Comments by "Trevor Sutherland" (@trevorsutherland5263) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds"
channel.
-
20
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
When I first heard Joe Biden was not going to respond to the "Draft Framework" Putin sent in September, 2021, I recall breathing out loud: "Biden is crazy to think they can beat Russia in a land war on their own territory!!" I couldn't believe it----it was like all these wealthy, powerful men simply ignored 200 years of history, and here I am this nobody history nerd, and now 2+ years later, everything I said would happen, has happened. Everything I couldn't see the future, but I knew RU would not quit, they would just bring more men and machines, sit behind layers and absorb that counteroffensive that everyone knew would fail, all the while the factories in the Urals ran day and night, then they start their steamroller and it will not stop until the war is over. Just like they did before, and before that, and before that. I am almost 100% by 2100 some Western fool will try again to beat Russia; and fail again..."
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
All that proves is that it was foolish in the extreme for Biden and Stoltenberg to reject the Security Framework Russia sent them in September, 2021. Whatever "analysis" they did that resulted in them choosing to fight rather than talk, was flawed to the point of absurdity. Look at that list of stuff-----that's just from the US! Doesn't even include the Migs and Sukhois, Leopard 2s, CV-90s, Krabs, CAESARs, and the tens of billions in other hardware and ammo sent by everyone else. What is the result? The "Grand Spring Offensive" stopped cold, and Zaluzhny yesterday admitting they cannot push Russia out, all they can do is resist. If $200B and 400K casualties is only enough to "resist", then to "win" would cost what, $500B and 1 million casualties? Does that seem sane?
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
Simple, TCO - Total Cost of Ownership. Though the upfront cost is much less than an American/European aircraft, over a 20 to 30 year timeframe the Chinese option will cost a country far more in downtime, headaches with spares, interoperability with allies, etc. than the lifetime cost of the American/European one. if a country can buy American/European, they would be foolish not to. For countries that cannot buy from America/Europe, Russia is a better option than China as well. Russian aircraft are far better built than Chinese equivalent, with better engines and overall durability and toughness. When Japan starts building fighters again, if they are willing to sell them to other countries, they will jump right up there with the American/European ones in terms of quality.
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
As a child in the 80s and 90s I read all the books, watched all the documentaries, went to all the movies that fantasized about US vs. Russia on land, sea and air. Now, as a man with three children all under age 20, I am thankful that's all it ever was----fantasizing. Hopefully the next 20 years will be the same about fantasizing about US vs. China. So, let's play! China's equipment has very rarely been tested in modern era and the few times it has over the past decade hasn't been very impressive. Just like their cars, motorcycles, and most everything they make, they cut too many corners to save a buck. Now, if China and Russia have successive leaders that continue what Putin and Xi started, and meld Russia's tough, real-world equipment mastery with China's chip fab and manufacturing dominance, together they could easily be strong enough in 20 years to keep the United States out of their business for the next century...."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1