Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "Anders Puck Nielsen"
channel.
-
The West has delayed and slow-rolled deliveries from the start, for various reasons:
1. At first, everyone thought Ukraine would fall. No reason to throw resources into the Russian's hands.
2. Once Europe saw that Ukraine could at least delay Russia from pushing westward, several NATO countries threw some limited material to the Ukrainian Army, like light anti-tank weapons.
3. Once it became a drawn-out war of attrition, pretty much everyone in Europe wanted to continue to attrit Russian fighting capability without escalation.
It doesn't help to send Ukraine overwhelming weapons that give them a decisive advantage that crushes the Russians if the Russians then ratchet up into WMD employment in the region.
NATO in Europe, aside from Poland and Finland, have drawn down war stocks and weapons developments for the past 32 years, especially Germany, France, and UK.
Everyone now is expecting the US to pick up the slack.
Mike Johnson has been privy to far more informed classified briefings than you ever see from academics on YouTube will ever see during this war. I would be very calculated in checking myself before second-guessing the Speaker of the House.
10
-
9
-
@baronvonlimbourgh1716 In the Winter War, where my Grandfather and great uncles fought, the Soviets lost:
168,000 KIA/MIA
207,000 WIA
Russia had lost 120,000 KIA as of JUN2023 per Prigozhin, which included Donbas, Chechen, and mercenary fighters.
They’re more likely at around 150,000 KIA now with Donbas ethnic Russians being the largest losses (80,000). In the Winter War, the Ukrainian 44th Infantry Division was sent to fight for the Russia and slaughtered, which worked for Stalin both ways.
The Soviet Union was a co-aggressor with Germany, both of whom agreed to divide Eastern Europe. They both invaded Poland in 1939 together, the the Soviets invaded Finland on 30NOV1939. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of AUG1939, which was secret until the Nuremberg trials.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@baronvonlimbourgh1716 A lot of people don’t study military history like I have for the past 5 decades, so they wake up to things we’ve already been preparing for over many years. For example, Finland with 3.7 million population in 1939 killed more Soviet soldiers in 105 days than the past 2 years killed in Ukraine by a country with a population of 43 million when the war started. Finland was left out to dry for themselves in 1939 mostly, while Ukraine has received a decent amount of war material.
Your idea of massive amounts of war material and mine are likely very different. You know who did get massive amounts of supplies in WWII from the US? The Soviets...at least 17.5 million tons of it, to include fighters, bombers, trucks, tanks, fuel, raw materials, weapons, ammunition, radios, uniforms, medical supplies, etc.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
Historically, the Republican party of the Reagan era has been far better-informed and postured on foreign affairs. Democrats in post-WWII era have been very adverse to military foreign entanglements, even when their own party was in the WH in the 1960s.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US as a whole- including both parties, has been in a state of withdrawal and then knee-jerk distraction with the global war on terrorism.
Now the constituents of both parties, those who don't vote, and America in general are tired of war, and tired of being ridiculed no matter what we do.
Partisan extremists in the Democrat Party are using this war only as a domestic whipping post for Republicans. Seriously. When has the voting base of the DNC ever been pro-war since WWII? They rioted at convention in '68, and rioted against Vietnam for years. They even mass-protested Desert Storm in '91, until it was so decisively won that they retracted and cheered hooray with everyone else in the parades.
The political class trying to hang some type of blame on Republican Speakership is really out of tune with the base.
Either way, both parties have been funding support for Ukraine with a measured approach, with the vast majority of the money staying in the US.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@211steelman Typically Republicans have been the aggressive foreign policy/military wing of Congress against foreign enemies, with generations of deployment experience in Europe, Asia, and the ME.
Democrats with CPUSA and the Democratic Socialists of America have not only been in league with the USSR and Russia, but 420 of them have had their campaigns funded through Russian fronts like Council for a Livable World. Guess who got into the Senate in 1972 with CFALW money?
You start to see it all make sense when you realize Putin was behind Elena Baturina wiring $3.5 million to Hunter Biden’s Rosemont Seneca shell corp in February of 2014, right before Putin lost his puppet Yanukovych in Kiev in March. That’s when Putin invaded Donbas, annexed Crimea, and did everything in his power to stop Ukrainian investigators from uncovering how he had been robbing Ukraine through Burisma.
Then Hunter ended up on the board of Burisma in May, 2014. The new Ukrainian President Poroshenko had his close friend lead the new investigation into Burisma and other corruption cases, and multiple assassination attempts were launched against him, Viktor Shokin.
VP Biden called for Poroshenko to fire Shokin, with threat of the US withholding $1 Billion in aid money. The IMF and EU also voiced strong opposition to Shokin, because he had all the files on how Russian fronts were selling Ukrainian girls to all sorts of billionaires and banking class Barrons in Europe all these years for vast money flowing into Russian oligarch coffers, who then have to pay Putin corruptsia taxes.
Americans in the intel community have witnessed these things going on for decades, only to be silenced by NDAs. But the idea that Democrats are on the right side of all this and Republicans are somehow in bed with Russia is one of the most retarded things I’ve witnessed over the past 5 decades.
2
-
@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Putin had planned to take Ukraine and every other former Russian empire and Soviet sphere territory back when he assumed office in 2000. I learned about this plan in the early 2000s from a Russian Deputy within the Foreign Ministry. My assessment was that he was an old Soviet blowhard, but I didn’t write it off entirely because it was within the historical profile of Russia (my family is partially from Finland.).
Ukraine is an extremely high-value territory and industry/resource-rich geography that Russia sees as an imperative to control. Russia did have a puppet named Yanukovych in Kiev from 2010-2014, until he was ousted by 79% of Ukrainian people with the Euromaiden protests. That’s when Putin invaded Donbas and annexed Crimea.
Ukraine had 13 of the Soviet naval yards in the Soviet times. Russia lacks warmwater ports if you look at their terrible geography. They are basically isolated and land-locked effectively. Several of their main oil/NG pipelines run through Ukraine into Europe as well. Ukraine had rediscovered vast oil fields near Kharkiv and off the coast of Odessa, which meant they would have been able to explore, extract, and supply Europe in the long run, bypassing Russia as a source for the European market.
You start to see why Putin did what he did. He also used a lot of Donbas region ethnic Russians to do much of the fighting and dying, along with Chechens, Mobniks from hinterlands, and Wagner mercenaries so the population centers in Russia don’t see or feel the losses of so many soldiers.
Putin still has plenty of soldiers to throw at the real fight, which will be in Poland, the Baltics, and Finland. That has been his plan since 2000.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pieter-bashoogsteen2283 I lived through it all. We moved to West Germany in 1980 to assist with the development of the "future fighter 1990", which became the ECA and then Typhoon.
Europeans voted in women and male feminists who not only hated defense, but loathed themselves.
The multinational engineering teams comprised of Germans, Brits, Italians, Spaniards, and French rarely could agree on anything. The French quickly saw that the other nations weren't going to support their Carrier- borne variant demands or manufacturing share, so the French left the program and developed the Rafale.
To this day, they still have not installed AESA Radars into the NATO typhoons.
Once you see the conundrum of the multinational consortiums, with their ethno-linguistic silos, you see how those programs are kind of doomed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dichebach Good points. The politicians of both parties typically have been more like each other than not, picking letters based on their constituent leanings in the districts in which they run. They are mostly attorneys after all, who win based on being malleable to the financiers of their campaigns. Organized crime really bought DC and City governments during Prohibition, with no real signs of having let go.
From Eisenhower to Reagan/Bush, Republicans were pretty hawkish on foreign entanglements, though both parties had major protests about Vietnam. Nixon criticized the LBJ handling of the war and said you either go full-court or get out.
There was a lot of polarization in the 1960s-1970s during Vietnam, which placed the voters at odds with DC in general, especially after 3 major assassinations of key leaders in the US.
The Country was more unified again under Reagan, who was a populist.
No matter what party is in the WH, the opposing party always finds some way to critique the WH for foreign entanglements. In this case, the GOP has been actually much more supportive for a WH that many of them think is not even a legitimate Presidency after the 2020 election.
Republicans understand better than Democrats the importance of stability in Europe because the military has been providing security in Europe for generations since 1945, and military personnel come from a lot of conservative families. You see more left-leaning liberals in the officer corps because of college, while enlisted war-fighters trend Republican.
Given that the new leadership of the Republican Party sees 2024 as an existential imperative for the Nation, and has a massive treason case brewing over the Biden family taking millions from Russia, it isn’t just a political gamesmanship season between D and R.
1
-
Both political parties and the electorate as a whole in the United States are undergoing transformational shifts in the past 2 or 3 generations. The Democrat party abandoned and betrayed its working class and voters in the unions for generations by shipping their jobs overseas after decades of restrictive regulations imposed on their employers.
The republican party and blue dog democrats abandoned the military-industrial complex/security Foreign Affairs wing of Washington DC in favor of domestic economic policies, Though this was tug-o-warred with the global war on terrorism.
Lifelong Democrat Union families we're looking for someone to represent them were constantly ignored and lied to by snake-tongued politicians, who only rallied them during election years, while voting consistently to ship their jobs to Asia.
This is where the Tea Party filled in, followed by Trump and MAGA, which career politicians in both parties had no answer for other than calling them racists.
The RINOs fear it just as much as their country club fat cat Democrat friends in Congress, which is why they both fought the Tea Party and MAGA movements.
It's weird to watch Democrats turn into war mongers who also love the FBI and CIA, while Republicans become war-weary (they disproportionately fill the military ranks and don't like seeing their children left out to dry by the political class in DC).
The actual voting base of the Republican party has morphed with blue collar union workers who want a strong military that doesn't get squandered on senseless overseas deployments with no strategy.
These aren't war hawks of the Cold War, but peace through strength common sense folks who want to focus on America first.
The Democrat party is now a big tent with a hollow cavity in the middle. Along one edge of the tent are single children technocrats who love the authoritarianism of network-enabled FBI & CIA, while on the other side are transvestites, blue-haired cat lady feminazis, and gaystapo activists with spiraling moral compasses, whose main common ideology with the technocrats is the religion of climate alarmism.
Gone are the Kennedy idealists, Carter pragmatists, and Clinton compromisers. Under Republican pressure against Clinton, we actually had a balanced Federal budget.
The common sense voting blocks of both parties feel betrayed and marginalized, but have awakened to the fact that regular people share common goals for the Nation, while the political class work for someone else.
1
-
1
-
@traumflug All voters in the US have a set of priorities starting with the economy, which is suffering from inflation, lack of labor in certain areas, housing cost crisis, collapsing demand from baby boomers retiring, infrastructure in need of revitalization, major problems with schools across the board K-Harvard, a border control disaster, terrorists flowing into the Nation by the thousands, climate alarmism as a religion not backed by science, genital mutilation as policy for pre and post-pubescent teenagers, lack of trust in institutions, and things of this nature.
Nobody who is associated with either party sees Ukraine as their top single issue voting motivator. Anyone who believes otherwise is far out of touch with the Country. We care about Ukraine, but it isn’t at the top of the list in any of the political discussions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@piccalillipit9211 The stage had already been set in the 1960s in Europe to rely on US military industrial capacity. Look at the richest European nations at the time and how much they deferred to US-built systems, while cancelling their own domestic advanced programs. It is far too late now to have a conversation about European military technology, since no European defense firm makes any critical 5th Gen systems for fighters.
There isn’t a European 5th Gen engine, Radar, integrated RF sensor suite, IR sensors, flight control systems, or even the basic RAS airframe technology among any of the prime European aerospace defense firms. It’s not because of a lack of brains, just the fact that Europeans have allowed themselves to be ruled by feminists in parliaments, who know nothing about defense, security, industry, infrastructure, or technology. They aren’t wired to protect, but to nurture, and since they murdered their own children or chose not to have any, Africans and Arabs are their de facto children now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrOneball1 If you’re talking about armor and self-propelled howitzers, your thinking is outdated. You need to be talking about aerospace systems, missile defense, long-range fires, ISR platforms, Omnirole Stealth Combat Aircraft, Reconnaissance Satellites, stealth cruise missiles, and stealth drones.
No other nation in the world has advanced aircraft manufacturing, propulsion, avionics, flight control systems, integrated sensor suites, and weapons like the US does.
The Euroconsortium enterprise is still making out-dated Typhoons, a 1980s technology fighter, and has failed to even upgrade them with the CAPTOR-E AESA Radar. Why? Parliaments refused to fund it. The basic Typhoon airframe is already 2 generations behind F-35, even though it was cutting edge for the 1980s.
US Army has shifted more to long range fires with missiles like the ATACMS long ago. If you ever have seen what an old ATACMS does, you would quickly realize that Self-Propelled Howitzers are weak. There is video of what an ATACMS did to a Russian convoy of soldiers riding in trucks in Ukraine. Everyone was dead, mostly still sitting in their seats in the trucks. That was the cluster munition variant that disperses little baseball-sized explosives over a specific area with extreme precision.
Europe has these that it has bought from the US, just like most NATO partners have bought F-35s, Patriot missile defense, etc. If you don’t invest in strength, you will be reliant on those who do. Choose wisely in the 1990s. It’s too late now.
1
-
@PeterA650 Yup. Almost none of “European” air combat systems are European. Even among France and Sweden, their “independent” air combat systems have so many US components and technologies in them, as to shock the amateur fanboi of Rafales and Gripens.
We shared a lot of Radar and fire control technology with the French. US/NATO Aerospace engineering program materials are authored by US, German, British, and Italian senior aerospace engineers. The US provides most of the RDT&E money for advanced combat systems, and even allows NATO partners to come to the US to test their fighters and missiles.
SAAB relied on either Rolls Royce (England) , Pratt & Whitney (US/Canada), and GE (US) to power ALL of its jet fighters since the J-35 Draken. Viggen was P&W JT8D. Gripen A-D are GE F404. Gripen E/F is GE F414.
Back during Gripen A days, they had major problems with gaps in the flight control laws, and had to bring them to General Dynamics at Fort Worth to get help in fixing its glitches.
Rafale uses an F404 derivative engine. The Rafale A demonstrator was even powered by 2 F404s. It made its maiden flight on the 4th of July in 1986, when Reagan was still US President. That’s how far back the Rafale goes. With all that development and production time, Dassault has only produced a little over 260 Rafales. It has been almost 39 years since its first flight.
1
-
1
-
@BlueMoonday19 Yup, and I think it’s even more subservient than that. European defense contractors have effectively become subcontractors for major US prime contractors. Look at airframes, engines, Radars, missiles of all types, FLIR systems, pods, precision-guided weapons, and even small arms.
The UK has ordered small arms from the US for its last few contracts, since it failed to produce a reliable assault rifle in its own small arms industry the last time it tried with the SA80 saga. In order to make the SA80 reliable, they had to bring in Hk to fix and upgrade it twice now. UK SOF just ordered US Knight’s Armament weapons recently, and conventional forces ordered US LMT 7.62 DMR weapons during GWOT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@57thorns The US is the one who sold the majority of weapons to Europe that Europe has sent to Ukraine. Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland, UK, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland just increased their orders for the most advanced weapon systems ever engineered in the US arsenal, and can't get deliveries soon enough.
PAC-3 Patriots and F-35s don't grow on trees in Europe. They are made in the US, with some subcontracting for F-35 in UK, Norway, an assembly line in Italy, and new contracts for sub work in Switzerland and Finland.
NATO has made itself extremely vulnerable by drawing down war stocks since 1991 and not fulfilling obligations to itself in terms of defense spending.
Now everyone is crying that the US is responsible for European security and blaming the US no matter how many weapons contracts the US has maintained with NATO.
People don't have a remotely-accurate view of the ground truth because they watch mass media lies designed to deceive them.
1
-
@SnorriTheLlama Foreign Military Sales contracts to Europe from the US have only been increasing for several European countries even before 2014, and ramped-up dramatically for more since then.
From 1990s-2014, UK, Poland, Norway, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, and Finland increased orders of US high technology weapon systems, namely F-35As and F-35Bs.
Ukraine tried to order weapons from the US, but the Obama/Biden WH refused them, then sided with Putin by blocking investigations into Russian corruption and infiltration of the government in Kiev. That's why Hunter Biden was placed on the board of Burisma in May 2014, after one of Putin's oligarchs wired $3.5 million to Hunter's shell company.
Biden was supposed to extract Zelensky from Kiev, so Putin could seize Ukraine and begin staging forces along the Polish border.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vaataja The more Russian tanks, fighters, missiles, artillery, trucks, APCs, drones, and resources spent in Ukraine, the less options they have to invade Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania.
If Zelensky had taken Biden's offer in Feb, 2022, Kiev would have fallen, Moldova would be annexed, Russian forces would be staged along the Western borders in Belorussia, Ukraine, Moldova prepping the false flags to invade Poland and/or Finland.
All the troops and equipment destroyed over the past 23 months would be relocated to Saint Petersburg and Western front military districts.
Europe owes Zelensky and the Ukrainians a huge thanks for delaying this new adventurous dictator's expansion. Putin has had this planned since the early 2000s.
1
-
1