17 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

all told they're getting over 100 modern tanks, all superior to anything Russia is currently fielding.

80+ are Leopard 2s, which will arrive much sooner. The M1s are really going mainly to secure the Leopards. M1s require a lot more support. 

just being able to plan around having these tanks available is going to help Ukraine free up some existing resources. They can mobilize armor they've kept in reserve, and be more aggressive with the armor they have at the front knowing that reinforcements are imminent.

Nonsense. 

The idea that Russian tanks are subpar is another Western myth. But, even if we assume it's true, it's not as if there's going to be huge tank versus tank battles like in WWII. The modern battlefield has changed significantly. ISR complexes and stand-off strike capabilities mean less close encounters of armored regiments. The vast majority of the 7500+ tanks Ukraine has already lost were destroyed by stand-off weapons.

Then there's the whole area of combined arms warfare where tanks are only one element in a complex array of integrated weapons deployment over a netcentric environment. The hoge-poge of equipment being assembled for Ukraine will be a nightmare to operate in any complementary way, even if the crews are well trained. 

Sending in NATO armament piecemeal to operate as stand alone weapons by poorly trained personnel is stupid beyond belief.

But, if your real aim is to kill as many Russians as possible, using eastern European blood, while disarming Germany then it has a certain logic.

 

8 hours ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

isn't our military 5xs larger than all other countries combined or something like that ? 

In terms of military personnel, both China and India's military are bigger than America's.  China's Navy has more ships while Russia has more tanks, combat aircraft, and nuclear warheads.  You're thinking of spending, and there are two things which primarily drive that.  The first is that the U.S. military is a volunteer force; basically 1/2 of the U.S. defense budget goes to pay salary, health care, and retirement. The second reason is that other militaries are pretty much designed to fight on their own territory or at most in their backyard.  Long ago the U.S. decided it was better to fight a war on the enemy's territory rather than our own, so the military is built around force projection.  The U.S. has the only military in the world that is capable of fighting a near-peer conflict on the other side of the world. That capability doesn't come cheap.

On 1/24/2023 at 8:35 PM, we_gotta_believe said:

Don't know about cartels but the clips I saw of him talking about nuclear energy were real bad. He speaks in a manner that makes it seem like he's coming from a position of authority but he was laughably misinformed on several points. 

Zeihan is a generalist that is paid to speak on a yuuge variety of topics, so part of his speaking manner is simple salesmanship.  There's no doubt he's wrong on some things, for instance his purely military analyses can be shallow and glib.  On geopolitical stuff, though, his track record is one of being right more often than wrong.  He called the shale oil revolution years before it exploded.  He called the Russian invasion of Ukraine back in 2017 in one of his books.  The media now is starting to pick up on the possible threat to rare earth minerals (hint Russia and China are huge producers) and again he's been harping on that for some time.  Same thing with demographic decline across the world.  Fertilizer shortages: same.  Do I take him as the Bible?  No, but he comes at this stuff from an angle most people overlook: geographical and demographic, and that is very useful.

1 minute ago, Mlodj said:

Zeihan is a generalist that is paid to speak on a yuuge variety of topics, so part of his speaking manner is simple salesmanship.  There's no doubt he's wrong on some things, for instance his purely military analyses can be shallow and glib.  On geopolitical stuff, though, his track record is one of being right more often than wrong.  He called the shale oil revolution years before it exploded.  He called the Russian invasion of Ukraine back in 2017 in one of his books.  The media now is starting to pick up on the possible threat to rare earth minerals (hint Russia and China are huge producers) and again he's been harping on that for some time.  Same thing with demographic decline across the world.  Fertilizer shortages: same.  Do I take him as the Bible?  No, but he comes at this stuff from an angle most people overlook: geographical and demographic, and that is very useful.

Maybe, but when he's speaking on a subject I'm vaguely familiar with, and I start to pick up on BS, it makes me question if I should continue to take the rest of what he's saying at face value.

31 minutes ago, Mlodj said:

better to fight a war on your enemy's territory rather than our own

Commonly called colonialism

41 minutes ago, Mlodj said:

Zeihan is a generalist that is paid to speak on a yuuge variety of topics, so part of his speaking manner is simple salesmanship.  There's no doubt he's wrong on some things, for instance his purely military analyses can be shallow and glib.  On geopolitical stuff, though, his track record is one of being right more often than wrong.  He called the shale oil revolution years before it exploded.  He called the Russian invasion of Ukraine back in 2017 in one of his books.  The media now is starting to pick up on the possible threat to rare earth minerals (hint Russia and China are huge producers) and again he's been harping on that for some time.  Same thing with demographic decline across the world.  Fertilizer shortages: same.  Do I take him as the Bible?  No, but he comes at this stuff from an angle most people overlook: geographical and demographic, and that is very useful.

That's why this was big news:

 

28 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

Commonly called colonialism

You're an idiot who has no idea what "colonialism" is. Crimean Tatars would like a word.

What Russia is doing is much closer to colonialism than the US post WWII. 

14 hours ago, Mlodj said:

In terms of military personnel, both China and India's military are bigger than America's.  China's Navy has more ships while Russia has more tanks, combat aircraft, and nuclear warheads.  You're thinking of spending, and there are two things which primarily drive that.  The first is that the U.S. military is a volunteer force; basically 1/2 of the U.S. defense budget goes to pay salary, health care, and retirement. The second reason is that other militaries are pretty much designed to fight on their own territory or at most in their backyard.  Long ago the U.S. decided it was better to fight a war on the enemy's territory rather than our own, so the military is built around force projection.  The U.S. has the only military in the world that is capable of fighting a near-peer conflict on the other side of the world. That capability doesn't come cheap.

This, to me, is why I never get the complaining about how much we spend on our military.  Would those complaining rather have our cities turn into battlegrounds (military if course, technically many of them already are a bit of a battleground), or are they OK with their cushy lives and ignorance as to how the world works?

14 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

That's why this was big news:

 

This all but assures Sweden's entry into NATO.

Two Russians walk into a bar. Both are conscripted and have to beg their sisters for tampons.

Ha ha, joke.

 

Have beet.

 

41 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Two Russians walk into a bar. Both are conscripted and have to beg their sisters for tampons.

Ha ha, joke.

 

Have beet.

 

Sorry, beet for conscript.

You get nothing. You may thank Putin now.

18 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

You're an idiot who has no idea what "colonialism" is. Crimean Tatars would like a word.

What Russia is doing is much closer to colonialism than the US post WWII. 

20 million murdered by the U.S. since WWII.

4 hours ago, Abracadabra said:

20 million murdered by the U.S. since WWII.

So, about double what Stalin did to his own?

 

I still do not understand having a membership to a message board for the Philadelphia Eagles, and then posting only in one thread in the political sub forum.

LINK

Quote

Challenger 1: The Tank Ukraine Really Needs?

Story by James Refalo • Yesterday 5:50 PM

NATO and the US should be giving the Ukrainians Challenger 1’s and avoid the logistics nightmare - Why is NATO not offering to purchase some 200-400 recently retired Challenger 1 tanks from the Kingdom of Jordan, with all the spare parts that will come with them, and supply those to Ukraine, avoiding the logistics mess?  It would be far more cost-effective. This was the point of a recent comment in The Telegraph (Britain is sending the Ukrainians the wrong tanks), but it bears repeating.  The NATO tank donation program has turned into a hodgepodge, not only supplying three different tanks from three different nations, The M1 Abrams, the Challenger 2, and the Leopard 2.  And to make matters even more confusing, different models of the Leopard are being sent to Ukraine that are substantially different in their maintenance and parts requirements.  While the Ukrainians can probably manage this logistics nightmare (one of the few countries that can), in the middle of the war, who needs the headache? 

While the Challenger 1's are not front-line technology, they are still pretty damn good. They are vastly superior to the T-72 – pretty much the equivalent of the M1A1 Abrams – have the record for the longest tank-to-tank kill, 4700 meters, and the Challenger’s that took part in the first Iraqi war acquitted themselves well by destroying 300 Iraqi tanks without incurring a single loss.  No, they aren’t today’s technology, but their fire control systems, night vision, and armor are still superior to almost anything the Russians can throw at them (they have already proven they can have a field day with the T-72).  Crucially, they can be made available in large quantities now.

Ukraine needs a lot of tanks, and they need them quickly; the number that is consistently mentioned is 300. However, they need to conduct training for both operations and support.   The problem is that the US and NATO is handing them handfuls of different types of tanks, each having unique training and support requirements, many of which will not be delivered in time for combat in the spring.   The US is talking about delivering 31 M1’s sometime this summer with critical technologies removed and then producing another 60-70 for delivery sometime next year.  The UK is coughing up 14 of its Challenger 2’s.  Then we have the Leopard donation program.  The whole thing is silly. It is unimaginable that the US, UK, NATO cannot buy 100-200 used Challenger 1 tanks that are operable and at a fraction of the cost of new vehicles, and supply those.  Moreover, Ukraine would be receiving one type of tank, standardizing both training and support. 

There are many complaining about the cost of this war, it has affected many NATO countries, this is a way of reducing those costs. But so long as because of politics or prior political announcements, we refuse to examine emergent alternatives, we’re going to be stuck with paying through the nose, delayed delivery of needed weapon systems to fight this war, and a logistical strategy that no business would ever consider sane.  In-fact, I wonder that if we privatized this war with corporations managing it, having to foot the bills themselves, the decisions they would have made. This seems a no-brainer. NATO and DOD should look into this.

 

19 hours ago, Toastrel said:

So, about double what Stalin did to his own?

That's your retort? You've outdone some other mass murdering SOB so it must not be too bad? 

Add cynicism to the long list of reasons why the U.S. must be eliminated. 

70 tons in the mire of Ukraine 

The Russians will capture specimens to learn their secrets. Better strip them down of the tech or risk exposing their goods. In other words, send basic shells and watch them burn. 

Yikes

23 hours ago, downundermike said:

I still do not understand having a membership to a message board for the Philadelphia Eagles, and then posting only in one thread in the political sub forum.

He's "Pepe Escobar"'s P.R. agent

If this is true 2023 should be entertaining...

 

On 1/28/2023 at 1:41 PM, Abracadabra said:

That's your retort? You've outdone some other mass murdering SOB so it must not be too bad? 

Add cynicism to the long list of reasons why the U.S. must be eliminated. 

I'm supposed to take a Putin fanboi seriously? You reap the post from what you sow.

No beet for you.

9 hours ago, lynched1 said:

If this is true 2023 should be entertaining...

 

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

Looks like Ukraine drone strike in Iran!!!

Ukraine official gloats after drone strike on weapons facility in Russian-allied Iran: 'Ukraine did warn you'

• Senior aide to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy suggested Ukraine is linked to a drone strike in Iran.

• Ukraine has not officially confirmed any connection to Saturday's explosion.

• By contrast, US officials suspect Israel is behind the strike, according to The New York Times.

A senior aide to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Saturday gloated over a drone strike on an Iranian weapons facility, hinting that the attack was made in connection with Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Over the weekend, footage circulated online of a large explosion on the roof of a building in Isfahan, western Iran, prompting Mykhailo Polodyak to tweet: "[Ukraine flag] did warn you."