Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Zeihan on Geopolitics" channel.

  1. 37
  2. 22
  3. 17
  4. 16
  5. 15
  6. 14
  7. 11
  8. 10
  9. 9
  10. 8
  11. 8
  12. 6
  13. 6
  14. 6
  15. 6
  16. 5
  17. 5
  18. 5
  19. 5
  20. 4
  21. 4
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. Why do people still talk like Russia has ANY chance of winning at this point. Russia's best units (airborne, Spetznaz, Chechnyans, etc) were defeated Months ago, and they are so desperate now they are sending untrained civilians to fight with no equipment. if that's the best they can do after mobilization, the Russian military is already eviscerated and on it's last leg. There is nothing left of any consequence in Russia for them to send to Ukraine that would make a difference at this point. They have lost more men in 7months than the US lost in Vietnam. Want to compare this to past Russian conflicts? Russia lost 15k troops in 9yrs in Afghanistan, 451 aircraft (75% of that was helicopters), only 150 tanks, 1300 misc vehicles, and 400 artillery, and 11k trucks. Over 10yrs. Russia has lost WAY more than that in only 7months in Ukraine. Contrast this to 7months in Ukraine with now well over 50k dead, countless more wounded and POWs. Hundreds of aircraft lost, including well over 100 fixed wing (about 8 more lost in just the last week or so?), over 1000 tanks lost or captured, thousands of trucks, artillery, air defenses, thousands of APC and other armored vehicles lost or captured. And tons of other weapons, ammo, etc. Russia can't even make more equipment to replace its losses and is buying artillery ammo from North Korea. And Russia is running out of missiles of all types, and those they fired had about a 60% failure rate. Russia is taking WW2-level casualties. The US didn't even lose people at this rate in WW2.
    2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111.  @Withnail1969  that proves nothing. Yes, the world needs oil, coal, natural gas, mining for raw material for other sources of energy, etc. That doesn't prove your right. Cities also grew up around logging mills downstream of large forests. That doesn't mean wood is the most important cost of goods. some cities grew up around car factories, that doesn't make cars the largest cost of goods. energy is needed, but we have lived in an era of cheap energy. Energy is a prime consideration in my industry, but in no way related to making what we sell. We know our customers will spend more money operating our equipment over the life of the product than they bought it for. So we show them that if we spend MORE money making our product More efficient, they will save on their operating expenses long term, and will save more money in teh long run by buying a more expensive energy efficient device. But we do that to justify selling a better more expensive product, and make more profit on our end. Doesn't hurt that our argument is also true. But when we design and manufacture our product, the cost of energy to manufacture it doesn't even factor into the design nor development of our product. Labor costs, and then material costs, are the two largest factors we deal with on a daily basis in engineering. I also have a side business designing and selling various products, and we don't even consider the cost of electricity to run our machines to make our products. We factor in the material costs, parts costs, and time spent assembling it. But we don't include cost of electricity of the laser, printers, power tools, CNC, etc. as when you divide the energy cost by the number of parts made, it's just not worth the time to calculate it and add it to the price. it's pennies. Costs more in labor to take the time to calculate it.
    1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124.  @johntowers1213  "most of those things you mentioned are high value assets that lean heavily on the quality over quantity ethos" Not true at all. torpedoes, and missiles are in widespread use and have been for decades. the TDR-1 was extremely cost effective, but was an experiment and not a fully approved nor funded project. but those who tested them in combat begged and pleaded for more. But even before testing had commences, US procurement had already decided not to make them operational. You're missing the point though. Every single guided weapon in history is a "drone". Some are cheap, some are not, but all are equally DRONES. the US used tens of drones in Iraq and Afghanistan for decades, I know I was there and we used them. many ideas used in Ukraine, many drones used in Ukraine, were developed by the US in decades past. Including things like the switchblade drones. And the US military and civilians saw the potential of weaponized quadcopters for years prior to Ukraine and did studies on it and people even made videos about the dangers and potential. But they are nothing more than an extension of the drones used in decades past in wars like WW2, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and OIF/OEF, Armenia, and Syria. Small cheap Drones were already in widespread use for decades, but it wasn't until Ukraine that the public at large became aware of it is all. And partly due to teh fact that such drones don't work as effectively in wars the US is actively fighting in, as we fight differently, and the way we fight is not conducive to this type of drone warfare seen in Ukraine working.
    1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1