Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Can Ukraine Claim the Skies and Destroy Russian Air Defenses? || Peter Zeihan" video.

  1.  @hermaeusmora2945  It’s not a secret. This is commonly discussed by actual subject matter experts. I don’t think NATO would even offer comment on how Ukraine might use the F-16s. That’s outside of their purview. I think you must have weird ideas about what NATO is or what it does.
    5
  2. Russia is backing Maduro? How exactly, other than to offer sympathy and moral support? I’m sure Putin’s thoughts and prayers are a great comfort to the Chavistas.
    4
  3. The basic airframe design is 40 years old, but the aircraft being sent to Ukraine are not. You’re thinking about how the Russian Air Force works, trying to squeeze extra life out of airframes by limiting pilot training time. These F-16s have much later production dates and include actual upgrades (not taping a consumer GPS to the cockpit display).😂
    2
  4.  @mikegoodie7905  AliceinWonderland wasn’t entirely clear about this, but the issue is this: the long range air to air missiles are only long range at high altitudes, where air density is very low. It is extremely dangerous for an F-16 to reach those altitudes, so they will be operating at much lower altitudes, trying to stay below the Russian radar. The air density is the limiting factor. I expect to see the F-16s used to steadily degrade Russian air defense assets and to suppress air defense for cruise missile strikes. Ukraine needs hundreds of F-16s and other specialized aircraft to use NATO combined arms tactics. So Pete is not listening to the right people. He’s probably listening to other generalists.
    1
  5. Get up off the floor, schmuck. Pete is very good within his specializations, and not very good the farther he drifts from his expertise. He mainly wants to sell books and book speaking engagements. He often puts his ideas in provocative terms because that creates interest in his work and sells his ideas. If he worked for the CIA, it would need to somehow benefit the CIA. What I think is going on here is that when someone says something you disagree with, you assume they’re CIA. That’s a very lazy lens you are using to view the world, and you should think harder.
    1
  6. lol, you are arguing based on wishes, not facts.
    1