Who benefits more from a long war in Ukraine?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 вер 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
"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.
As a Binkov fan for many years, it hits you differently when he doesn't use the word hypothetical.
"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.
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.
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
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.
I'll save you 27 min
The military industrial complex does
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.
UA-camrs 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.
the map graphics on this channel keep getting better and better, great job Binkov!
Anyone reading the comments section is definitely NOT a winner in this war
There are no winners in war, only survivors.
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
Longest 3 day operation ever
3 DAYS -- 19 MONTHS OF GETTING PUMMELED BY FARMERS WITH PITCH FORKS LOL 🤪🤪🤪🇺🇦
Lockheed Martin
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
Great work as always Binkov, Your comment section is as lovely as ever lol.
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
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
Great presentation THANKS SO MUCH !
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.
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.
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.
Very comprehensive. Thank you for informing us on this important world issue!
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.
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...
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 answer is military supply manufacturers
Politicians, weapons manufacturers and bankers. Everyone else loses.
The media people do ok
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?
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 $$$
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.
BIG thanks to the author. If so many bots are targeting your channel, that means that you are doing great!
Please continue!
💙💛
Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin
Hell yeah.
They should send Putin a thank you card
@@rogerwilco5918 Hell, you're right. Gotta have an enemy in order to have a reason to spend money defeating that enemy.
Although, in all fairness, that "great enemy" is China now. I do miss the old Russian bear. Winnie the Pooh being our main rival just doesn't have the same feeling.
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
A good summary all round. Worth following.
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?
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 UA-camr 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 🫢
the ones that benefit are the ones making the weapons.
and military bloggers
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
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.
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.
Great presentations thanks so much
Great presentation
Thanks as usual
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?
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 :/
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
American weapon makers will benefit.
But not Russian ones?
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
Excellent data
Banks and arms industries are the ones that benefit the most, although the energy and food industry are making major profits.
It's almost like it's a human meat grinder for the profit of a very few.
According to my computer. The cause of the end of the Ukraine-Russian war was because of an alien invasion.
Viva la Résistancemoment
🎶But I'm out of my head when you're not around🎶😔
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.
The real battle is here in the comments.
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.
Thank you for the darker map, it is like a dark mode version for who watch in dark space :)
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.
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.
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
New graphics look dope.
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.
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.
I don't normally miss an episode but I think a little Hall & Oats is in order first....
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.
"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
Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BAE Systems, etc......
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.
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?
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.
Peanuts compared to past wars while not getting directed involved, cleaning old inventories that were scheduled for decomission and dimishing russian power through Ukraine lives, such a good deal the US has made with this war
Hey man, we all know the US sucks. But in this case, its all just russian fascist imperialism thats to blame.
People unironically agree with you.
This Ukraine and Russia conflict is a long grinding war, the likeness of World War One Trench Warfare 1914-1918
Short reply: USA
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%👌
Russia is likely to start running low on large battlefield weapons (e.g. tanks, artillery, helicopters) in a year or two. It has been consuming its vast Soviet-era stocks, and cannot manufacture enough to replace its losses. I could see Ukraine reclaiming Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Crimea oblasts in the next year due to geographical and logistical advantages. The Donbas (Donetsk and Luhansk) is another question. That area could remain contested for a long time.
We've been hearing the same rubbish for over a year now and still no shortage. Seems nato is the one with shortages.
@@andretorben9995its only a logical conclusion.
Russia is being sanctioned and cannot produce everything necessary from electronics to specilized parts to raw materials.
No one single country can. Its called Globalization.
Each country specialized in certain industries and technology then uses that to trade for what they need and export what they produce.
Russia will eventually run out. While Ukraine is being given donations by a global forum.
Only Iran is actively aiding Russia.
Simple math and logic.
Russia is not completely cut off by they certainly will not be getting electronics or resources to build sophisticated tanks like their T90 MBTs or more long range missiles.
@@andretorben9995
You are completely right, in that NATO is the one with a shortage and yes we have been hearing about russia running out of everything a dozen times. But when you look at the sheer posibility of what the west can produce and supply vs what can russia produce when it eventualy depletes it's soviet-era supplies...well we all know that it's not even a close matchup (provided that the west will maintain their political will to supply ukraine)
@@andretorben9995 it takes time for an massive stockpile to be depleted. and nato has shortages since they equipment wasnt as massively produced as the soviets. soviet had an larger manufacturer base than nato and their equipment was alot simpler and cheaper to produce. while nato has an lot less equipment made its equipment is way better than their soviet counterparts.
@@reee4425bruh when nato mobilizes it’s not something Russia can even be compared woth
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
Oh so now it’s a long war.
And I was just asking for a video that includes how much has invested each side up till now!
Here's some wisdom take every source with a grain of salt
The western military industrial complex.
It's a forever war to make money
*American. Germany isn't churning out munitions at a high level for 80 years, for example.
Rheinmettal, BAE etc are all building multiple new factories, business is booming for them.
The military industrial complex. Thats like asking if grass is green.
Other thing to consider is could one side eventually start losing at an increasing pace if they expend certain items faster than they can replace? I've heard one analyst suggest this may happen with Russia for artillery barrels for example because they no longer have enough of the advanced machine tools and specialised steel to produce them in large numbers. I think in such scenarios it wont be one type of item but a few.
Kim of NK. is in Russia now. I think artillery weapons and rounds won't be an issue for russia after his visit.
@feras5017 yes but for how long? Very unlikely that NK can just turn up the output on its factories to produce what Russia needs if Russia itself can't. Eventually NK stocks will run down to a point they wont be able to supply Russia in large quantities longer term
@@michaelm1589the tooling your talking about can just be brought in by any nation bordering Russia nobody is complying with sanction s and it was retarded to think anyone would comply with the sanctions.
@@feras5017 From “Kiev in 3 days” to having to rely on north korean supplies, this isn’t looking very well for Russia
Russia Overcomes Sanctions to Expand Missile Production, Officials Say -nytimes
Why does people keep forgetting that Russia is next door neighbor to China which is world factory?...Any tech they lack can be purchased from China.
The one who sell guns
Patton was right....we should have kept going east.
You should stay on the other fking side of the Ocean. GFO of Europe!
like it's any business of the U.S. stay home for a change warmongers
@@ovidiulitiu7448If USA should leave Russia should get the fuck out too
Patton was dumb.
The Red Army would have crushed the Allies.
His maximum was leading a column of tanks, not geopolitics or complex strategy.
Not to mention rivalry among the western allies themselves.
Kept going with... what exactly and against who? Against large, well equipped and experienced army, with green Yankees?
Hey Binko, this was an interesting report. But the photo of the capital at the 8 minute and ten second mark is the capital of Washington State in the northwest corner of the US, not the US capital in Washington DC. I know that because I grew up there. Indeed, the view that you've provided is less than 2 miles from me right now. The water in the lower half of the picture is Capital Lake. It's lovely, isn't it.
It is lovely!
You American bastards live a good live while you make wars all over the world for us 😂
Also why the hell do you even have 2 Washingtons? Ran out of names? Like Georgia and mini soda? XD
I just can't resist those top tier 80s lyrics! ❤