free advertisement and testing of equipment. The US is selling so much freaking gear like HIMARS, F35s, Javelins, stingers, abrams, etc, etc that it will easily compensate for whatever is spent on Ukraine. Meanwhile, Europe switched to buying huge amounts of US LNG. On top of that, the US is building a coalition and alliance of nations against tyrants and dictators. Truly your ignorance knows no bounds.
@@gaborrajnai6213at least early in the war Ukraine was "caught" inflating their loss numbers since this would better encourage countries to support them, outside of Ukraine or Russia it's mostly just educated guesses based on visual losses and as for Russian numbers I think it'd be more sensible to use a random number generator than to listen to "official" russian loss numbers.
What I will say is that Russia losing more than Ukraine is pretty reasonable, based on all visual losses, troop replacements and on the apparent lack of casualty evacuation.
China is the only geopolitical actor making a killing here. India to a lesser degree is also taking advantage.
China is taking advantage where they can yes, but it severely damages China as Russia opened the eyes of the republics to the illusion of a peaceful world with consolidated dictatorships. They are divesting from China economically in a long term move. His economy is collapsing as it’s hidden weaknesses cause it to crumble.
Im pretty sure 80% of the people watching your videos dont really follow the war on a neutral "sight". People in the comments just make shit up with no source or any explanation
Longest 3 day operation ever
3 DAYS -- 19 MONTHS OF GETTING PUMMELED BY FARMERS WITH PITCH FORKS LOL 🤪🤪🤪🇺🇦
As an additional point of interest that Binkov didn't look in to here is the matter of how quickly both sides are losing equipment and how able to they are to replace it. Which in this case seems to cast a rather long shadow over Russia who only seems to be able to make 100-200 tanks a year. Certainly their reserves of another few thousand tanks max will carry them a bit further. But what they'll do once they are out of tanks though is certainly quite the question.
I suppose one could in theory fight with out them, but more infantry heavy forces are quite a bit more vulnerable to attacks and it causes the loss ratios to become even more lopsided then they already were against Russia.
Another issue is how long term artillery production projections for Russia aren't looking so good. Meaning they'll find it increasingly hard every year to continue to dominate Ukraine with artillery and possibly could end up even being out fired instead.
This too is not a good position to be in, especially if your force is becoming more infantry centric as well.
Very true. It's easier for the West to give Ukraine a replacement tank than it is for Ukraine to try and recover and repair damaged equipment from an active Battlefield. Russia has no such benefactors.
Yep. It's a crucial gap in the analysis. The economic thoughts on Russia are also far too sanguine. The Russian wealth fund absolutely will NOT last for years at current spending levels for example. In reality if current expenditure levels continue it will run out late this year or early next year.
Russia can kick the economic can down the road a bit by turning on the printing presses, but that will only buy a few months.
Reality is that Russia has already shown signs of having to ration things like precision guided missiles. It has also shown signs of having to ration artillery fire missions as well. Its shell production simply cannot keep up with demand. Nor can gun barrel production and that is far harder to increase than shell production. The recent talks with North Korea graphically illustrate that point.
Even if Russia can throw 2 million men in, if those two million men are only armed with a rifle they will be almost useless on the modern battlefield and will be exterminated as a result.
According to Ukraine and logic, Ukraine loses way more men than Russia, at least 2:1. Why? According to Ukrainian commander zalushny Russians have 5-10:1 artillery advantage. Artillery decides your kill ratio. So it's clear that Ukraine must be losing more men than russia
@@davidpnewtonwell.. I dont know if you heard, after their counteroffensive basically failed Ukraine switched from armored assaults to small infantery troops (often only 5-25 men) advancing and has seen significantly more success since then. So just soldiers with rifles seems to work better in this war than tanks
@@bjornborg4849 Artillery does not determine a kill ratio LMAO
WHAT THE HELL KINDA 12 YEAR OLD GAMER NONSENSE LOGIC IS THAT
Artillery was responsible for 75% of casualties in both sides in WWI. But less than 10% of US Casualties in Vietnam. And 0% of US Casualties in both Iraq wars.....
Let's see general dynamics, mcdonell douglas, boing, rinemetal. You get the drift.
Russia shouldn't worry, it has the military and economic powerhouse of North Korea as an ally now.
I legitimately can't tell if this is a pro- russian cope or just taking the piss out of them...
North Korea has one of the largest artillery arsenals in the world
History legends viewers are all over the comment section.
lol always are. some of us check out piles of content to keep informed =)
Copestory legends you mean
They're sc*m that doesn't even own up to being proudly pro russian and pro putin. Hiding their ideology like their little Canadian anti woke armchair general himself.
@@janeisklar3923 WTF? the Troll army is Canadian? And you are ....Russian?
@@Neeboopshif you watch history legends, you’re undoubtably misinformed.
I'll save you 27 min
The military industrial complex does
Despite what hundreds of trolls have written below, I think you've done a good and credible job with inherently imprecise data. Good job, Binkov. Let the snarky replies commence...
fascist ukraine is not a country, and supporting putin means supporting peace
US Military Industries, Oil & Gas companies will benefit from it. The stocks for those companies in the stock market is the proof
In the end, war only serves purposes of Zios. They have planned a long time ago elimination of Europeans, and spread of their vile, satanic propaganda. Now they have isolated Russia, as only country standing in their way.
@@aleksazunjic9672 Get yer tin foil hat out lad
@@aleksazunjic9672 The long no ses will fail as usual. They paid a very high price for their idiotism and psychopathy in the period of the Roman Empire and from 1933 to 1945 most recently. I am foreseeing the same happening again. The definition of lunacy ... . trying something over and over and expecting a different result
@@SworBeyE16 Go drink your cool aid buddy , be a good little Zio sheep, and avoid disturbing topics like this one 😆
@@aleksazunjic9672 I think you need to get out more
A better question might be not who benefits more, but who suffers less from a long war.
And also: what are you trying to say and what are you offering to the sufferers? As I understand it, these are Ukrainian residents, right?
@@yakovlevskiy what I'm saying is that a long war does not benifit ANYONE. Well, maybe Lockheed-Martin shareholders. It will cost all parties. The question is who it will cost most.
@@Passance in the end, what? Your suggestion what to do with the war?
@@RobertLutece909 what's yours?
@@RobertLutece909 confused? What are your suggestions for sufferers anyway?
Great work as always Binkov, Your comment section is as lovely as ever lol.
Short answer: The US
Long answer: The US military industrial complex, Blackrock and Vanguard, and the US itself
US didn't invade Ukraine. Russia did. Russia is the warmonger this time.
@@DarkFilmDirector , we talking about benefits, aren't we?
@@DarkFilmDirectorthat is not invasion, that is preemptive strike, courtesy of Bush Jr.
China. You forgot how China benefits greatly from this war. Russia is slowly becoming its junior partner.
This war is a existential to Russia, and to the U.S. this is a defense contractors dream.
"this is a defense contractors dream." It might be BUT you have to face the facts that those defense contractors are A LOT less compared to WW2 era. Many of the companies had closed and currently the ability/speed in production is nothing compared to WW2 and the years after that.
Just saying stuff at the surface, "defense contractors dream" is very shallow without the facts that there arent many of those industries left currently.
Russia has nukes. Its not existential.
It's only an existential threat to Russia because Russia's flagrantly criminal actions have convinced its neighbors that they can never be safe until Russia is crippled or at least contained.
US is just a puppet of Zios, and unfortunately war is going well for them. Around half of million Ukrainians and 50 000 Russians have died. Less European Whites, Russia as only semi-independent country isolated from Europe, further zombification of European population.
@@brucetucker4847 There is nobody more criminal than the US Administration. They are prosecuting their leading opponent, laundering money, arresting innocent people, murdering prisoners.... In the recent past, they murdered millions of civilians in unnecessary wars. But there are still many fools who believe in the fake liberal democracy and totalitarian corruption they serve
How are your comment sections always so toxic?
Because he's talking about a literal war, and there's an absolute TON of accounts (typically sock puppets) on both sides of the conflict explicitly there to go out and push propaganda whenever something discussing said literal war is brought up. And Binkov's comment section is comparatively lightly moderated by the channel.
maybe because there is no active censorship unlike other english speaking yt channels?
Russian bots
@@Mr.Dodo- If only the bots were just Russian.
VERY good video. But....
The pandemic recovery fund ($886 B) being much larger than Ukraine aid ($75 B) _seems_ like a good argument. Until you realise that the EU had to pay both in quick succession. Paying hundreds of billions for the pandemic means hundreds of billions less that they could pay Ukraine. And doesn't include the cost of living crisis going on in the EU. Financial support for Ukraine might be a lower amount, but it also might be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Next, ramping up military aid isn't just a dollar amount.
For example, USA might have a near endless supply of tanks to send over. But they have already reached their comfortable limit on 155 mm artillery shells. That's why they have started sending cluster munitions. USA has already ramped up 155mm shell production. But projections for 2025 production rate is still lower than Ukraine usage rate.
"it also might be the straw that broke the camel's back"
I see no indication that that's the case. The European economy is in better shape than it was during the pandemic despite the difficulties. To me it seems clear that at least keeping the level of expenditure incurred so far can be sustained for a long time.
@@seneca983 😂😂
EU inflation
2018 = 1.87%
2019 = 1.44%
2020 = 0.68%
2021 = 2.89%
2022 = 9.32%
2023 = 6.31% so far.
Source: Statista
Also, the EU didn't have a "cost of living crisis" during the pandemic.
@@shanerooney7288 GDP and unemployment were worse during the pandemic. I think those matter more for whether this level of expenditure to aid Ukraine can be sustained. I don't see a reason why it couldn't go on for a long time. A bit of inflation (which is coming down) hardly changes that).
The shutdown during the pandemic was NOT sustainable, so how is that evidence that the war IS sustainable?
The EU hasn't recovered since the pandemic. What is happening now is _on top of_ what has already happened.
Not to mention that the nature of the two are completely different. A factory that gets shut down because of government policy is very different from a factory that gets shut down from soaring energy prices.
And while inflation has lowered since the 2022 peak, it is still _more than triple_ the 2018/2019 rate.
I don't understand your arguement at all
@@shanerooney7288 "The shutdown during the pandemic was NOT sustainable"
But the comparison was to the pandemic recovery fund, not the shutdown. $75 billion is about 0.4% of the EU's GDP. That level of expenditure should be sustainable as long as the political will is there.
"The EU hasn't recovered since the pandemic."
I disagree. Unemployment rate in the EU is already *below* *the* *pre-pandemic* *levels* and has only gone down, not up, since the beginning of the current invasion. I'd argue that unemployment is usually a better indicator of how the economy is doing than inflation. (Admittedly, one thing that made lowering the unemployment rate easier is that it was rather on the high side earlier. However, I'd still say things have improved significantly since the pandemic despite the high inflation.)
"And while inflation has lowered since the 2022 peak, it is still more than triple the 2018/2019 rate."
Inflation back then was arguably *too* *low* to be healthy to the economy. At least it was below the ECB's 2% target.
And if you think the rate of inflation determines what rate of expenditure to aid Ukraine is sustainable doesn't that mean that if inflation continues to go down the expenditure should at least become easy to afford somewhere during 2024?
I would also like to point out that the *pre-invasion* inflation level in Russia was higher than current Eurozone inflation (and temporarily shot even higher once invasion started). Would you have predicted that that would make the much higher expenditure associated with war unsustainable?
Without even watching the video I can answer the title question. Arms manufacturers and dealers, mercenaries and politicians. Same as every war.
Don't forget the bankers. They're making a nice 300% profit.
Finally a good answer, the only winners are raytheon lockheedmartin and more
@@NeostormXLMAX Weird how krembots seem to always forget Ukraine from the equation, as if Russia brutally annexing ukrainian territory is just an afterthought. As if USA aiding Ukraine to fight for its territorial integrity is not worth mentioning. In your brain, it’s all about $$$
This clip overall was meaningless and a waste of time, I expect better, higher standards from this creator. The whole clip can be summarized as a nothingburger and boring.
I have no issue with the dialectal faults, Blinkov overall have a good tone in his speaking voice so is ok to listen to.
Also I would have liked and inclusion of the latest data about 500k losses for Ukraine that Ukraine accidentally leaked themselves.
The answer is military supply manufacturers
The thing though is this war is cheap for the West since no one is dying, USA did Iraq and Afgan war at the same time all while having its own die for over ten years. The military aid in equipment is things already made and paid for years ago finally getting used, sometimes being able to remove old inventory is an asset in itself now new things have room. The Afgan war took over 20 years for the USA to withdraw even when they won the war, so the question is can Russia afford a 20 year long war with higher deaths and GDP to military spending?
I don't know if Russia can afford a 20 year long war, but you are nuts if you think the west will support Ukraine for even half that time.
Countries are already getting sick of dumping out billions of dollars, especially since Ukraine making little to no progress. Not to mention the economic situation is crap since Biden took office.
Depending on who wins the election in the US in 2024, we may see the US stop sending aid altogether. So your 20 year question/comments is kind of pointless.
Benefactors most to least are:
1- China: every penny spent by Russia or the west in the war is a penny not spent on the economies of those countries while China is getting ahead economically every day.
2- Gulf countries: hikes in energy prices are really good for Gulf countries economically and it’s diverting focus of foreign players from the region to Ukraine while giving the Gulf more and more leverage in the world stage as a major oil and gas supplier.
3- Russia: it has kickstarted a global movement to a new world order that will take time but it’s getting there. It gained much more sympathy from the global south. It has been seen standing up to NATO in a proxy war for 2 years now and it hasn’t been damaged economically at least as much as lots of people would like to think despite thousands of sanctions.
4- India: it’s playing everyone for its benefit and have gained a bigger role on the international stag forming new partnerships on both sides.
5- the U.S: it stalled progress for both Russia and Europe, it’s military industrial Complex is really happy, it used the war as an excuse to mast hiking the interest rates while the real reason was printing $12 trn so it blamed Russia for causing inflation all over the world instead of the actual reason of U.S economic policies. Finally when a U.S president enters a new war he usually gets reelected.
USA is number one. Meanwhile EU is running into massive losses, like German vassals. Benefits for Russia are very miniscule.
@@51Sable US benefit in short term. such as pull EU back to its allies. but on long run, US push Russia to China. and that may cost US losing all in long term.
China is surpassing US very quick economically and militarily. US got only 5-7 years to actually slow down China. but US haven't made any success movement towards China.
and from the techs war you can see China can produce 7nm chips all by itself meanwhile US even can't. the real boss for US is definitely China. US same to China.
I agree with you, i also like the order, but, i could increment more things, much more groups and nations gonna take advantage of these events
It's incredible the amount of russian propaganda in this comment section.
It's specifically targeted at an american audience I noticed
Or the other way around?
the facts are on the russian side nowadays. ukies are 21st century nazis.
@@kjererrt7804🤡
@@kjererrt7804 Oh come on! Everybody knows that you are lying, and you know that everybody knows, so why keep doing it?
You're out of touch
I'm out of time
But I'm out of my head when you're not around
You're out of touch
I'm out of time (time)
But I'm out of my head when you're not around
Oh oh oh oh oh oh
Gotta say that 150k ukrainian casualties is a very pro ukrainian take, they took around 70k casualties just during 4months long Zaporizhie offensive
That’s very pro Russian take, any proof?
@@bekachapell7225 CIA admitted that privately.
Ukrainian phone company social advertisement which said "400k Ukrainian warriors will never call their relatives anymore" - that ad was quickly erased by Ukrainian government.
Tomorrow one of top Ukrainian mobilisation officers said "Out of all mobilised in 2022, only 10-20% are left in the line, sometimes even less, depending of the unit, the rest are either dead, injured or out of service for other issues like mental, etc" That officer, as well, set to be fired from service for saying the truth.
If there are 400k KIA, imagine how many injured, crippled, got mad, so
Ukrainian total casualties must be around 1 million now. That's proven by Zelenski starting to mobilise mentally ill, people with AIDS, tuberculosis, hepatitis. Ukraine now even prohibited some women from leaving the country and preparing to mobilise them. Also Ukraine now having 12 or 13th mobilisation, while Russia only had 1 mobilisation in 1.5 years.
@@mrobocop1666 proof please?
@@mrobocop1666"Source - my source is I made it the fuck up"
@@bekachapell7225there are satellite pics of mass Ukrainian graves 🤷♂️. Idk why you want “proof”. If Ukrainians weren’t dying in mass quantities they’d have won by now. That’s proof enough. The Russians put a bunch of bombs between them and the Ukrainians. They then retreated to behind the bombs. The Ukrainians are all getting blown up by the bombs. That’s why they move like 300 feet a day and keep dying on masse. We can’t trust the media in the west. It’s propaganda just like Russian media. We can only guess what’s happening based on hearing both propagandas and splitting the difference 🤷♂️. “Russia is winning” says Russia propaganda. “Ukraine is winning” says MSNBC. Im splitting the difference and assume neither is really winning since the line hasn’t moved
Politicians, weapons manufacturers and bankers. Everyone else loses.
The media people do ok
Easy starting a war
Hard getting out of war
Its ironic, for a marriage its exactly the opposite but for the same reason. Declaring war, or getting a divorce does not require both parties to agree, but peace and marriage does.
According to my computer. The cause of the end of the Ukraine-Russian war was because of an alien invasion.
Viva la Résistancemoment
The real answer to the tile's question is Lockheed Martin :)
Add to that Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics :)
And Raithion
And Rostec, and Rheinmetall, and Sukhoi, and Mesko, and Uralvagonzavod, and...
...Who would've thought that companies that make weapons benefit from people needing weapons :/
The longer this war goes on the more crippled Ukraine will be at the end.
Huge portions of the population that left will likely not return while emigration will increase as soon as martial law is over. Not to speak about the skyrocketing national debt and constantly increasing reconstruction costs... Coming back from this will be extremely hard if possible at all.
People said the same for Germany after 1945. Russia this time around will be screwed though
@@danielstruwig3078 Yes, but Ukraine is not Germany. They had 30 years to do something about their country. The scumbags stole everything they could and now go around begging for money
@@gdiwolverinemale4ththey learned the Russian system of corruption.
They can't give up the fight or else there won't be a Ukrainian alive in Ukraine in a century because Russia has nothing but genocide on its mind.
Europe recovered from both world wars, longest game of chicken and recently pandemic.
Ukraine will be fine.
@@0El_Presidente0who needs enemies with friends like US?
The western military aid to Ukraine is two birds with one stone. Let's suppose a Nato member donates for $500M worth of equipment, it is its military that supplies that (almost obsolete) equipment from its stocks. The military gets reimbursed for that worth from the budget line that assigned the country's promised aid to Ukraine. Then that military has to resupply its own stocks, so they'll take the opportunity to replace with upgraded equipment.
So basically, a country's aid to Ukraine has in fact been an increase of the country's defense (modernisation) budget, more than just throwing it to Ukraine.
Another form also applied is that the aid comes as discount vouchers to be 3xclusively spent at the donating country's own defense manufacturing industry. E.g. 'Natonia' donating $100M worth of 'natonian' hightech anti-tank missiles IF Ukraine orders those for $200M.
Politicians opposing any governmental foreign aid, military or economic, do not (seem to) understand that such aid is (intended to) primarily support the country's own economy and military. That it helps others is secondary.
It is similar to banks: they loan out money firstly because they make a profit from it, secondarily because the borrowers needs it and can put it to good use. It is a classic win-win.
its three birds with one stone: you also flex on your peasants by sending their taxes abroad instead of disaster relief
@@iraeis7267when your a rich country, you can do both.
Unless you think tanks, artillery shells and other war materials are great for cleaning up after disasters or something 😂
@@iraeis7267 What are you on about, Sergei? Disaster relief operations are ongoing in Hawaii. The fact that a miniscule amount of money conpared to the amount the US spends on defense has been sent to Ukraine doesn't mean there is no money for disaster relief.
In fact, "Last week, President Biden made additional disaster funding available to the state of Hawaiʻi, unlocking the federal government's ability to cover all eligible expenses for debris removal and emergency protective measures in Maui County and assistance for emergency protective measures for Hawaiʻi County."
Also: "The National Guard completed 58 aerial water drops totaling more than 100,000 gallons of water within five hours the day after the fires began. The Coast Guard aided in the rescue of 14 people, the Defense Department said.
As of Aug. 15, nearly 500 federal personnel had been dispatched to Maui to assist those in need, according to a White House fact sheet.
The U.S. has provided more than just military assistance as well.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency deployed personnel, authorized payments for those displaced from their homes and provided meals, water and shelter supplies.
The Department of Transportation worked with commercial airlines to evacuate tourists from Maui, and the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture are prepared to support post-fire recovery efforts, Biden said in his Aug. 9 statement."
Yes Raytheon, BAE, General Dynamics, Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street are all winning big.
@@yoelmio533 I haven't heard of anyone sounding grateful in Maui or east Palestine. You sound like you could be Biden's press secretary tho.
Is Flint Michigan's water fix yet?
The real battle is here in the comments.
100 Years ago, Winston Churchill famously said, "A Hun alive is a war in prospect." While his exact words have been proven wrong, the concept is still true, both for Russia and the U.S.A. Both nations have a habit of making war. Russia does so to take land. America does so to evaluate equipment. That, and take names.
America does take Land and resources too, lmao
@@DefinitelyNotEmma what was the last time the US annexed a foreign territory?
@@olegdemianenko3054 De facto? Afghanistan was occupied, so was Iraq, the latter definitely due to resources (oil). The US constantly goes to war to secure strategic locations and critical resources.
@@DefinitelyNotEmma De facto - only the Iraq war can be considered here since the war in Afghanistan was pretty much an international effort, with dozens of countries sending their missions there. Afghanistan at that time was controlled by the Islamic State/Taliban and Al-Qaeda, both terrorist organizations that captured nearly 90% of the country by 2001.
Definitely Northrup-Grumman and Lockheed Martin. Not to mention all the Russian companies like Kalashnikov concern and Sukhoi.
Russian weapon industry are losing buyers like India, Vietnam as a result of unexpected bad performance on battlefield of russian weapons, which is a major blow to russian weapon industry
@@poli6884 do you think the stockholder care? They are getting their money, doesn't matter from who.
@@poli6884Not true. India and vietnam are continuing to buy Russian weapons. And bad performance? 🤣🤣🤣 Are you talking about NATO vehicles and equipment, because those are what are performing badly and losing sales
@@kalajari1749so far several thousand Russian pieces of armor have been destroyed on both sides. Less than 100 western ifv/tanks.
@@W1ldSm1leof course, when Western armor is nowhere to be seen. UK send only 14 Challenger 2s and 1 got destroyed very quickly. In other words: once s*it hit the fan, great UK technology proved to be no so great. NATO tanks are vulnerable to same kinds of attack as Russian tanks. I will change my mind when I see latest M1 or Leo 2 surviving hit by Javelin from above.
That sucks to be Russia .There is no way left to withdraw honorably. Either has to use unconditional ways to win the war or just stay at where it still is and pray some magics happen.
Victory is a retarded notion. This is the End and the Death for Putin and Russia
I wish I can go back in time to Industrialized and give Gunpowder Weapons to Dark Age Poland!!!
@@christiandauz3742🤣
@@Human95
Russian troll. Blocked
I hope Putin sends you to Bakhmut without toilet paper
There was nothing honorable about Russian policy and Western concepts like honor is not a concern to Russians even when dealing with each other. Russia is NOT EUROPEAN in culture nor was it ever.
@@Comm0ut cry more
There's a paper written by some American Diplomat in the early 90's discussing how the US could crush Russia. Essentially they said that they would induct the most productive eastern EU nations into Nato and when Russia invades whoever is left they would invest enough money to keep the war going as long as possible to drain Russian resources and manpower. They also discusses dangling Nato membership as an incentive but they would never actually get in.
That sounds so much like Ted Shackley...
There is a false assumption of offensive = more casualties, an extreme example where this is not true was the US in Manilla in WW2. Here the US lost one life for every 17 Japanese killed, this was storming a city.
The reason for this was extreme defensive attacks where they would rather blow a building up rather then storm it. Ukraine don't have that extreme mismatch in artillery, but the do in many areas have a significant advantage.
It's a weapons testing ground for future sales!
That is for sure, AND we get to see vs. of weapons
@@dlcolossus9127 yeah. Like the Russian T-14 Armata vs The American M1A2 Abram 😎🤝✨
@@platinumofthesouth9557 nah, throw in that new one, Abrams X
This is fascism! When war and death for commercial profit!
All in all a fairly balanced video, the political climate and economics, although not quite accounting for internal differences, looks to me to be well-researched. It's a feat given the discourse on the internet regarding this horrible conflict.
There are certain caveats that weren't explored that I think might affect the conclusion notably, though.
(Long wall of text-warning)
1. I'd like to know where the historical figure of 'half the wounded return to the battlefield' is based upon. There is a chance that due to various factors like training/tactics, weaponry, logistics and quality of healthcare available on both sides, the figures of this war might be notably different for each side from this record, which would have a significant effect on the total attrition. Especially if in a prolonged war said factors would change significantly.
2. The population influx on both sides does have to take in account the flight of these populations from said countries, and the change over time of their birth demographics. Both countries suffered notable migration during the war, although for different reasons, so the actual replenishment rate would also depend on how much of this 'replenisment' emigrated before they became eligible for combat, and how much returned. It also depends on what parts of the population can be mobilised without too much internal/economical upheaval, as recruitment rates vary wildly within the Russian Federation. _Theoretically_ Russia might lose a smaller fraction of their birth rate overall, but it might be a considerably larger size of the birth rates of those its government finds suitably expendable. It might be likely that the government would over time try to make more totalitarian turns to politically allow a larger part of the population to be mobilised without internal destabilisation, but it is hard to tell how succesful that would be and how many additional soldiers it could provide (and the economic impact of it).
3. Russia's monetary reserves are not only used to plug the budget deficit, but also to defend the Ruble to avoid its value plummeting. How long the Russian state can afford this depends on credit lines, but also their foreign curreny reserves and available assets amongst others. The rate by which those get depleted probably is a better indicator for how long Russia could sustain the war. The value of the Ruble also affects the deficits, especially due to the increased imports required during the war, moreso if they were paid for in foreign currencies like RMB or rupees. If the value drops further, the costs of these would increase and the deficit would widen for the same amount of materials. If however for some reason a vast amount of your personnel involved in production is fighting or fled the country, it will increase the need for imports to replace your loss in production capacity.
Ukraine's situation makes it far less affected by dwindling production due to pledges and captured weaponry, and will get economic support to help plug the deficit. Economic support is also in USD/Euro/Yen... which could affect the balance in different ways. Pledges would go a longer distance for a Hryvnia losing value, but loans would have worsening interest rates as well. Bombardment of its electricity grid and grain exports also puts additional strain on Ukraine's budget (although it cost Russia diplomatically as well).
Side note/thought experiment here: it might help stabilise the value of the Hryvnia (and the interest rate of loans) if countries/institutions would for the time being pledge to be a guarantor of (some of) Ukraine's (war) debts. This seems unlikely though, for multiple reasons: western economies are somewhat sputtering, political capacity (Orban would certainly block the EU doing so, for example), political/diplomatic implications (e.g. moral hazard), risk of leaking military secrets...
It would be another indirect way of subsidising one's military industry though, allowing a country to loan more money to buy what your own companies produce.
the RUclipsr inside Russia has said that Russia intends to forgive debts of men who signed up to serve/be mobilized and i believe he said that this pool of people was at like 13 million
How is it a balanced video when all the death and casualty numbers cited comes directly from the US and CIA affiliated sources? And he never once cites the Russian estimate for deaths on both sides?
@@xblade11230 lol, its from a US leak not meant for public knowledge. and you want Russian number? the authoritarian shithole that has a massive track record of lying? 🤣 clearly you don't know how to source information and very very likely misinformed in whatever you believe in
@@xblade11230 i wonder why he never cites the russian estimate for deaths
the russian estimate: 5 russians died today, 800000 ukrainians wounded or killed
@@xblade11230I remember when it was like 7 months into the invasion and Russia admitted to like 1.000 KIA. Gee, so I wonder why we don’t trust russian official sources 🫢
Sending material support to Stalin was a serious mistake. Hitler was bad but Stalin was 10x worse.
While I agree we shouldn't have sent the Soviets any support. Hitler was genocidal. He wanted to kill everyone who wasn't a proper Aryan in his eyes. Everyone who wasn't German if he thought he could get away with. Hitler worse if your anyone who isn't German where as Stalin was terrible for everyone.
The Soviet Union might have collapsed if the US and Britain didn't help the Soviets so much. While the war would have lasted longer odds are the USA and Britain would have beaten Germany who would be struggling to maintain control of all its conquered territories.
I agree that Stalin was worse. However, I'm not convinced Hitler was bad. I think Churchill was a monster, though even he didn't compare to Stalin.
@@YoTubBear so you're quite literally a Nazi? at least you're proud to say it out loud
@@YoTubBear Churchill is yet to have genocide pinned on him....
@@currawong60911368 Benghal famine?
🎶But I'm out of my head when you're not around🎶😔
Definitely Azerbaijan, this conflict tie both Russia and France hand from intervering in the side of Armenia.
Politically it is costly for France to support Ukraine territorial integrity while neglecting Azerbaijan one and it would be disaster for Russia to support Armenia because Azerbaijan would flooding oil&gas market to crush Russian Economy
Something to consider. The soviets sent their army to Afghanistan in 1979 and annouced an exit in 1987 and finalised in 1989. So that lasted 8 years into annoucing withdrawal and 10 into actually that happening. So that might give some indication on how long the russians might be willing to endure this.
Yes, it is. Your suggestions?
Russian dead are already probably around 250000. Much larger number than in Aghanistan after ten years.
Russia isn't the Soviet Union.
@@yakovlevskiy Don't have any. I do hope Ukraine will endure and west keeps on supporting them and even raising the amount as well. But it seems that russians in general are quite apathetic towards politics and are not very likely to revolt any time soon. Mainly the image of person sweeping the ground next to tank operated by wagner to suppress Russian military comes to mind.
Edit: Also what matters is attrition. How much material both sides lose and can replace. That will affect how intensive the war is going to continue. Russia currently is using the Soviet legacy a lot while Ukraine is supplied by west. How this will change in future is unknown. I don't think either side runs out, but it can affect intensity.
Soviet Union ≠ Russia and Afghanistan ≠ Ukraine
"Run, run, as fast as you can. You can't catch me, I'm the gingerbread man", said the 18 year old Russian gingerbread man after receiving a conscription email.
then he discovered there was nowhere he could run to.
@jordansmith4040 ah yes, he should have ran like a good chunk of the population before the last draft
This war will be like Iran-Iraq war.
Neither Iran nor Iraq was a nucliar state.
When Russians realize that they are pushed too much at the corner they will nuc the shits of everybody.
This war is not even close to either Afghanistan or Vietnam war.
We are all hostages here.
so far the biggest loser is actually armenia it has been isolated with its issues with azerbijan and turkey has been able to become mkre agressive becsuse of russian weakness.
BIG thanks to the author. If so many bots are targeting your channel, that means that you are doing great!
Please continue!
💙💛
Make a video if possible about the s-400 2 systems destroyed in the last 3 weeks is crazy.
What S-400 destroyed? Keep dreaming 😂
There's literally video of them being destroyed@@Gstyle1
the hit old S300 launcher @@user-xp5id1kh4r
@@user-xp5id1kh4r arma 3 footage from the gist of qyiv 🤡🤣
If you are surprised by this you're hilarious. Everything can and will be destroyed in a war. We lost 2 stealthy F-117s to Serbian SAM from the 1960s.
Oh so now it’s a long war.
WOW!!! We went from, "Russia will crumble any day now" to "Ukraine just needs to make some meaningful gains over the next couple YEARS!" PEACE. NOW. 🙏🏼
Ukraine doesnt want peace.. If they want to fight lets help them fight. This whole war could be over but the west is definitely wanting a forever war for the military industrial complex to profit. Russia will eventually collapse. Teo decades from now their demographics will mean they have 2-3 pensioners per working age individual. That is not sustainable and the more young men they lose the worse that will be.
@@SamtheIrishexanI don't think they will be losing any more men. They have realized the mistakes they committed during the offensive and have made new and better strategies. This was expected to happen. It's not like Russia would keep on continuously losing their troops and Ukraine would end up capturing Moscow. No, it does not work like that. Multiple sources are indicating that the Ukrainians are dying in large numbers now against the Russians during the offensive.
Comparing US GDP figures to previous US conflicts is misleading. In those other conflicts the US was directly involved--in other words, US soldiers were directly involved. So US was paying the enormous cost of supporting its soldiers and providing equipment. In Ukraine the US is only providing equipment. You should instead compare US aid to Ukraine versus other instances when US provided aid but did not have its soldiers involved. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Exactly; the cost vs benefits is insanely in USA’s favor here. Dirt cheap to fight and cripple a major geopolitical rival.
Still, the point is that it is "investing" only fraction of what it could, and did in the past. Especially if you take into account constant russian babbling that they are in war with collective West. The West doesn't seem to think so, and these numbers are proof.
Your average American do not support this war...
@@pauly5421the hell we don’t. Helping Ukraine has been the best use of my tax money Ives seen in years 👍🇺🇸
@@pauly5421exactly. We all want Putin to just go home.
More than anything, the main thing I've been keeping an eye on lately is the loss numbers for artillery systems the russian forces are using.
The current russian defence strategy seems to be: wait for forces to slow down/stop to cross a minefield, then hit them with artillery, it's what has produced most of the losses.
Before the counteroffensive artillery was at single digits per day confirmed losses, since it's gotten into full swing those numbers have jumped to the mid 20s systems lost per day, which even for russia, with a huge soviet stockpile of old guns, is entirely unsustainable, both in terms of replacements and physically moving them to the front lines.
It also means that things like SPGs are being replaced by towed artillery and towed artillery replaced by even older guns; slower to transport, less accurate and easier to hit in response.
Asking "who benefits more" is an odd way to frame the question of what happens in a longer war. Russia NEEDS the war to drag on in order to have any hope of success, but the sacrifices they will be forced to make will be huge so I would not call that "benefitting". UKR would obviously prefer defeating Russia sooner rather than later.
A better question might be, "which side will have more endurance in a longer war?"
Well Ukraine has forbidden negotiations with Putin, so they seem to be more interested in war than peace. Basically, from a game theory perspective, at this point, both sides think a peace deal will give them a worse outcome than continuing to fight. Who of them is right? Hard to say.
Very comprehensive. Thank you for informing us on this important world issue!
This Ukraine and Russia conflict is a long grinding war, the likeness of World War One Trench Warfare 1914-1918
Short reply: USA
It should also be mentioned that the West is getting a very valuable weapons test ground in the war. Also, Western war industries are making more money than in many yrs.
An added bonus is that the Russian military is crumbling and will never recover, with only "minimal" Western financial investments.
On the other hand, the so-called military industrial complex is very unpopular in the West (especially in the US), and growing number of "skeptics" both in the left and the right demand more emphasize/spending on domestic matter, rather than "wasting" taxpayers money (in the form of military equipment or direct monetary aid) on Ukraine.
Some Western politicians (e.g. some US presidential candidates, Italian PM, Hungarian PM, etc) even think (or implying) that it is wiser to have some rapprochement with Russia in light of growing Chinese economic and military influence over Russia and East Asia.
Ukraine needs some great diplomats, as well as exceptional commanders and soldiers if they want to retake Crimea and Donbass.
Russia is the number one adversary to EU hegemony in Europe. Sending off aging equipment that’s only purpose was to oppose Russia anyways and not even having to lose any manpower or go into the economic turmoil associated with war is an amazing deal lol
US and EU get a 2 for 1 deal if they help Ukraine push Russia out. It'll make the CCP seriously reconsider whether to take Taiwan by force.
They havent pushed out anything making that scenario more likely
I would think if you want to make the Chinese not invade then you end the Ukrainian war as quickly as possible to show them the idiocy of trying an invasion. Instead, if you want the Chinese to bleed, then you do exactly what is going on now. The question the US leadership is probably asking themselves is if it makes sense to scare China into not attacking or to bleed them dry and destroy their Navy while doing it.
It'll probably only make the CCP go on the war footing even faster.
@@pietero.o6792 Helping to push out almost 50% of what Russia captured since 24th feb. 2022 is quite an achievement
Also getting two new NATO additions in the north as the arctic icecaps shrink is a long term geopolitical and global economic win.
The Ukraine war started in March 2014.
24 hours after nazi poroshenko was sworn in.
@@nbell5050You mean after Ruzzonazi Yanukovych fled the country and got unanimously impeached for taking bribes from Putin to stay out of the EU.
@@nbell5050do you know what nazi means? Stop using the terms you don't understand.
@@x_and_e oh I'm sorry I meant to say neo-nazi. New nazi not the old ones. There, I fixed my mistake.
@@nbell5050 lol. You are mixing things up again.
The military industrial complex. Thats like asking if grass is green.
What does it matter if Russia can sustain it's military production if it's military production can't replenish its losses? Except for drones and individual soldier gear, everything it has has been worsening, while Ukraine is just getting more powerful.
Ukraine has lost Millions of people, and there is always the possibility of western support getting pulled if this goes on long enough, sorta like vietnam.
@@AveryFB Ok sure, but that has already been covered in the video.
My point, however, is both important and has been strangely omitted, which makes the analysis in the video lacking.
@@thearpox7873 What do you mean? People? They have more people than Ukraine? Or you mean equipment?
@@AveryFB Can you clarify which part of my post confuses you?
@@thearpox7873 I suppose I don't understand what you mean by loses.
American weapon makers will benefit.
But not Russian ones?
Here's some wisdom take every source with a grain of salt
My youngest daughter was born just days after the war started. I’m fearing she will grow up and have war all her life. I hope it ends soon but I can see no end in sight. And it’s much worse of course for the people directly affected by the destruction. For us in Europe it’s mostly in expensive energy prices and food.
NO war takes forever. This war had very little impacton Europe compared to other wars in past, so EU and USA prefer to grind Russia down then to go all in and risk a nuclear escalation.
@@tiagodagostini Little impact on Europe? Is that why everything costs twice if not 3 times more compared to year and a half ago? While prices in Russia barely increased, and if they did, it's for imported goods from EU and US.
@@darenzy HInt, first world problems, rest of the world have this kind of inflation ALWAYS!
Not to be contradictive but regardless of the season everyone always says it will likely slow down.
Winters coming, going to slow down
Spring is coming, permafrost is thawing, going to slow down
Summer is coming, muddy, going to slow down
Fall is coming, etc
Not a critic of this channel by any means, I love it but I am tired of hearing "insert season" going to slow down.
Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BAE Systems, etc......
Whi will benefit the more from a long war in Ukraine? Arms producers mostly. Then you have China and the US. Despite what the US says for public opinion, this is the best geopolitical event of 2022: It basically finishes off Rusia as a super power as the longer the war goes on, the more its demography and economy will plunge, re-aligns Europe under its sphere of influence by cutting short Europe's talks of strategic independance and reducing their growth thanks to sharp rise in energy prices. And it builds the narrative for the next century being a bipolar world between the US and China, instead of a multipolar one, where the US could have been in a minority. China also benefits for exactly the same reasons, using Russia to proxy weaken the west as a whole and present itself as the only alternative to the US. By diverting attention to Europe and wasting US public opinion will for conflict on Russia, it gives it more space to push in Asia and Africa.
The big wildcards here are the secondary powers exemplified by India (but also Iran or Brasil) who are looking to build their own influence in the power vaccums created, while trying not to align with one of the two blocks forming which they both despise. Welcome to the twenty first century!
Russia was never a superpower and that deluded mentality is why Russia is acting out on its imperialist desires. Putin has reduced Russia into a rump state that is only fit to be a vassal for the CCP.
Very clearly the US and China are the winners here. Especially China as they will be picking upp all that cheap gas Europe no longer will buy (it will take some years to build pipelines though). India, Brazil etc will not be affected. Russia will be like North Korea but with oil money so more like Iran. Ukraine will be destroyed and EU will be left with the bill to rebuild Ukraine.
Many conspiracy theories suggest that help for Ukraine is held back so that Russia will think it can win the war and thus exhaust itself as much as possible.
American Military Industrial Complex profits directly or indirectly from any war being waged anywhere.
Yes. And the ruzki are as stupid as orcs to supply him with their lives👏 100%👌
I don't normally miss an episode but I think a little Hall & Oats is in order first....
the ones that benefit are the ones making the weapons.
and military bloggers
Damn, this comment section should be renamed "Vatnykia Oblast".
Mobikgrad
They're fast, aren't they.
Or you live in a bubble of Western propaganda and it turns out that the reality is that the West and Ukraine aren't very popular in the rest of the world.
@@markbranham7355 Imagine writing a single comment and being wrong three times:
1) The vatnyk was worn by the majority of the Red Army soldiers in WW2, this includes Russia since... you know... saying that Russia was part of the USSR would be an understatement.
2) "Vatnyk" isn't an ethnic slur, unless you think that "tankie" is an ethnic slur for the Americans and the Brits.
3) This use of the word was invented by the Russians themselves.
I guess internet is down again in the proud Vatnykia Oblast.
@@markbranham7355 Ukrainians call them Vatniks too.
We will not let the Russian vata into our homes - the name of the Ukrainian "Boycott Russian Films" campaign
Who will benefit the most?
Lockheed Martin.
Not really. Raytheon, as well as BAE, Rheinmetall, and some others, probably profit much more than Lockheed.
But, above all, energy companies (especially in the US and China) benefited greatly from this war. US energy companies supply EU with expensive (i.e. highly profitable) gas, while Chinese one import cheap Russian energy to power growing Chinese electronic and defense industry which supply Russian military.
Great presentation THANKS SO MUCH !
A very long, time consuming video that doesn't answer it's very own question in the billboard. Some interesting stats but still, a click bait styled billboard.
The efforts to constrain Putin's economy need to shift from administrative to kinetic if they are to be effective. Some smoking accidents at rail bridges, oil pumping stations and electrical infrastructure might get something done.
Lol, as long as you're first in line when the world war draft starts, sure.
Hope they nuke you first when that happens
Some accidents happened. Then some accidents happened in Europe and US. Accidents stopped.
Your idea is not new and not original.
@@Tential1 Nah, Putler wouldn't start a world war over it, he would just declare a new "red line" like he does every time any of this other red lines have been crossed.
@@neverknowsbest28799/11 all over again
The one who sell guns
A good summary all round. Worth following.
Ok Ukraine having 15K-17K KIA is just wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Dont ask me about it, ask Ursula von der Leyen
As in, Ukraine needs better ones?
I don't see the West giving up on Ukraine at least for five years. Even if there is no frontline movement. Spending 100bn$ per year is no problem for the West. The US spent that on Afghanistan for 20 (!) years, annualy. And giving up on that effort had no negative consequences despite some loss of reputation.
Ukraine is a different story entirely. Letting Russia win, even just win what they have now, is an invitation to other hostile nations to start similar wars. The message would be that you can outlast the West. Even if it has more economic power. But it does not have the will.
The limited support to Ukraine makes sense to me for a few reasons: keep most of your respurces available for China. And win against Russia, but slowly. So Russia suffers more equipment losses than if they were crushed quickly. It's also safer with regard to nuclear escalation.
Spending these trillions in Afghanistan but not in the USA, had no negative consequences??? I guess you don’t live in the USA
“Other hostile nations to start similar wars” ….and what have the west been doing for the last 30 years? Organizing peace and love concerts all around the Middle East and Africa? 😅 The west set the precedent themselves with their double standards and hypocrisy
It's 1980's Afghanistan all over again. Feed weapons to the locals and bleed the Russians.
@@jordansmith4040is it? I think this time roles are reversed. Last century, USA was the undisputed world power in terms of economy and military, today that’s not the case anymore…they have to print money and borrow more to even exist
@@adre7989 that spending was a waste for sure. I mean the fact that the war in Afghanistan was "lost" instead of "won" did not have nearly as much negative consequences as giving up Ukraine would. There was no new 9/11 or a new al Quaeda created because US left Afghanistan. They should have left before, saving all the wasted blood and money.
The problem is the west is not giving enough aid to give offensive good chance. NATO wouldn’t try offensive without air cover or air superiority at least
Why should they. They get nothing back. It is not their war.
They can't just drop off weapons 20 years newer than the Soviet stuff the Ukrainian army had always trained on before. The weapons we have been sending have oftentimes been only a fraction as effective as they should be for much the same reason, one good example is their tendency to make use of NATO artillery systems higher max range for counter battery bombardment not accounting for the fact that firing it at max pressure instead of normal EVERY SHOT takes something like an 80% reduction off of the useful lifespan of the barrel due to overheating and over pressure warping it and this being Western equipment they lack specialists for the entire system now needs to be towed all the way back across the country and handed over to Poland for repairs before it can be put back into use.
In order to deploy our high end stuff effectively we'd pretty much have to send an entire NATO army in to operate it, which likely means WW3.
@@muuraaja-e5kThats what some people said when Hitler invaded Poland. Ukraine is in Europe, shares a border with NATO and not only that, Ukraine is the bread basket of Europe. The ruzsian blockade of the Black Sea is leading to increased global food insecurity.
@@hellothere1656And where is all of that my problem as a Western European? Russia can have Ukraine.
@@OPTSXFilosoofis So u have no problem paying higher prices for bread then ?
Great presentation
Thanks as usual
Very interesting channel and vid thank you @Binkov . I do wonder though what your thoughts are regarding Russia's Nuclear threats and the influence that might be having on western policy/funding/support of Ukraine and the length of this conflict?
They have been shown to be utterly flaccid. Every red line they have set has been crossed has and been met with silence from them. If they are going to do then it has nothing to do with what aid western governments have provided
At best the nuclear threats are a convenient excuse for the more Russia friendly politicians of western countries to argue against sending aid to Ukraine.
Realistically though no political leader committed to supporting Ukraine takes the threats seriously because of how obviously hollow they are.
This war is good for the U.S. it gives an actual reason for nato to exist and puts pressure for the west to come together. At the very least for the amount of money we spent on equipment that had already been paid for years ago, the United States is getting a great return of value in destroying Russian equipment. Also the United States can export more liquid natural gas to Europe. So a pretty good deal for the usa
Right said
It is because of the US & NATO military expansion right up to Russia's border we are on the brink of WW3 today.
NATO should have been disbanded directly after the collapse of the soviet union in 1991.
Another thing is that Congress is buying old equipment off the DoD, giving it more money to invest in new systems to deter future threats, rather than maintaining a large stockpile of weapons made to counter the USSR.
@@deriznohappehquite Exactly! This equipment was bought and paid for years ago. It can be argued that giving it to Ukraine is a complete benefit in that it destroys Russian capabilities and equipment. Even destroying some of Russia’s most advanced or more expensive pieces of material. Better to give it to Ukraine than to have the equipment just rotting away in some warehouse.
and now that russia has been neutralized, taking out the CCP will be easier
Well, remember that this is Ukraine's war for independence. They are fighting and dying for the right to elect their own leaders, to be free of tyrany, to be self governed. They are going to fight until the bitter end to avoid having to call themselves "Russian." I would to. God bless them, and good luck.
Dying in Valor is only great in the movies. Not so much in real life. Ukraine should have stayed with Russia and still be a real country. Now it's gone forever.
What "independence"? They're fully dependent on US and EU. What independence are you talking about? Or being US lapdog is apparently considered "independence" somehow? lol. The logic.
No its not a war for Ukraine independence. This is a war to prevent NATO expanding into Ukraine which is unacceptable to Russia.
They don't want "to call themselves Russian" but speak Russian their whole lives 😂
@@bedri1 Except for all the English Im seeing here. Most the pro Ukraine posts are in Ukrainian. Most the anti Ukraine war posts are in English.
Great presentations thanks so much
Its a Win Win for every other EU state and especially the Arms Industry complex. They get to weaken Russia at the cost of Ukrainian, plus they get to Test their equipment against a Peer enemy AND selling new weapons to Ukraine.
Who benefits from a prolonged war? Western MIC companies. Who loses? The people of Ukraine.
Who benefits from prolonged war.... crappy RUclipsr shills.
I think the west is trying to boil the frog. Slow attrition but trying to avoid a nuclear exchange
The people of Ukraine see it differently from you. Your opinion is meaningless. Ask any Ukrainian under Russian occupation if they feel liberated. Thousands of memes exists from Ukrainian civilians mocking, belittling, and antagonizing the Russian invaders.
@@DarkFilmDirector too bad there was no Facebook and RUclips back in 2003 for Iraqi Freedom...