You are so right,shame alot of other americans dont feel like you,im british and I've just listened to biden saying he's sending weapons but he's now thinking zelinsky should let donbass/luhansk regions go so the war can stop quicker,he says he doesn't see ukraine winning 🤔 and doesn't want to send weopons there because its a waste, britain is now quite annoyed at this and says it will support ukraine to the end🇬🇧🤝🇺🇦🕊
For all its faults "The West" comes much much closer to carrying out ideals of fairness, democracy, human rights and economic oppertunity. India China, some African nations and others like Brazil have shown themselves to act in a backward way when given the chance. There simply is no alternative to Western hegemony and values.
Absolutely true! Thousands of immigrants from Central/South America, Africa, and other countries flock to the US border hoping to get a better life. Others brave dangerous waters to get to countries in Europe. Do not see them on the Russian/Brazil borders etc.
@@hiddenleaf2 Tell that to the immigrants flooding the US borders - maybe they will listen to you and return home. But....their own governments are destroying them!
Spot on? Really? Where was he while europe got hooked on Russian gas, oil and were able to build army? Not spot on, actually huge mistake did not see this for 10 years.
@@PaulValickas He answers to the politicians , the Admiral can recommend , it's the ruling elected government of the day that decides on approving the military's recommendations. And most governments fail in this regard to save money so they can put these money's into social programs that buys votes .
@@johndudley5761 buying russian gas and oil is not the same spending money on social programs. It is strategic and military failure. I did not find any video on youtube were he was voicing concerns regarding the subject over last decade.
@@PaulValickas I see you just don't understand that the Admiral does not set policy , and it is the ruling government that decides where gas is purchased and because of the collapse of the USSR and in trusting Putin to be a nice guy ,thinking that he could be your friend, the west have weakened there military's to the point they lack all sorts of equipment and trained personnel, you have what you have today another dictator with the thinking he just can invade and destroy a country because there isn't anyone to stop him ,He perceives weakness in his opponent so moves on it. And yes that money that use to go to military to keep it strong was allocated to other means and typically to buy votes!
@@johndudley5761 I think you do not understand that admiral must provide strategic and military advise to politicians. Uk did help with Ukrain’s army training but failed to see eu failures on energy policies.
I agree with Sir Admiral Burnet Nugent about strength and readiness in preparing for war Weakness is a target for all kinds of bullies whether national or in one’s own life I had to learn to defend myself because of epilepsy and development delays disorder I beat many bullies as a teenager
No, NATO is no stronger, in actual ability to field/sustain a force, than they were four months ago. Expansion of membership doesn't necessarily equate to the ability to wage war.
Readiness is important but even more important is industrial capacity. Stockpiled weapons are meant to last a few months at best during a full scale war. If the industrial sector cannot replace weapons, ships, planes, and all the rest quickly enough it’s game over.
Well, if you talk about germany it is not about "readiness" but about "broken". Most of our equipment is in a sad state waiting for repair. Like ALL (!) submarines. Amazing. Also not sure whether putin was "running out of precision missilies" or someone was just smart enough to say "hey, dump stuff is 50% as effective buy ONLY 10% the price, so we go with a lot more dump stuff" and is just slowly building/having smart stuff in reserve, but mostly using the VASTLY cheaper and easier to produce dump stuff.
The euro currency is a disaster. You basically have Germany frantically trying to out produce the south to get artificially restricted euros. The fact it takes months to get Ukraine weapons should scare everyone. They’ve been subsidised by the USA military for decades.
Germany would depend on its NATO allies which, compared to Russia, have much stronger navies, airforces and ground capabilities. Putin has lost a lot more weaponry than NATO would need to add.
Actually, Germany is a good example where from a ‘top trumps’ approach their military forces appear credible and useful. But if it is assessed from a readiness perspective it exposes just how far it is has been hollowed out - as announced by their CDS. Of course there are other problems in Germany, including procurement processes, but at least Scholz has ‘woken up’ and announced significant defence spending uplifts.
This would not have happened under Trumps watch. Putin would not dare. He simply smelled weakness and took advantage. Made his calculated move. Was he wrong or right? History will judge that.
Putin would lose every ship and every aircraft in a war with NATO. He'd have to have a death wish to initiate one. Russian readiness didn't seem very great, particularity with regard with troop quality and the ability to attain air superiority over a country that didn't have a lot of air defenses. NATO would have done that within 2 weeks with precision-guided munitions. Russia's quality of aircraft and naval capability would be no match. Try to imagine what would happen to 40-mile-long procession of military vehicles trying to enter a NATO country.
You will cease to exist if the crazies of the USA and EU go too far. You don’t seem to be aware of Russia’s nuclear capability. It’s all over for all of us if there is no diplomacy brought to bear. You think climate change or your insane race and gender psychosis is all you have to worry about. Honestly, go back to sleep.
@@hughmcdonnell849 I'm totally aware of their capability, as well as our own. We can't let Putin take any country he wants just because he'll always threaten nuclear annihilation. No one, not the US, not NATO, presents an existential threat to Russia.
@@hughmcdonnell849 there will be no nuclear missiles no worries :) Im sure 100 % and sadly putler knows he cant use them :D because hes not allowed to use them and IF he would fire some of them its automatically destroyed.. oh btw not by us :)
1:48 On the topic of deterrence and readiness, one doesn't often get a second opportunity to react with the necessary effort. Should Putin attack a Baltic Nation, and the NATO response is tepid, then fault lines and self recrimination can result. Article Five works to benefit all of the National security interest of Members. Attack on any single Member carries equal weight.
@@stevenwilgus5422 I agree but if a state survival is at risk it will use it. US is the only country who in the history has used nuclear weapons even when its survival was not threatened. Am afraid, to be honest, Russia is so responsible that it is not using tactical nuclear weapons to end the war in Ukraine given the West Provocation. We don't know but when the leaders with nuclear weapons are warning, then the world must listen because we all will be doomed
in which way exactly , US/ Nato didnt have units or strike missiles in Ukraine like russia kept saying before it attacked Ukaine,wed all have been in WW 3 if there had been
It’s not the commander that’s out of step. The commander is the one with the sword in front of the column. The one out of step is the flag party guard.
NATO strategy :- Imagine a scale of involvement ranging from 0% (no support) to 100% (full support land, sea and air) The chances of nuclear escalation range from 0% to let's say 50% (ie 100% NATO involvement, crushing Russia, would lead to a ~50% chance of things going nuclear) NATO has wisely decided to give just enough support for Ukraine to win incrementally. If Russia is doing too well, NATO turn up the supplies, and if Ukraine are "humiliating Russia" NATO slows up the supplies. But either way Ukraine wins, and the nuclear risk is kept close to zero. Boris just confirmed my analysis, saying,"If Ukraine is struggling we'll ramp up the dial"
Another point America spg guns entered ukraine but the U.S said they cannot fire into Russia as american spg outrageous Russian guns. So the ukraine soldiers gave up hundreds of miles of land so the Russians can bring their equipment into ukriane for better accuracy and not all we are seeing is those American himiras destroy Russian equipment left and right. Idk how Russia can keep up, they are not getting soldiers to sign up and most of the equipment they are losing cannot be replaced in months rather years!
Yes that seems to be the strategy, along with a push by many in the EU/NATO for Ukraine to give up land for "peace". I cannot tell you just how despicable this "strategy" is. Let the Ukrainians bleed Russia, we will then get the contracts for rebuilding and loan them money. We can still buy oil from Russia and make money there. And no worries if it gets too bad, the US will pay for our defense. In other words, the EU/NATO gains wealth with Ukraine Blood. The EU/NATO gains wealth at the expense of the US. Ohh yea fools, European disdain for the slavs, the Untermensch has not gone away, their Imperialism and Colonialist ideals have not gone away. Their utter fecklessness and their Political "Leaders" have not changed. Each year more rights are lost and the masses seem to not care. More Power and wealth taken for the elite and globalists. Yes we in the US have our share of the same, the "progressive left", but we are fighting daily to change that, to limit their power and stop their privations. It is high time we also stop supporting Europeans that thrive on the blood and treasure of others. Disgust? Loathing? Nay, far more, far more indeed.
@@feedyourmind6713 Ukraine can, though regrettably, trade land for time. If this war lasts more than 1 year, and that is the current expectation, without mobilization by Russia, Ukraine can continue asymmetrical warfare and as they are on defense, continue to build up forces while Russia continues to weaken. I am not saying Ukraine will "win" in the sense of taking back all the land and Crimea anytime soon, I am saying that maintaining a government and forces in the field is a win basically. If the west supports Ukraine, and it should, then they can force Russia to stop and that gives time for sanctions to work on Russia and Munitions to be produced for Ukraine. Given two conditions, the West not faltering and Russia not Mobilizing, Ukraine cannot be conquered. If The west falters, Ukraine can continue to bleed Russia for a few years, and that may cause a change in Moscow. If Russia mobilizes, I would expect the West to step up, MASSIVELY, ( and they should now ) assistance to Ukraine resulting in a war that will be far to costly for Russia to sustain for very long. Even 50 or so SP Artillery units and say 30 or so Himars, MLRS ( with munitions ) will make the cost far more than I believe Russia can stand. It is a fair to say and estimate that Ukraine can field 5 to 10,000 new troops with training a month for the next 6-12 months. Russia is running low on Munitions as well and their lack of Infantry is well documented. Even an additional 30, 40,000 trained and armed infantry with some Manpads, mortar's and even a smaller supply of SP artillery - combined with the changing terrain which will favor Ukraine as Russia moves West will make the cost far greater. With moral being what it is, this places Russia at a serious disadvantage. The end comes down to one simple question, will the EU, mainly Germany and France step up ?( Perhaps Turkey with massive munitions stockpiles as well - they have done far more than Germany and France have at this point ) If they do so, ( The US and UK are ramping up very rapidly munitions' production as are some others which can produce Soviet munitions 152MM Arty for example) Then Ukraine has a better than 60% chance of forcing Russia back (in 2 years or so) to the starting point. Crimea is lost period barring supplies of weapons the west will not provide, and should Ukraine even remotely look like they have a chance in Crimea, Russia will mobilize and turn this into al all out war in Europe, again excepting a change in Moscow, IE Putin going away.
It seems there are very FEW journalists or politicians that are FULLY aware of the way armed forces are "built" and maintained? The need for "full readiness" in adequate levels, at any one time, MUST be gauged by the "worst case scenario"! Anything less is going to leave the nation, OR IT'S ALLIES, exposed and vulnerable to attacks!
Unlike the host. People that have been following international diplomacy. Knows this new cold war, in which Russia see's Ukraine as just collateral damage started like 15-20 years ago. Heck most of the meetins that's held by heads of state and generals have been saying this in public hearings for years. Yes, they are boring I guess. This host would have known from these hearings that NATO man and equipment is either not ready or in storage somewhere. It would take them 180 days to organize and check everything for battle.
@@shingetsu10 you’re right, I can’t find a source for anything more than a sometimes mentioned third vessel of the QEC class which would possibly have been named Duke of Edinburgh. The 1960’s CVA-01 class study may have called for four. Still, with a large ground war in Europe looking likely, and a major sea power conflict developing around Asia, more ships would be welcome for deterrence or strike capabilities.
WE NEED TO INCREASE DEFENCE SPENDING, we have to look back at our "during the Cold War" defence posture and budget and bring it up to similar levels. This means more money, more personnel, more armoured vehicles, more aircraft, more missiles, more artillery systems, more personal kit and more ammunition. This will swallow up a lot of money but you can't put a price on national security and NATO security, we live in a dangerous World and we have to be prepared to do what we have to do. Most current service personnel don't remember the Cold War, or have only ever heard of it on TV programmes but back then we trained constantly to fight the Russians, that's who the enemy was and they've become the enemy again as they pose the biggest threat to Europe. New ships, aircraft, armoured vehicles, artillery systems, missiles, air defence and man portable weapons will cost more because modern, advanced kit is bloody expensive........ but we have to do it.
I think the Europeans are woefully unprepared for deterrence. We on this side of the pond have enough to deal with in China. Germany, the cornerstone, of the continent would be rolled over in a week. (Yes, they have a great arms manufacturing industry) but their land army? Shamefully weak! We really have to unite to show Putin we mean business.
@@boogiewoogie9770 NATO’s military is woefully unprepared for any war none the less an actual deterrent to war. I would submit that the paper tiger is what appears to be. A paper tiger
Ukraine needs long-range artillery! May Our Lady of Perpetual Help, Andrey Sheptytsky, Blessed Vasyl Velychkovsky and all Ukrainian saints, First Testament Prophets (Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos etc), Jewish holy men and women, St Michael, Raphael and Gabriel and all the angels, intercede with the Almighty for the removal of Putin, Lavrov and his minions from power. May Ukraine be freed from Russian oppression.
Readiness, it really is a simple concept. It is however very poorly understood. Admiral Burnell-Nugent does a good job explaining the difference. The Interviewer, asks if a 10% Increase is realistic.... based on the 2021 military budget, a 10% increase is less than 2 tenths of 1% of GDP. That is the problem. Not to understand this basic math, or worse to intentionally misrepresent this number, a 10% INCREASE! That is HUGE, is a tactic used by Liberals and Socialists world wide. Sadly the masses seem to be unable to get it.
@Horizons In my taal sê jy ook ja. Just saying, if you speak English, speak English. It's a problem we have in my country. Slang is out of control. What's crazy is that I think he grew up in the UK and talks like that.
Thanks for mentioning that. I was just about to raise the same point. His misunderstanding of 300000 in readiness annoyed me. The interview dealt with that politely I thought.
I would have to agree. I'm not saying the host has to be an expert on the logistics of war. At the very least be able to ask questions without sounding ignorant. Heck, it took russian months to pre position man & equipment for a failed first invasion attempt.
Yes, really. In phase one - the first month - little Ukraine defeated Russia In the Battle of Kyiv. In phase two - the second, third and fourth months- despite an overwhelming disparity of forces, armaments and other resources, Ukraine has managed to restrict Russian advances to a mere 450 square kilometres. Putting that in context, Putin has lost roughly 75 men killed and 150 wounded for EVERY square kilometre of Ukrainian territory captured. That is fairly definitive that it’s not going too well for Putin.
Europe (including the UK) has been getting a free ride on defense spending from the united states for decades. Time to start investing in your own defense. someday america might not showup to one of yours; either because they dont want to, or because they can not. Imagine the united states over committed to a conflict with China in the pacific, and Putin and friends taking advantage of that. How long would Europe be able to hold out? 30 days? 60 days? a year or two? Even if you could, at what cost?
Some of us think you try a few other options before going to nuclear war. You may not have noticed the conventional war taking place in Ukraine? Another 300,000 soldiers would be handy there right now.
@@davidallison5529 Problem is no one is prepared to man up and put a defensive force into Ukraine to repel Putin, you don't have to attack the Russian mainland just protect Ukraine, we will have 300 thousand additional spectators.
If there is a nuclear war, it will not matter to the 300,000 troops whether they are stationed on the Russian border, at home in Wisconsin, or anywhere else. In that eventuality, we ALL die. But, for anything short of nuclear war, 300,000 troops will make a huge difference.
"You deal with bullies with strength, not with weakness." Well said!
Exactly the mantra of the Donbass in reference to Ukraine
This Marine loves to hear this honestly this world better come together against Russia now so start training up ASAP 🇺🇸
Semper Fi
From another former Marine
ruclips.net/video/0cZLquO2QTE/видео.html
New Atlas
Better do it before Biden has men dressed as women on the frontlines. The Russians will die of laughter.
Don't worry, they won't be able to even beat Poland
You are so right,shame alot of other americans dont feel like you,im british and I've just listened to biden saying he's sending weapons but he's now thinking zelinsky should let donbass/luhansk regions go so the war can stop quicker,he says he doesn't see ukraine winning 🤔 and doesn't want to send weopons there because its a waste, britain is now quite annoyed at this and says it will support ukraine to the end🇬🇧🤝🇺🇦🕊
For all its faults "The West" comes much much closer to carrying out ideals of fairness, democracy, human rights and economic oppertunity. India China, some African nations and others like Brazil have shown themselves to act in a backward way when given the chance. There simply is no alternative to Western hegemony and values.
You’re crazy, America is destroyed Iraq lol
Absolutely true! Thousands of immigrants from Central/South America, Africa, and other countries flock to the US border hoping to get a better life. Others brave dangerous waters to get to countries in Europe. Do not see them on the Russian/Brazil borders etc.
Get ready for the bots bruh.
@@hiddenleaf2
Tell that to the immigrants flooding the US borders - maybe they will listen to you and return home. But....their own governments are destroying them!
Then those immigrants from all over world are as crazy as I am. Despite everything, they still want to come to the US.
The Admiral is spot on with his View's .👍👌
Spot on? Really? Where was he while europe got hooked on Russian gas, oil and were able to build army? Not spot on, actually huge mistake did not see this for 10 years.
@@PaulValickas He answers to the politicians , the Admiral can recommend , it's the ruling elected government of the day that decides on approving the military's recommendations. And most governments fail in this regard to save money so they can put these money's into social programs that buys votes .
@@johndudley5761 buying russian gas and oil is not the same spending money on social programs. It is strategic and military failure. I did not find any video on youtube were he was voicing concerns regarding the subject over last decade.
@@PaulValickas I see you just don't understand that the Admiral does not set policy , and it is the ruling government that decides where gas is purchased and because of the collapse of the USSR and in trusting Putin to be a nice guy ,thinking that he could be your friend, the west have weakened there military's to the point they lack all sorts of equipment and trained personnel, you have what you have today another dictator with the thinking he just can invade and destroy a country because there isn't anyone to stop him ,He perceives weakness in his opponent so moves on it. And yes that money that use to go to military to keep it strong was allocated to other means and typically to buy votes!
@@johndudley5761 I think you do not understand that admiral must provide strategic and military advise to politicians. Uk did help with Ukrain’s army training but failed to see eu failures on energy policies.
I wish he had let the admiral finish a few of his answers.
I wish the title didn't contain an error even few Americans would make.
I agree with Sir Admiral Burnet Nugent about strength and readiness in preparing for war Weakness is a target for all kinds of bullies whether national or in one’s own life I had to learn to defend myself because of epilepsy and development delays disorder I beat many bullies as a teenager
Peace through strength. Sounds familiar.
Putin has frightened every country , not only Ukraine all the countries are running to nato. Putin
Has strengthened nato
Vladolf Putler is NATOs biggest recruiter since Joseph Stalin.
Liability isn't strength
No, NATO is no stronger, in actual ability to field/sustain a force, than they were four months ago. Expansion of membership doesn't necessarily equate to the ability to wage war.
The US is the most important country in the free world.
You mean "Impotent" lose every War😄
ruclips.net/video/LL4eNy4FCs8/видео.html
Say it ain't so Joe
What do you call the free world??
Too Late I would be interested to learn how you define "most important" and how you can justify your personal theory ....
Putin believes Russia is.
Readiness is important but even more important is industrial capacity. Stockpiled weapons are meant to last a few months at best during a full scale war. If the industrial sector cannot replace weapons, ships, planes, and all the rest quickly enough it’s game over.
Well, if you talk about germany it is not about "readiness" but about "broken". Most of our equipment is in a sad state waiting for repair. Like ALL (!) submarines. Amazing. Also not sure whether putin was "running out of precision missilies" or someone was just smart enough to say "hey, dump stuff is 50% as effective buy ONLY 10% the price, so we go with a lot more dump stuff" and is just slowly building/having smart stuff in reserve, but mostly using the VASTLY cheaper and easier to produce dump stuff.
The euro currency is a disaster. You basically have Germany frantically trying to out produce the south to get artificially restricted euros. The fact it takes months to get Ukraine weapons should scare everyone. They’ve been subsidised by the USA military for decades.
"Dump stuff" 😂😂😂😂🤡
Germany would depend on its NATO allies which, compared to Russia, have much stronger navies, airforces and ground capabilities. Putin has lost a lot more weaponry than NATO would need to add.
Actually, Germany is a good example where from a ‘top trumps’ approach their military forces appear credible and useful. But if it is assessed from a readiness perspective it exposes just how far it is has been hollowed out - as announced by their CDS. Of course there are other problems in Germany, including procurement processes, but at least Scholz has ‘woken up’ and announced significant defence spending uplifts.
This would not have happened under Trumps watch. Putin would not dare. He simply smelled weakness and took advantage. Made his calculated move. Was he wrong or right? History will judge that.
Putin would lose every ship and every aircraft in a war with NATO. He'd have to have a death wish to initiate one. Russian readiness didn't seem very great, particularity with regard with troop quality and the ability to attain air superiority over a country that didn't have a lot of air defenses. NATO would have done that within 2 weeks with precision-guided munitions. Russia's quality of aircraft and naval capability would be no match. Try to imagine what would happen to 40-mile-long procession of military vehicles trying to enter a NATO country.
You will cease to exist if the crazies of the USA and EU go too far. You don’t seem to be aware of Russia’s nuclear capability. It’s all over for all of us if there is no diplomacy brought to bear. You think climate change or your insane race and gender psychosis is all you have to worry about. Honestly, go back to sleep.
@@hughmcdonnell849 I'm totally aware of their capability, as well as our own. We can't let Putin take any country he wants just because he'll always threaten nuclear annihilation. No one, not the US, not NATO, presents an existential threat to Russia.
@@hughmcdonnell849 there will be no nuclear missiles no worries :) Im sure 100 % and sadly putler knows he cant use them :D because hes not allowed to use them and IF he would fire some of them its automatically destroyed.. oh btw not by us :)
1:48 On the topic of deterrence and readiness, one doesn't often get a second opportunity to react with the necessary effort. Should Putin attack a Baltic Nation, and the NATO response is tepid, then fault lines and self recrimination can result. Article Five works to benefit all of the National security interest of Members. Attack on any single Member carries equal weight.
That's right but am wondering if individual countries would like to participate if one is attacked given the real threat of nuclear annihilation
@@lesliebahnkawa9383 Nuclear annihilation is MAD. It has always unflinchingly been so.
@@stevenwilgus5422 I agree but if a state survival is at risk it will use it. US is the only country who in the history has used nuclear weapons even when its survival was not threatened. Am afraid, to be honest, Russia is so responsible that it is not using tactical nuclear weapons to end the war in Ukraine given the West Provocation. We don't know but when the leaders with nuclear weapons are warning, then the world must listen because we all will be doomed
@@maggiekawa4074 I actual truth, the public will never know should it erupt.
Since when has Russia become a bully? What about America and NATO being bullies?
in which way exactly , US/ Nato didnt have units or strike missiles in Ukraine like russia kept saying before it attacked Ukaine,wed all have been in WW 3 if there had been
A video is worth a thousand words! 6:42 watch the leader out of step with his troops to decide how 'ready' the troops are...
Seen
It’s not the commander that’s out of step. The commander is the one with the sword in front of the column. The one out of step is the flag party guard.
Endless demand för more hey.
NATO strategy :-
Imagine a scale of involvement ranging from 0% (no support)
to 100% (full support land, sea and air)
The chances of nuclear escalation range from 0% to let's say 50%
(ie 100% NATO involvement, crushing Russia, would lead to a ~50% chance of things going nuclear)
NATO has wisely decided to give just enough support for Ukraine to win
incrementally.
If Russia is doing too well, NATO turn up the supplies, and if Ukraine are
"humiliating Russia" NATO slows up the supplies.
But either way Ukraine wins, and the nuclear risk is kept close to zero.
Boris just confirmed my analysis, saying,"If Ukraine is struggling we'll ramp up the dial"
That just about sums it up. 👌
Another point America spg guns entered ukraine but the U.S said they cannot fire into Russia as american spg outrageous Russian guns. So the ukraine soldiers gave up hundreds of miles of land so the Russians can bring their equipment into ukriane for better accuracy and not all we are seeing is those American himiras destroy Russian equipment left and right. Idk how Russia can keep up, they are not getting soldiers to sign up and most of the equipment they are losing cannot be replaced in months rather years!
Yes that seems to be the strategy, along with a push by many in the EU/NATO for Ukraine to give up land for "peace".
I cannot tell you just how despicable this "strategy" is. Let the Ukrainians bleed Russia, we will then get the contracts for rebuilding and loan them money.
We can still buy oil from Russia and make money there. And no worries if it gets too bad, the US will pay for our defense.
In other words, the EU/NATO gains wealth with Ukraine Blood. The EU/NATO gains wealth at the expense of the US.
Ohh yea fools, European disdain for the slavs, the Untermensch has not gone away, their Imperialism and Colonialist ideals have not gone away.
Their utter fecklessness and their Political "Leaders" have not changed. Each year more rights are lost and the masses seem to not care. More Power and wealth taken for the elite and globalists. Yes we in the US have our share of the same, the "progressive left", but we are fighting daily to change that, to limit their power and stop their privations.
It is high time we also stop supporting Europeans that thrive on the blood and treasure of others.
Disgust? Loathing? Nay, far more, far more indeed.
The Ukes are losing and resupply isn't changing that. Neither are the "game-changer" weaponry sent so far.
@@feedyourmind6713 Ukraine can, though regrettably, trade land for time. If this war lasts more than 1 year, and that is the current expectation, without mobilization by Russia, Ukraine can continue asymmetrical warfare and as they are on defense, continue to build up forces while Russia continues to weaken. I am not saying Ukraine will "win" in the sense of taking back all the land and Crimea anytime soon, I am saying that maintaining a government and forces in the field is a win basically. If the west supports Ukraine, and it should, then they can force Russia to stop and that gives time for sanctions to work on Russia and Munitions to be produced for Ukraine. Given two conditions, the West not faltering and Russia not Mobilizing, Ukraine cannot be conquered. If The west falters, Ukraine can continue to bleed Russia for a few years, and that may cause a change in Moscow. If Russia mobilizes, I would expect the West to step up, MASSIVELY, ( and they should now ) assistance to Ukraine resulting in a war that will be far to costly for Russia to sustain for very long.
Even 50 or so SP Artillery units and say 30 or so Himars, MLRS ( with munitions ) will make the cost far more than I believe Russia can stand. It is a fair to say and estimate that Ukraine can field 5 to 10,000 new troops with training a month for the next 6-12 months. Russia is running low on Munitions as well and their lack of Infantry is well documented. Even an additional 30, 40,000 trained and armed infantry with some Manpads, mortar's and even a smaller supply of SP artillery - combined with the changing terrain which will favor Ukraine as Russia moves West will make the cost far greater. With moral being what it is, this places Russia at a serious disadvantage.
The end comes down to one simple question, will the EU, mainly Germany and France step up ?( Perhaps Turkey with massive munitions stockpiles as well - they have done far more than Germany and France have at this point )
If they do so, ( The US and UK are ramping up very rapidly munitions' production as are some others which can produce Soviet munitions 152MM Arty for example)
Then Ukraine has a better than 60% chance of forcing Russia back (in 2 years or so) to the starting point. Crimea is lost period barring supplies of weapons the west will not provide, and should Ukraine even remotely look like they have a chance in Crimea, Russia will mobilize and turn this into al all out war in Europe, again excepting a change in Moscow, IE Putin going away.
It seems there are very FEW journalists or politicians that are FULLY aware of the way armed forces are "built" and maintained? The need for "full readiness" in adequate levels, at any one time, MUST be gauged by the "worst case scenario"! Anything less is going to leave the nation, OR IT'S ALLIES, exposed and vulnerable to attacks!
Unlike the host. People that have been following international diplomacy. Knows this new cold war, in which Russia see's Ukraine as just collateral damage started like 15-20 years ago. Heck most of the meetins that's held by heads of state and generals have been saying this in public hearings for years. Yes, they are boring I guess. This host would have known from these hearings that NATO man and equipment is either not ready or in storage somewhere. It would take them 180 days to organize and check everything for battle.
One might suggest this has been leading up to where we are now for 3 decades.
Total Defence must be upheld !
I wish the UK would build the other two queen elizabeth class carriers.
Where would you get the other ships to support them? Carriers require carrier battle groups.
Other 2? There were only ever 2 planned.
@@shingetsu10 you’re right, I can’t find a source for anything more than a sometimes mentioned third vessel of the QEC class which would possibly have been named Duke of Edinburgh. The 1960’s CVA-01 class study may have called for four. Still, with a large ground war in Europe looking likely, and a major sea power conflict developing around Asia, more ships would be welcome for deterrence or strike capabilities.
What a sad soul you are ,we can only supply 50% of aircraft for one carrier never mind two.
@@georgemurray2901 negative, I am a meat popsicle.
The 'Admiral' has a lot to say but almost no Navy to do anything with. Royal Navy has more Admirals than ships Lol
Not just strengthening bout defense but plan and equip for another D day into the heart of Russia
Yes expand our readiness but for god sake get more people in.
James Burnell-Nugent was the skipper of the diesel submarine HMS Olympus in 1978 and of the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror in 1984. 😉
Talk quietly and carry a big stick,. Roosevelt.
The term is to walk softly and carry a big stick
Cool. He sounds like the kind of Englishman who once made the UK the world's leading country. I guess they still have them.
There is no such thing as 'giving face' (to PutinZi) when WW3 is almost knocking at the doors of European nations. Macron, do you understand or not?
como siempre la pelea en Europa y eeuu lejos, son solo un escudo de américa del norte.(a mis ojos eeuu y rus son lo mismo)
The sad part of his conversation is talking Russia is one country nato is the whole European country .
Mirroring leads to over committing
WE NEED TO INCREASE DEFENCE SPENDING, we have to look back at our "during the Cold War" defence posture and budget and bring it up to similar levels. This means more money, more personnel, more armoured vehicles, more aircraft, more missiles, more artillery systems, more personal kit and more ammunition. This will swallow up a lot of money but you can't put a price on national security and NATO security, we live in a dangerous World and we have to be prepared to do what we have to do.
Most current service personnel don't remember the Cold War, or have only ever heard of it on TV programmes but back then we trained constantly to fight the Russians, that's who the enemy was and they've become the enemy again as they pose the biggest threat to Europe.
New ships, aircraft, armoured vehicles, artillery systems, missiles, air defence and man portable weapons will cost more because modern, advanced kit is bloody expensive........ but we have to do it.
👏👏👏👏
I think the Europeans are woefully unprepared for deterrence. We on this side of the pond have enough to deal with in China.
Germany, the cornerstone, of the continent would be rolled over in a week. (Yes, they have a great arms manufacturing industry) but their land army? Shamefully weak!
We really have to unite to show Putin we mean business.
NATO's military is huge. Especially when Sweden & Finland join. However it will come down to what is left of any country following a nuclear war.
@@boogiewoogie9770 NATO’s military is woefully unprepared for any war none the less an actual deterrent to war. I would submit that the paper tiger is what appears to be. A paper tiger
@@steve-real 👈🤡😂😂😂
@@angelopugliese6034 👈🦨🤣😂🤣
@@steve-real Ok military expert I bow to your greater knowledge.
Tennish, anyone?
lol
Ukraine needs long-range artillery! May Our Lady of Perpetual Help, Andrey Sheptytsky, Blessed Vasyl Velychkovsky and all Ukrainian saints, First Testament Prophets (Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos etc), Jewish holy men and women, St Michael, Raphael and Gabriel and all the angels, intercede with the Almighty for the removal of Putin, Lavrov and his minions from power. May Ukraine be freed from Russian oppression.
Readiness, it really is a simple concept.
It is however very poorly understood. Admiral Burnell-Nugent does a good job explaining the difference.
The Interviewer, asks if a 10% Increase is realistic.... based on the 2021 military budget, a 10% increase is less than 2 tenths of 1% of GDP.
That is the problem. Not to understand this basic math, or worse to intentionally misrepresent this number, a 10% INCREASE! That is HUGE, is a tactic used by Liberals and Socialists world wide.
Sadly the masses seem to be unable to get it.
WWIII 🚀
NATO VS (Russia+China+Iran+North Korea+India)😭
Russia's army seems far less trained than was suspected.
1:53 - Did he just say "ja"?
In English you say yes.
EDIT: He actually says it again at 5:03
Shameful!
@Horizons In my taal sê jy ook ja.
Just saying, if you speak English, speak English.
It's a problem we have in my country. Slang is out of control.
What's crazy is that I think he grew up in the UK and talks like that.
Fix your crackling! Funny how it’s only your broadcasts this happens on. Why is that?
# bin laden # putin# NATO,# world peace,#slava Ukraine,
Times Radio, your interviewer is not up to par, get the old bald guy, excusing the method of description, back in the saddle.
Thanks for mentioning that. I was just about to raise the same point. His misunderstanding of 300000 in readiness annoyed me. The interview dealt with that politely I thought.
I would have to agree. I'm not saying the host has to be an expert on the logistics of war. At the very least be able to ask questions without sounding ignorant. Heck, it took russian months to pre position man & equipment for a failed first invasion attempt.
State of NATO forces at this moment: cero
Why do you repeat your videos half way through??? Waste of time!
Agreed! I thought I was crazy.
The British always underestimate. This time we are not bailing the Brit’s out
The west started this confrontation.
Bla, bla, bla. Where is Trump!!!
Preparing to face criminal charges
Nato's going to spend some billions🤓🤓🤓
It’s not going too well for Putin?? Really
How is it going well?
Yes, really.
In phase one - the first month - little Ukraine defeated Russia In the Battle of Kyiv.
In phase two - the second, third and fourth months- despite an overwhelming disparity of forces, armaments and other resources, Ukraine has managed to restrict Russian advances to a mere 450 square kilometres. Putting that in context, Putin has lost roughly 75 men killed and 150 wounded for EVERY square kilometre of Ukrainian territory captured.
That is fairly definitive that it’s not going too well for Putin.
@@anthonymorris2276
Get the truth
ruclips.net/video/0cZLquO2QTE/видео.html
New Atlas
Europe (including the UK) has been getting a free ride on defense spending from the united states for decades. Time to start investing in your own defense. someday america might not showup to one of yours; either because they dont want to, or because they can not. Imagine the united states over committed to a conflict with China in the pacific, and Putin and friends taking advantage of that. How long would Europe be able to hold out? 30 days? 60 days? a year or two? Even if you could, at what cost?
300,000 troops will come in handy during a nuclear war.
if there is a nuclear war then everyone is finished. However, the west will not sit there and do nothing if Russia attacks NATO land.
Exactly. It's frickin nonsense.
Some of us think you try a few other options before going to nuclear war. You may not have noticed the conventional war taking place in Ukraine? Another 300,000 soldiers would be handy there right now.
@@davidallison5529 Problem is no one is prepared to man up and put a defensive force into Ukraine to repel Putin, you don't have to attack the Russian mainland just protect Ukraine, we will have 300 thousand additional spectators.
If there is a nuclear war, it will not matter to the 300,000 troops whether they are stationed on the Russian border, at home in Wisconsin, or anywhere else. In that eventuality, we ALL die. But, for anything short of nuclear war, 300,000 troops will make a huge difference.
Looks like another armchair warrior more used to the food trough than battle.
Right on cue, here come the Russian bots and trolls.
@@WhizzRichardThompson You haven't a clue what's really happening. Back to sleep with you