General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

LRRPFco52
Anders Puck Nielsen
comments

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
 @stischer47 Christmas is in January in Russia, not December.
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
@Grokku.61 Didn't Russia invade Ukraine?
4
@stevens1041 In the 1990s, only 2 nations in Europe took their defense spending seriously and revitalized their militaries with modern fighters from the US in large numbers: Poland ordered 72 F-16C/D Block 52s to replace their MiG-29As and Su-22s. Finland ordered 64 F-18C/D Hornets to replace their SAAB Drakens and MiG-21s. The large nations in Europe talked about the end of history and the peace dividend. Ukraine entered a struggle with Russia as Russia kept doing everything in its power to install puppet regimes in Kiev.
4
@emilsohn1671 The Congressmen and NATO senior leaders are painfully-aware of the situation in Ukraine. A quick solution or “fast attack” will only escalate Russia’s responses, which nobody wants to find out what those are, including Putin. A lot of armchair peasants with zero foreign experience, little-to-know geography and history knowledge getting silly in campaign season is no reason to influence decisions. Foreign affairs are not domestic partisan quibbles, but most Americans in both parties actually see foreign affairs through that foggy, dark lens and it doesn’t work at all.
4
@ How many 5th Gen VLO after-burning turbofans has Rolls Royce developed? The US had 4 of them to choose from between 1989-1991 for the ATF program. 2 from Pratt & Whitney, and 2 from GE. The US then moved on to another iteration of 5th Gen motor with the F135, then onto 6th Gen motors with adaptive cycle stages (3 airflow paths), advanced composite ablatives. Meanwhile in Europe, EJ200 for the Typhoon, which is a 1980s-class engine comparable to the GE F404 used in the 1970s/1980s F/A-18 baby Hornets. In that old space, the US already moved on to the F414 GE motors in the Super Hornet.
3
 @steffenpanning2776 Poland relies on the US for its advanced aerospace and missile defense systems, just like South Korea does.
3
@AnthonyGTrees The US began funded development of the Advanced Tactical Fighter in 1981. The US and UK working together with DARPA, US Marine Corps, and US Air Force began funding ASTOVL in 1983. ATF= F-22A ASTOVL= F-35B F-22A first flight 1997. F-35A first flight Dec 2006. F-35B first flight Dec 2008. Good luck!
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
@thehellezell Most of the weapons sent from NATO countries in Europe were made in the US, sold to NATO partners under FMS in the past 30 years, especially Patriots and Javelins. Critical war stock for those weapons was allowed to go to unacceptably-low numbers in NATO countries, who already have neglected their defense postures for decades.
3
@dichebach Trump has repeatedly said he would end the war in Ukraine in a day. He likes to keep his opponents guessing and off-base about his next steps, because being unpredictable is a huge advantage to the one taking action towards their goals.
3
@ Swedish Air Force could not afford to lose any Gripen C/Ds, because Gripen E isn’t even operational yet. Swedish Air Force only has 94 Gripen C/D fighters in service. Gripen E is still undergoing structural and aerodynamic changes after they started production, which is a really bad sign. It’s even more under-powered than the Gripen C, which doesn’t have a 1:1 Thrust-to-Weight Ratio in a light combat configuration. That means it doesn’t measure up to US 1970s standards for a 4th Gen fighter in basic raw performance. So where would you propose to get Gripens for Ukraine? It has nothing to do with the US. The F-16s send to Ukraine were from NATO MSIP partner nations, not the US.
2
@ Even among Democrats, Ukraine and European defense aren’t anywhere on their top 16 list of issues, per their own priorities stated on the DNC website: Climate Change Economy & Jobs Gas Prices Gun Control Healthcare Inflation LGBTQ Prescription Drugs Strengthening Democracy Abortion SS, Medicare, Medicaid Student Loan debt Taxes Veterans Voting rights
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
@ThoughtfulDane The funding strategy in DC is what he wants articulated, with priority of US border security being imperative. We face very real threats in the US now with millions of illegals flowing through, thousands of whom are from hostile nations to the US. The strategy both entrenched political classes execute is enrichment from donors, so most of the $100 billion in aid to Ukraine is staying on the US, and was already spent during the 1990s-2000s defense budgets on weapons and equipment we don't use anymore. The truth about US FMS aid is absent from most discussions, because journalists and YouTube wannabe influences are clueless about the actual defense strategies and FMS policies of the US.
2
@SigmundNonteris I've been in the aerospace and defense sector since the 1970s to include exchange programs with nato partners. What I have seen is opposite of every bullet point you have claimed.
2
@ FDR was a criminal mafia plant who then stacked the Supreme Court with rubber-stamp justices, including 2 Senators who were members of the KKK. He should have never made it farther in politics after the Newport gay scandal when he was Assistant Secretary to the Navy. His State Dept was packed full of communists, and he did Stalin’s bidding throughout the war, other than commit US forces to the ETO early. The US still had to fight the Pacific and North African Campaigns simultaneously, before entering the ETO. FDR made himself the head of all labor unions in the US upon assuming office, and formally recognized Stalin as the leader of Russia and the USSR. He was one of the worst Presidents in US history, who was propped-up by criminals who controlled the media and made him a deity.
2
Who paid for the unknown Delaware Senate candidate in 1972? Where did he travel to in 1973 to be paraded around like a stooge before KGB and senior Politburo members? Whose bidding has he done his whole political career? Where did his son funnel millions from through shell companies? The mitigation chess pieces have already been in place for decades.
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
@greatwhiteflash1645 How much freedom of maneuver did Putin have from Jan 2017-Jan 2021? What was the WTI during those years? Who is the only US President to have authorized US forces to directly destroy Russian forces for 6hrs in Syria in Feb 2018?
2
 @GeoEstes Which Republican President was in the WH from 1933-1939?
2
@romailto9299 Russia structured the disarmament negotiations with plans to subjugate Ukraine all along, using their assets in US government. No matter how you look at it, Russia always expands and contracts with the periphery. Ukraine was obviously not disarmed meaningfully outside of nukes and their delivery systems. They still maintained a capable air force with Su-27s, MiG-29s, Su-24Ms, and Su-25s. Augmented with Western missiles, they have become highly-capable strike fighters, especially the Su-24M with Storm Shadows and SCALPs.
2
@antebratincevic6764 The Soviet Russian armies withdrew because the Russian SSR ceased to exist. Estonia and Russia were the first ones to withdraw from the USSR because of the utter failure of communism and centrally-planned economy. There was no political entity to form an agreement with anymore under control of Gorbachev, so your recollection of history is fundamentally flawed. The Eastern European countries scrambled to join NATO as fast as humanly possible because they instinctively knew that someone like Putin was come along in the future. The US and other main NATO countries were asking what role NATO would even play in the future, as they saw the main reason to exist evaporate.
2
@thomaskusk7362 The US doesn’t have the word “democratic/democracy" anywhere in its form of government. The US is a Constitutional Republic. If you want Democratic, look at the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), or German Democratic Republic as examples. The American Founders were wisely guided by providence and divine intervention from making such a mistake as what you see in democratic republics.
2
@dm121984 How do you figure Trump is helping Putin when he wants to secure Ukrainian resources for US exploitation? That's an even worse outcome for Putin than Putin ever considered. Trump is also the only US president who authorized US forces to utterly annihilate Russian forces at the battle of Kasham in Syria. Right afterwards he authorized the sale of 150 million dollars worth of javelins to Ukraine. Then he authorized an even bigger javelin's package and his 600 million dollar weapons package of patrol boats and other Combat systems. No US president prior to him had ever allowed weapons to be sold to Ukraine.
1
@ The most advanced semi conductors and microchips are developed and made in the US, for DoD and communications industry. European firms play critical roles in the component chain though. They are multinational efforts.
1
@pieter-bashoogsteen2283 Neither company has been given the funds to develop a 5th Gen motor for production. The US aggressively funded 5th Gen fighter engine propulsion in the 1980s, resulting in 4 different types of advanced engines: YF119L w/TVC YF119N YF120L w/TVC YF120N YF119 was selected as the base to develop into the F119-PW-100, with more thrust and less parts even than legacy 4th Gen IPE engines of the late 1980s. Europe still hasn't even made an equivalent to the 4th Gen Pratt or GE IPE motors like F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-100. That's how far behind Europe is in fighter engines. Typhoon uses EJ200 turbofans. Rafale uses Snecma M88 turbofans. Those are 1970s-1980s tech based off the GE F404. Gripen literally uses F404 and Gripen E uses GE F414. Europeans voted for people who hated the military and slashed defense spending. The consequences now are you have to buy even more from the US.
1
@kennethferland5579 The Swedish Air Force only has about 97 Gripen C/Ds in service. Not all of those are MC, and the serviceable airframes in squadrons have air intercept and sea patrol duties. They're not just sitting around waiting to deploy as an expeditionary force. Sweden has no expeditionary force projection capacity because it isn't structured that way at all. There isn't anything they can do for Ukraine other than send out-dated munitions that were scheduled for destruction.
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
The priority for this Congress is securing the US border and getting inflation under control. Any legislation that doesn't include those priorities, while focusing on Ukraine aid will not be well-received. Keep in mind most of the money has already been spent on old stock US weapons scheduled for disposal or FMS, not billions of new money and systems, with few exceptions. Behind closed doors, everyone mostly votes for Ukrainian aid. Mike Johnson is just working towards budgetary priorities that have been neglected by Congress in the past.
1
@cstaub5147 Politicians and elitists can throw numbers around all day, but when you go to the grocery store like every American does and you see prices like you’ve never seen, foreign policy starts to go from the back seat into the trunk or the trailer. It’s funny how RINOs and Democrat political class are so out of touch in this space.
1
Trump is one of two US Presidents I'm aware of who authorized US forces to attack Russians. JFK did during the blockade, and Trump did during the Battle of Khasham in 2018.
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
@Kandykanezz I see your response to gregoryadair3223, but can't see his comment anywhere.
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
@ThoughtfulDane The GOP puts out very clear priorities at caucus.
1
@ikiruyamamoto1050 One of the most overlooked facts about the Russian invasion of Ukraine was that Biden was supposed to extricate Zelensky so Putin could storm into Kiev and end the SMO within 72hrs. Putin was very confident this would be just a lightning-quick Blitzkrieg with Biden pulling Zelensky, and Ukraine having no political leadership to negotiate imports of weapons. The Biden WH waited and watched for weeks while European NATO partners started sending anti-tank weapons as a delay at least, since everyone thought it was going to fall quickly. When the Ukrainians showed their mettle, more NATO countries sent more weapons while Biden WH delayed and figured out what to do.
1
The Biden family has been in-bed with Putin for decades, and the USSR prior to that dating back to 1972. Who was supposed to extricate Zelensky on a plane again?
1
Money trail to James and Hunter Biden is directly connected with Putin’s oligarchs. Elena Baturina woke up in February 2014 one day and just wired $3.5 Million to Rosemont Seneca out of her charity? She’s a human sex trafficker billionaire who pays a big cut to Putin to be able to operate. They have a “big guy” too. Lots of Ukrainian girls have been sold by Elena Baturina and Putin makes untold profits from that industry. Why do you think he broke out all the stops to prevent Viktor Shokin from investigating corruption in Ukraine, to include leaning on Vice President Biden to threaten Poroshenko with holding back $1 Billion in US aid money. Putin, with the help of the Obama/BIden WH, put the finger on Ukrainian justice.
1
@marcpaulus6291 If one of the first combat systems that comes to your mind in the 21st century is tanks and armored vehicles....you have not studied military history well at all. Think about what even one-armed unmanned aerial system can do to Tanks APC's and IFV's. Now think about what one stealth fighter can do. We have already produced 1140 F-35s, on top of 195 F-22s. Europe not only has not developed its own fifth gen fighter, but it didn't invest in the technology 40 years ago to make the engines, airframes, radar absorbent structures (RAS), electronics, and other advanced systems that are required to make a 5th Generation fighter. The European consortium for the Typhoon wasted decades delaying systems development in the Typhoon which is a 4th Gen. Fighter. Germany and the UK still have not funded the installation of CAPTOR-E AESA radars. This is all while the US is developing and producing 6th generation combat aircraft, with thousands of orders for 5th Gen being filled. To make it even worse, the Typhoon and Rafale cost roughly twice of what an F-35 does, and require far more MMH/FH to maintain. Europe's chance to invest in its own RDT&E infrastructure was 3-4 decades ago. 5th Gen systems aren't something you can just demand and some random vendors magically produce them for you.
1
@benholroyd5221 Europe's demand for American made military equipment is only increasing. This is because the feminist European parliaments refused to fund research, development, test, and evaluation, as well as production even during the cold war. What little was left after the cold war, they slashed those budgets until almost nothing was left. They used that money to pay welfare for Africa and Arab immigrants instead to collect welfare, and reproduce at scale to displace Europeans, while European women murdered their own babies in the womb.
1
@iivin4233 Right now, the only industrialized Nation that takes European security seriously is the US. European parliaments are so behind the power curve, that alarm bells should be going off with voters as to how utterly incompetent its parliamentarians are. See my comments above.
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
@ptonpc Storm Shadow and SCALP are European versions of the JASSM. Since Europe can’t make 5th Gen fighters, they have to scramble to manufacture whatever weapons they can to try to keep industries somewhat relevant. That is why the UK and France didn’t buy JASSMs, while Finland did. Finland getting JASSMs was one of the most shocking, unspoken FMS programs to me. It totally changes Finnish defense posture and forces Russia to take into consideration what that means if they attack. The US and NATO aerospace sectors have been sharing technology across the pond since NATO began, and that has mostly been from the US to NATO. The US has a developmental budget that is bigger than entire defense budgets of any of the European nations, with test facilities that Europe relies on to validate weapons and aircraft even.
1
@eudaenomic Again, if we’re talking about tanks as even a top-10 systems component in the year 2025, it means the conversation is about 40-70 years out-dated. Air and Space power are where the gravity of modern force structures are, not tanks and armored vehicles (WWI - Desert Storm 1991). Poland relies almost entirely on the US for modern combat systems, namely F-16C Block 52 fleet, and now is an F-35 partner nation waiting delivery. ROK is almost entirely reliant on the US for aerospace systems, including F-35As, KF-16C/D, and F-15Ks. Not only are they reliant on US fighters, but missile defense as well. Poland and ROK are Patriot customers. Poland bought the IBCS system. ROK has 3 brigades of Patriots. Any talks about independence using Polish and Korean armor are marginal to the overall force structures of those nations.
1
@Axel_Andersen Possessing F-35s is one of the most unfair advantages any nation can have going into the future. Finland H-X evaluation and competition proved that, for all the non-believers. If Ukraine had a single squadron of F-35s in 2022, the war would have ended very quickly in their favor, and Russia would have lost a lot more aircraft, armor, and ships in a very short period of time to force a cease-fire. There is no European equivalent to the F-35. None of the European nations invested $62 billion in RDT&E to be able to then build a 5th Gen fighter. Several European partner nations did invest in being part of the manufacturing base, with the UK leading the pack with 15% of every F-35 being made by them. European Parliaments just have not taken defense seriously outside of Poland, Finland, and Norway.
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
@shwazine5358 Africans? Are you being serious right now? Africa is still in the Stone Age. They have no capacity to help Europe-quite the opposite really. One of the worst things Europe did was allow Arabs to take their sea ports and cities along the Mediterranean coast of Africa. It has been down-hill after that.
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
@BlueMoonday19 Ukraine didn’t have enough missile defense or even 4.5 Gen fighters, and Russia doesn’t have any SEAD mission platforms or crews trained in that mission set. Especially as NATO countries sold their older Patriot systems to Ukraine, things really got impossible for Russian air force. This would have looked entirely different had it been a NATO country with US fighters and Patriots as the norm from the start. We should be cautious about extrapolating much from Ukraine, other than Putin is willing to go full-scale invasion on nations he perceives as weak.
1
@Axel_Andersen We worked on F-16 & F-15 CTFs at the USAF Flight Test Center, as well as helped develop the Typhoon with the Germans. F-35 is better in so many ways, but one way the layman can easily understand how much better is safety. In the first 10 years of F-16 operational service, we lost 143 airframes with 71 fatalities. That was the safest single engine fighter up to that point. F-35A has 5 airframe losses in the past 18 years. 1 fatality in Japanese Defense Forces F-35B has 5 airframe losses, 0 fatalities in the past 16 years. F-35C has 1 airframe loss, 0 fatalities in the past 14 years. They've flown 1 million flight hours so far in the F-35 fleet all around the world.
1
@Popsickle34 The US secretly began funding for ATF in 1981. By 1989, there were 4 different advanced propulsion systems to choose from, and by 1991, 4 different flying prototype airframes from 2 groups of contractors. F-22A production started rolling off in 1997. During those same years, the Euro consortium was working on older technology with the Future Fighter Aircraft 1990/ECA/EFA/EF2000/Typhoon. The US began development and RFIs on 6 different programs, one of which started in 1983, the other 5 being merged into 2 by the 1990s, eventually becoming JSF. F-35s started rolling off the production line in 2006. Europe would have needed to invest in new technology in the 1980s and '90s to be in a place to manufacture today. European parliaments chose not to invest in RDT&E in advanced programs, so Europe is at least 30 years behind the power curve in military aerospace.
1
@Axel_Andersen The F-35 outclasses pretty much every fighter out there. They are more affordable than any other fighter as well. The news articles are written by Russian plants and Marxists, not competent defense analysts. F-35s from Israel, USMC, RAF, and USAF have been involved in combat since 2017. It's a brutal, unfair advantage to have.
1
@NotSoGood-765 Putin planned to invade anyway, regardless of NATO. He's ignorant enough about Talvisota and Jatkosota to do it, as are his general staff.
1
@tellyboy17 The US MIC has been making drones since WWII. Some of them cost more than most manned fighters.
1
If we saw F-16AMs enter the battlespace, there should be some footage. Never overlook weapons upgrades and integration into MiG-29s and Su-24Ms. MiG-29s have gotten HARMs, and Su-24Ms have been upgraded with Storm Shadow VLO Cruise Missiles.
1
@johan8969 The people in the US have all sorts of problems we want dealt with, Ukraine being on the list, but not at the top. This treasonous WH has let in untold thousands of Hamas, Hezbollah, Chicoms, and other terrorist sleeper cells for 3 years. We have photos of armed men with rifles and military equipment crossing our border illegally. Those cells are very likely to strike vulnerable targets in the us on behalf of Iran, Russia, and China with plausible deniability as low IQ enraged surrogates. The #1 job and enumerated power of the govt is to provide for the common defense of the Nation.
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
@planetmikusha5898 If you ever actually listen to Mike Johnson have a conversation, he's one of the more educated and intellectually-inclined Speakers of the House since Newt Gingrich. Foreign policy is a very difficult thing for Americans to conceptualize because of default binary partisan bias.
1
@corey8420 France started sending its own war stocks to Ukraine in 2022, and recently announced they can't sustain sending their own defense systems, so are funding a Ukraine-specific €3.2 billion support program. I'm not sure where you heard France has done nothing, but it isn't remotely accurate.
1
@corey8420 Are you saying there are 20 other nations contributing €3.2 billion or more? Could be true, but how many of them can build SCALP-EGs? SCALP-EG = Storm Shadow.
1
Mike Johnson and other members of Congress get classified briefings about what's actually going on in Ukraine. Some guy on YouTube is not better informed when it comes to all the assets they have available. Partisanship doesn't work on foreign policy, and is a funny thing to watch Americans play football with.
1
@davidhowse884 Russia has helped 420 US Governors, Senators, and Congressmen get elected since 1962 with just one of their political fronts. Every single one of them has been a Democrat.
1
@Colbato. I've lived through a lot of Speakers of the House in my life. Mike Johnson is the only one I can think of who isn't a swamp rat beholden to the usual suspects of organized crime, foreign interests, and corporate puppeteers. Kevin McCarthy was beholden to all 3. Nancy Pelosi is literally the daughter of Mafia stooge Thomas d' Alesandro Jr. Mike Johnson is a breath of fresh air for once.
1
@danielhutchinson6604 Putin already was planning to further cement Ukraine into Russian control in the early 2000s. All this talk of nazis is propaganda for Russian peasants to consume, so they think they have a moral justification for murdering hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians so far, while sacrificing hundreds of thousands of young Russian men as well.
1
@romailto9299 Russian assets in US government managed the disarmament of Ukraine during Nunn-Lugar. Clinton had been on Soviet and Russian payroll since the mid-1980s. Notice how his close friend and Rose Law Firm associate was servicing safe deposit boxes in Chiasso Switzerland 12-20x per year even before the inauguration in 1993. Clintons were under surveillance for espionage, so he fired the FBI Director on July 19, 1993. The Rose Law Firm partner's body was found the next day in an old Civil War Fort on the Potomac River. That was Deputy WH Counsel Vince Foster. Senator Obama came in on the tail-end of Nunn-Lugar and insisted on disarming Ukraine's conventional artillery shell stockpiles, under the useful idiot premise that they might be used for chemical weapons. This was all for Russia and Putin.
1
@romailto9299 In the Soviet Collapse, all the nations of the world were very concerned about what would happen to all the nuclear warheads in Georgia, Ukraine, and Belarussia. The US and IMF came up with a program called Nunn-Lugar where we would pay billions to those nations to help with their collapsing economies, in exchange for removing and inactivating weapons and delivery systems. Nobody wanted nukes and chem/bio weapons being sold to terrorists or rogue regimes.
1
@quinton01 Funny how Churchill expected the US to come clean up the UK's problems even during The Great War, let alone WWII.
1
@Navigator2166 Would your "grandfather’s Republicans" place the military armament of Ukraine over the security of the US Southern border? Where would they place Ukraine on the following priorities list: Economy/inflation National debt Border crisis Infrastructure revitalization Trade relations Infanticide/Abortion of our future US National defense Opium wars against us from China Law and Order Illegal Immigrants flooding cities Ukraine
1
@andresfelipeod6819 Big difference with Ukraine vs Vietnam and Afghanistan. Ukrainians actually are putting up a huge fight for their freedom. South Vietnamese army was totally corrupt and just assumed the US would do all the heavy-lifting for them. ANA and ANP were abandoned without warning by comrade Biden, whose job it is to make America look weak for his Russian master, as evidenced by the Money trails through Rosemont Seneca.
1
Ukraine is just one of a dozen different nations Putin has been planning to take since he assumed office in Jan 2000. His vision of Russia is common among Russian leaders historically, namely that all lands formerly-occupied by Russia belong to Russia and are rightfully theirs. Westerners don’t understand this because they have never lived in Russia, never studied Russian history, and have no concept of the Russian psyche.
1
@blacklion8208 Biden facilitated Putin and this war already dating back to 2014. Biden was supposed to extract Zelensky from Kiev for Putin, remember? Biden was put in the US Senate by the Soviets in 1972. He's a traitor.
1
Putin invaded first in 2014 and was helped by Obama/Biden/Clinton/Kerry WH. That includes Putin oligarchs wiring $3.5 million to a front company run by Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz (John Kerry’s Stepson). Obama was already supervising the disarmament of Ukrainian artillery munitions back when Obama was a Senator, and he refused to allow sale or transfer of US weapons to Ukraine when he was in the WH. All of these actions benefited Russia. When Trump was in the WH, Putin didn’t dare invade because he’s a coward little punk who couldn’t predict what Trump would do to his forces, and Trump relieved him of that guesswork in Feb 2018 in Syria when US forces annihilated Russian forces at the Battle of Khasham. Trump is the first President to authorize transfer of US war materials to Ukraine to deter Putin from attacking anymore. Once Biden got in, he killed the Keystone pipeline, which made oil revenue help grow Russia’s economy once again, while screwing over the US energy sector, and Putin took those funds to build up for the invasion. Everything you’re being fed by these propagandists is flipped upside-down in many ways.
1
@humphreybradley3060 Nobody asked Britons for their opinions on US politics, and your statement shows how ignorant you are of the facts. Biden is a Russian puppet, always has been. They literally finances his entrance to the US Senate in 1972, and finance his family to this day through laundered money via Biden front companies run by James and Hunter.
1
@LarsRyeJeppesen The multi-party European parliamentary systems suck more, with weak-spined ignoramuses making some of the worst national decisions you could imagine, and being insulated from the consequences of those decisions for generations by US security blanket. If you ever watch European Parliaments “at work”, they are a joke, and that’s coming from one of the biggest critics of the US Congress you will ever come across. US Congress are representatives of organized crime families, not the US people, and they still don’t make as poor decisions as European Parliaments.
1
@TheJohn93226 Biden has been a National threat and mole for the Soviets, then Russians and Chinese his entire political career. He even thanked their front groups for getting him elected in 1972, then openly admitted proudly how he let them shape his views and votes on SALT II and disarmament of US strategic systems. Trump is an actual patriot who only cares about the Nation first and foremost. He’s the only President who actually stood up to Putin and put him in his little place as a punk.
1
@goyogo2601 Obama was an open enemy to Ukraine, already working to disarm it back when he was a Senator.
1
@paulglawson2866 Biden is a traitor to the US who has been on Russian payroll for decades, as has his crackhead son. Have you not heard any of this?
1
@BevenOiCarrinuinn Biden is not on the correct side. Biden is a puppet for Putin and has been for decades. Remember who tried to extract Zelensky from Kiev?
1
@JAllenKaiser I disagree fundamentally and here is why: Each one of the branches of US government has substantial measures to insulate politicians from the direct role of the people which thwarts democracy. The Founders were well aware of the dangers of democracy because of mobocracy and how easy it is to manipulate by enemies domestic and foreign. For the Presidency, we have State electors who form the electoral college. For Senators, the Founders set it up with appointment by the State, not direct elections by people. Even still, we have caucuses and primaries with a vetting process by the State delegates, who take the time to learn the candidates before they move on to the General. Same for the House of Reps, who are supposed to be local neighbors sent by their districts to DC for a term or two. For SCOTUS, we have Presidential nominees who are then vetted and submitted to the Senate for confirmation.
1
@JAllenKaiser I’ve been a State and County delegate for many years, learned real civics and government in private school, and have studied the Constitution for 40 years now. Like I said, you cannot find the words “democracy" or “democratic" in the Constitution, no matter how many times Marxists repeat it to you and program you into believing the opposite of reality. The Founders were not stupid or uninformed on this topic. The Constitution is designed to protect the Republic from mobocracy and tyranny.
1
Behind closed doors everyone agrees on slow rolling this war, Including the Europeans. If the US provides decisive firepower and logistics, it will escalate the war and cross more borders in the region with more bigger weapons. Nobody wants that to happen. The decision-makers are content with slow-rolling deliveries to continue to attrit Russian forces.
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
@nozhki-busha Nobody insisted Ukraine use NATO tactics because Ukraine doesn't have NATO airpower. If Ukraine had NATO airpower, Russia would have never been able to occupy Donbas or annex Crimea.
1