How Much Longer Will The West Help Ukraine?

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 มิ.ย. 2024
  • The are a lot more considerations than getting back the lost Ukrainian territory that impact the geopolitical situation in Ukraine. This was is impacting the whole world, and Russia may be too big to fail, but it's #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT #longs
    Music:
    EWeapon of Choice - Fabien Tell
    Mind Tricks - Experia
    Claustrophobia - Lennon Hutton
    Trembling Anticipation - Dream Cave
    Unlimited - Megan Wofford
    Air Spark - Robert Ruth
    Big Announcement - Out To The World
    Story of the Future - Hampus Naeselius
    Footage:
    Ukrainian Ministry of Defense
    Russian Ministry of Defense
    NATO
    Shutterstock
    Select images/videos from Getty Images
    ua Alex
    US Department of Defense
    Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
    References:
    cepa.org/article/its-costing-...
    cepa.org/article/ukraine-what...
    archive.is/M9CQN
    www.coffeeordie.com/russia-re...
    www.rigzone.com/news/volumes_...
    www.reuters.com/markets/commo...
    seekingalpha.com/article/2079...
    www.reuters.com/markets/commo...
    euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/2...
    mezha.media/en/2022/12/06/goo...
    euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/2...
    / 1605899823491620866
    thehill.com/opinion/national-...
    thepage.ua/economy/tranzit-ro...
    0:00 Intro
    0:58 America getting bang for its buck
    4:18 Does Russia have the resources to win this war?
    7:18 The fertilizer crisis
    9:02 Why the west doesn't want to push Russia too much
    10:14 Too big to fail ... again
    12:17 Will the Western leaders change their mind?

ความคิดเห็น • 3.5K

  • @NotWhatYouThink
    @NotWhatYouThink  ปีที่แล้ว +506

    What do you think? Is Russia *too* *big* to fail?

  • @JayMaverick
    @JayMaverick ปีที่แล้ว +1911

    Too big to fail sounds like the last words of something big that's about to fail.

    • @artyombychkov2134
      @artyombychkov2134 ปีที่แล้ว +51

      Sounds like a cheesy name for a pop music album.

    • @Erudite_TWR
      @Erudite_TWR ปีที่แล้ว +128

      Remember the Titanic was thought to be literally unsinkable

    • @TacticalTerry
      @TacticalTerry ปีที่แล้ว +26

      Enron comes to mind lol

    • @Jugement
      @Jugement ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Big copium right there
      Russia cannot afford to let Ukraine join NATO as its too much of a threat to its diplomatic soverenty, and unlike Ukraine, it can sustain this war on its own for YEARS
      Russia will win eventually, that or forcing Ukraine to accept neutrality, these are the only two outcomes possible
      Well, that or Ukraine shutting Russia down completely by conquest, but such an outcome is extremely unrealistic, if withing the realm of possible at all
      Unless, of course, if NATO actually decides to get involved for a reason or another, but that is equally unlikely considering the implications this would have

    • @DroneStrike1776
      @DroneStrike1776 ปีที่แล้ว

      Well it's not like it's a lie. Russia collapse, there goes all the natural gas the EU depends on. It like GM was too big to fail so it needed to be bailed out. GM isn't on the scale of Russia, but you get the picture.

  • @MrDDiRusso
    @MrDDiRusso ปีที่แล้ว +1658

    Don't forget that the information gained from this conflict will be invaluable for future conflicts. All the weapons and vehicles sent are being combat tested. The intelligence gathered is being used to improve strategy. The reason Russian equipment is being so easily destroyed (aside from incompetence and poor maintenance) is that NATO weapons were designed to counter them.
    All wars between superpowers are proxy wars.

    • @baronvonlimbourgh1716
      @baronvonlimbourgh1716 ปีที่แล้ว +40

      Hasn't russia been designing their stuff to defeat nato stuff?

    • @death13a
      @death13a ปีที่แล้ว +204

      @@baronvonlimbourgh1716 whatever Ruzzia designed to fight VS NATO is in single digits or still in design board. Most show a prototype and pocket the money for yachts.

    • @noahsawesomevids422
      @noahsawesomevids422 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      Agreed 😅

    • @MusicAutomation
      @MusicAutomation ปีที่แล้ว +117

      Not to mention the fact that this $40 billion doesn't just disappear. The US military-industrial complex employs a "minimum of 3.5 million jobs" (thanks Google). Those funds just go right back into taxpayers' hands, without the cost of sacrificing the lives of U.S. soldiers. I don't mean to say war is ever net positive for anyone but so far the U.S. is probably the biggest winner in all this.

    • @fabiorodrigo3638
      @fabiorodrigo3638 ปีที่แล้ว +51

      @@baronvonlimbourgh1716yes, technically. On record the Russia army is, indeed, the second largest power. Off-record the money for that was used bought yatches for oligarchs. Russia never tought they would really need to fight.

  • @davidgellatly1975
    @davidgellatly1975 ปีที่แล้ว +1434

    As Perun has noted several times in his commentaries, the cost of aid, especially for military equipment, is significantly overstated. Much of the equipment, such as M113 APCs, M777 howitzers, and Bradley fighting vehicles were purchased and paid for many years ago and are being taken out of storage. They represent sunk costs (i.e costs already expended) not new (fiscal 2023/23) costs. The real cost is that of reconditioning the equipment, if needed, and shipping it to Ukraine. Instead of costing tens of billions, the real cost of providing equipment is probably in the tens of millions. Nor do these shipments represent a degradation of current military capabilities since they are coming out of storage/stockpiles and are one to two generations behind the systems currently in use. Finally, the weapons are being used for the purpose they were originally acquired for: defeating the Russians.

    • @user-rv6cx3rz7t
      @user-rv6cx3rz7t ปีที่แล้ว +40

      This

    • @TesterAnimal1
      @TesterAnimal1 ปีที่แล้ว +86

      Yep. That’s what I keep telling people on Brit news sites.
      These vehicles and arms were designed, manufactured and bought for this purpose.

    • @zperdek
      @zperdek ปีที่แล้ว +39

      @@TesterAnimal1 + decades ago.

    • @SuperDrake85
      @SuperDrake85 ปีที่แล้ว +55

      I suspect the delays in providing heavier weapons to Ukraine is basically the lead time required to develop step-plans for refurbishment, logistics, and training. For some reason people think the US can just put an early generation M1 Abrams on a truck and just send it east. It doesn't work like that. Even the M777's (which are relatively simple devices) require significant maintenance and spare parts, most of which can't be done in Ukraine, and has to be done in Poland. In order to even offer more sophisticated stuff the US has have a plan in place to inspect, test, and refurbish the equipment, have a maintenance plan in place, develop a curriculum for training the Ukrainian operators, and identify and evaluate prospective Ukrainian candidates (who may have to be somewhat proficient in English to even qualify for the job). I don't know if the general public is aware that you can't just drive a tank into Kyiv, toss over the keys and be like "OK here ya go, have fun".

    • @sonfather8239
      @sonfather8239 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@TesterAnimal1 Untrue. Most people missed the targets of this war due to such narrow thinking.
      Such equipment, at least still justifying book values cos Taiwan and other factions around the world will be expected to be dumping grounds, and this has been the habit or SOP for updating US stockpiles for quite a while.
      Unless you expect US to legislate the weapons industry to sell their best and latest equipment to folks around the world, that even F35s are sold outside with reduced functions or restrictions.
      In fact, such equipment sent into Ukraine still have eager demands in black market, and if without serious checks, you can expect what sort of demands for them.

  • @hektonian
    @hektonian ปีที่แล้ว +276

    To prevent a rotten tree from falling on your house, you don't prop it up and hope it won't kill you in your sleep; you cut it down so you can control where it falls

    • @jorgemanso521
      @jorgemanso521 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      Let Russia go...It is my opinion would be better for everyone...

    • @eleventy-seven
      @eleventy-seven ปีที่แล้ว +22

      @@jorgemanso521 Sure Ivan, sure.

    • @eleventy-seven
      @eleventy-seven ปีที่แล้ว +13

      Flying Ukrainian Flags in Guerneville CA. Ironically next to the Russian River. (Temporarily Named Ukrainian River by many.) Slava Ukrani.

    • @alonelyz1981
      @alonelyz1981 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@eleventy-seven idk how this is relevant but ok

    • @nextgen7105
      @nextgen7105 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Fun analogy however there will be chaos if Russia disintegrates. Trust me there will be no controlling it.

  • @astroch
    @astroch ปีที่แล้ว +1948

    Obviously, stopping russia in Ukraine is not the same as defeating russia in Russia.

    • @multipl3
      @multipl3 ปีที่แล้ว +198

      Orcs will defeat themselves. We wont have to lift a finger

    • @baronvonlimbourgh1716
      @baronvonlimbourgh1716 ปีที่แล้ว +239

      It kinda is. If the russian army is desimated and kicked out of ukraine a lot will happen in russian leadership.
      It isn't russia thats the problem, it is putin and his regime.

    • @shutout951
      @shutout951 ปีที่แล้ว +20

      It's still a formidable accomplishment

    • @Jugement
      @Jugement ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Ah yes, then surely the fact that the US failed to gain control of Vietnam means Vietnam would crush the US on their soil, right ?
      Surely supply lines, guerrilla warfare, and defensive structrures & weapon systems are all but a myth yeah ?
      To be able to hold such an opinion, you're either extremely uneducated or on a whole tanker of copium my dude

    • @KILLSWITCH14FP69
      @KILLSWITCH14FP69 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@baronvonlimbourgh1716 very true after all this has happened before and last time they failed the Tsar paid for it with his life Putin is now up shit creak without a paddle his only options are to win this war or die 🎲 a very deadly game indeed

  • @michaelrtreat
    @michaelrtreat ปีที่แล้ว +772

    Plus, Western weapon designers and makers are getting valuable realistic field testing of their gear.

    • @huathai8204
      @huathai8204 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yeah they learn and we learn that their crap really sucks. Plus it gives Russia so much gear to inspect and to laugh at... Lol Ukronazis loved by USnazis.

    • @ANDREALEONE95
      @ANDREALEONE95 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@huathai8204 The only crap seen is by Russia.

    • @UncleGrinder
      @UncleGrinder ปีที่แล้ว

      Yes, the US fails spectacularly.

    • @funveeable
      @funveeable ปีที่แล้ว

      Let's make the military industrial complex bigger. 20 years from now, the liberals will be screaming that the US spends too much money on Ukraine and then we will withdraw support from Ukraine and then Russia will take over the country in a month just like the Taliban.

    • @MumboJumboZXC
      @MumboJumboZXC ปีที่แล้ว +32

      So many shadowbanned comments

  • @buddermonger2000
    @buddermonger2000 ปีที่แล้ว +127

    I wish you had touched on the fact that also: much of the US equipment is old equipment that is no longer in service but instead in reserves which will soon be slated for scrapping. And scrapping doesn't cost people nothing. So there's actually some savings in value even though the aid is being evaluated at list price of the items.

    • @nilspaar1999
      @nilspaar1999 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      You sir or ma'am, are completely correct. I apologize for not touching on that as I expect a certain level of knowledge about the subject matter when I write an opinion. I like what you said and will point out the M113's we sent at the beginning to support your statements.

    • @weeeeehhhhh
      @weeeeehhhhh ปีที่แล้ว

      Not only are the US military getting some value for outdated technology, they're clearing inventory so they can justify higher spend to replace those given to Ukraine.

    • @DJAKONDATM
      @DJAKONDATM ปีที่แล้ว

      18.000 dead russian soldiers vs 200.000 ukranian 5.000 nato and 10.000 worldwide mercenariec dead. Sorry but..what was cost effective again?

    • @KaBar41
      @KaBar41 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@DJAKONDATM "5.000 nato and 10.000 worldwide mercenariec dead."
      Are those 5,000 NATO soldiers fighting in Ukraine in the room with us right now?
      lol lmao even. How can you be this delusional? 18,000 dead Russians? lol. That's nothing more than cope and you know it. They can't even take a small town from Ukraine and you think Russia has only take 18,000 dead? In an entire year of fighting with almost zero gains to show for it?
      Go to rehab and get off that krokopium before you start trying to talk about this war. No NATO troops have died in this war and Russia has most certainly taken far more dead than Ukraine has.
      Also, I know it's an impossible thought to you since Russia maintains that Wagner dogs are mercs despite being under the direct control of the Kremlin, but the Foreign Legion aren't mercenaries. There's a very clear definition of "mercenary" and the Foreign Legion does not fit that definition.
      Try again.

    • @Matt.71
      @Matt.71 ปีที่แล้ว

      source: kremlin

  • @DK-ys2cw
    @DK-ys2cw ปีที่แล้ว +62

    It’s also a good deal if the accounting is a journal entry from the ‘plan to scrap’ column to the ‘donation’ column for equipment that is planned to be replaced such as Bradley vehicles.

    • @gintasvilkelis2544
      @gintasvilkelis2544 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      @@SunriseLAW Are you talking about the _same_ Russia that's just invaded Ukraine, or is there _another_ Russia, the one that has a superior-to-the-rest-of-the-world industrial production capability?

    • @gintasvilkelis2544
      @gintasvilkelis2544 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@SunriseLAW Most of the western weapons DID NOT get destroyed. The reason why Ukrainians keep asking for more is because far from enough has been delivered so far: Russians _still_ have several times more pieces of artillery, etc. than Ukrainians. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians' weaponry is more accurate, so what you have now, is more or less a parity that enables Ukrainians to keep Russians at bay, but not enough to start pushing the Russians out rapidly.

    • @user-mi6pl3vz4z
      @user-mi6pl3vz4z ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@SunriseLAW you are confusing Russia and the USSR. You can look for how many factories were put out of action in the Russian Federation and laugh at your own words friend

    • @MDP1702
      @MDP1702 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@SunriseLAW Russia doesn't have anywhere near the capability to produce weapons and munitions you are prescribing it. Even 4 European nations are bigger industrial powers, Russia isn't even in the top 10 industrial nations. And this also goes for their military. They are heavily relient on old soviet stockpiles and for the more modern weapons they need equipment/parts they don't even have easy access to anymore. Moreover it isn't even Russian production capacity vs the west, since the west are also buying munitions etc from non-western countries whenever they need to do so. Russia doesn't really have that capacity except for the 'friendly' Iran and North Korea.

  • @bankaiQPL
    @bankaiQPL ปีที่แล้ว +1126

    Even Germany adapted in less than a year to not rely on russian gas. As a person living relativly close to russian border, I might be a little biased, but I am optimistic.

    • @toddberkely6791
      @toddberkely6791 ปีที่แล้ว +96

      No, Germany is massively subsidising gas prices. This will lead to money printing down the line

    • @somerandomguy1475
      @somerandomguy1475 ปีที่แล้ว

      They start to work with china to get that gas

    • @miroslavhoudek7085
      @miroslavhoudek7085 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      ​@@toddberkely6791 oh no, that horrible money printing we are warned about every year that it will cause an immediate collapse of our solar system next year. Debt is not great, but if it pays for something worthwhile, it is not that bad. And fighting a rape-murder army is definitely a worthwhile goal.

    • @SweBeach2023
      @SweBeach2023 ปีที่แล้ว +17

      What are the long-term economical consequences if energy prices in EU will be far higher than in the rest of the world? Will it be reduced to a second-rate economical power?

    • @noormeee
      @noormeee ปีที่แล้ว

      Germanys president is Joe Biden

  • @MrAFatMan9991
    @MrAFatMan9991 ปีที่แล้ว +737

    People couldn't imagine the USSR disintegrating at all until it did, Putin has backed himself into such a corner that an off ramp large enough doesn't exist

    • @pokiparkassistent
      @pokiparkassistent ปีที่แล้ว +13

      Also the first autonomous republic (itschkeria) has declared independence

    • @user-hi7jk6fu3f
      @user-hi7jk6fu3f ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@pokiparkassistent Interesting, I wonder if others will follow suit

    • @HaloForgeUltra
      @HaloForgeUltra ปีที่แล้ว

      So what about Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008? Nobody cared then, so why do people care now?

    • @pokiparkassistent
      @pokiparkassistent ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@HaloForgeUltra because Georgia was more of a grey area and russia didn’t add territory to their country. Achbrasia and south ossetia are kind of independent now.

    • @pokiparkassistent
      @pokiparkassistent ปีที่แล้ว +15

      @@user-hi7jk6fu3f when the chechens remember what their parents fought for and how bad putins Idol Stalin treated them the war will be over soon

  • @chlorophyll54
    @chlorophyll54 ปีที่แล้ว +34

    I just can't compliment the creators of this channel highly enough. The clarity that you bring to matters that involve the military is unrivaled. Your research skills are vastly superior to those of any major news outlet. You ferret out the facts better than anyone else. More importantly, you let the facts speak for themselves; you let the argument be guided by the facts. As such, you are the greatest journalists around. Keep up the good work.

    • @Nemsis19
      @Nemsis19 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      yep saying the us is a god and Russia is a slave isn't really a fact though :3

    • @gillestu1407
      @gillestu1407 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      this channel is too pro western and at that point just yapping things

  • @ilisan
    @ilisan ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Awesome video! Happy to see how this channel keeps getting better. Covering such a wide topic with this quality is impressive. Learning some fun facts about mil equipment is fun, but videos like this are way more important.

  • @joenichols3901
    @joenichols3901 ปีที่แล้ว +366

    "The Soviet Union spans half the globe, with territory from central Europe to the Pacific Ocean. The Soviets have enormous influence across the globe from Vietnam to Cuba and beyond. They have a population in the hundreds of millions and are winning the technology space race. They just finished smashing the Nazi army in the biggest war of human history. There is no way they can fall with the ability to use centralized power over such vast resources and none of the infighting of democracy - they are clearly too big to fail" Someone in the 1950s probably

    • @adrian9098
      @adrian9098 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      Defenetly not someone in the 80s

    • @brianhaygood183
      @brianhaygood183 ปีที่แล้ว +41

      Russia has a population and economy roughly equivalent to Nigeria. It has failed to hold more than a out 14% of the land it tried to take all control of in three days. Their military is dilapidated and of poor quality. Their infrastructure is a shambles. Without buyers for their gas and oil, they are gasping for breath.

    • @HaloForgeUltra
      @HaloForgeUltra ปีที่แล้ว

      So what about Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008? Nobody cared then, so why do people care now?

    • @brianhaygood183
      @brianhaygood183 ปีที่แล้ว +23

      @@HaloForgeUltra and Ukraine in 2014, and Chechnya before that. The world has known this predation will continue as long as Russia exists. The difference this time is that Ukraine actually had the ability to fight, the training, and the will to see it through. They are about the worst choice for Russia to attack, but someone's ego got too big.

    • @mcleandaniel
      @mcleandaniel ปีที่แล้ว

      Because they switch from communism to a semi marker economy in the early 1980s

  • @Ikhouja
    @Ikhouja ปีที่แล้ว +23

    Just a small correction since I'm Saudi, We don't have any major Russian military equipment in our arsenal. The only significant Russian weapons used in KSA armed services are Ak-103 and the TOS-1 MLRS

    • @juancarlos-hf7bj
      @juancarlos-hf7bj ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I think he mistaked Saudi Arabia with your neighbors countries that use tons of soviet-era materials, since Saudi Arabia are one of the most important costumer to the US defense industry.

  • @laurencekerr956
    @laurencekerr956 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    i hadn't watched a long version of your videos before and I absolutely love this.

  • @DylanRoberts7
    @DylanRoberts7 ปีที่แล้ว +504

    To see any politician saying we should cut aid to Ukraine is concerning, and I would immediately look into where their campaign funds come from. The reality is (as you stated) that supplying Ukraine with the weapons it needs to defend itself is a great investment for the West. The Russian military is being destroyed at a rate nobody ever thought possible, it's costing the west a FRACTION of what it would have costed if it were NATO going to war, and we're not losing any of our own troops (RIP Ukrainian hero's).

    • @brianmatthews4323
      @brianmatthews4323 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      But look at what it's doing to the poor Ukrainians.
      What does it matter if Putin or Zelensky are in charge? Six, one way; half a dozen, the other, if you ask me.

    • @xomm
      @xomm ปีที่แล้ว +128

      @@brianmatthews4323 It obviously matters who is in charge? Ukraine was on an upward trajectory, and evidently most of their people don't want to give that up to become a puppet under an autocratic regime again.

    • @brianmatthews4323
      @brianmatthews4323 ปีที่แล้ว +17

      @@xomm You don't think Z is an autocrat?

    • @masoudj1185
      @masoudj1185 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      So you accuse almost entire Republican party (except Mr Turtle) of being on Russian payroll?

    • @slightlyirradiatedmuffin3257
      @slightlyirradiatedmuffin3257 ปีที่แล้ว +48

      @@masoudj1185 Unironically yes.

  • @MihaSheva
    @MihaSheva ปีที่แล้ว +497

    There is a problem with concept: to big to fall due to nuclear weapon. If Russia win because of this concept, the world nuclear disarmament initiatives will lose it`s backbone(at list morale). Ukraine is "voluntarily nuclear-disarmed", if it obviously lose territory due to the direct aggression of a nuclear country -- that will be very very bad diplomatic case for ages.
    Every country will understand that nuclear(or an other unconventional) weapon is your only chance to be integral. Technology is advancing, I`m afraid that it`s easier then you think to intimidate hole world wit mass destruction.
    In other hand, if Russia leave Ukraine and get some punishnet all World will sea that unconventional weapon does not make you overpowered...

    • @colorbugoriginals4457
      @colorbugoriginals4457 ปีที่แล้ว +39

      this is one reason it is essential, not just morally but also for our own security, to still honor a promise to help defend Ukraine against countries that do have nukes. 👍💪🇺🇦❤️✌️

    • @LordOceanus
      @LordOceanus ปีที่แล้ว +56

      Taiwan, South Korea, Germany, Finland, Japan, Norway, Italy, Australia, Canada, Sweden, and more. All of these nations are 'nuclear latent states' meaning they have the infrastructure and technological capacity to design build and field nuclear weapons on a short timeframe if they so choose. If suddenly nuclear proliferation fails I would in no way be surprised of several of these countries develop nuclear arms.

    • @ScoundrelzNTwK
      @ScoundrelzNTwK ปีที่แล้ว

      This is the reasoning why USA would have to get involved in the war if Russia used a nuke in Ukraine (I don't think they will). If Russia used a nuke, on a non nuclear power and "got away with it" nuclear non proliferation would be extinct within 24hrs.
      The US and collective West would be forced into destroying Russia's military in the Black Sea and inside Ukraine, what happens after that is anyone's guess.

    • @moteroargentino7944
      @moteroargentino7944 ปีที่แล้ว +21

      @LORDOceanus And that's only counting the countries closest to that point. There are many more that could follow if the global situation really called for it.

    • @ScoundrelzNTwK
      @ScoundrelzNTwK ปีที่แล้ว +11

      @@LordOceanus I would take that a step further, especially for Japan, who would be lobbying for American Trident 2's while theirs are in development.

  • @avrahamkrichevsky4831
    @avrahamkrichevsky4831 ปีที่แล้ว +60

    As we learn from history, no empire or nation is too big to fail.

    • @jonathanjacob5453
      @jonathanjacob5453 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Indeed. The US is showing all the signs of an empire on its last legs.

    • @avrahamkrichevsky4831
      @avrahamkrichevsky4831 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@jonathanjacob5453, and more so does Russia.

    • @jonathanjacob5453
      @jonathanjacob5453 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@avrahamkrichevsky4831The Russians will be just fine. They are used to living modestly within their means.
      The US national debt is 31 Trillion. The household debt is 16.5 Trillion. This is a ticking time bomb.
      The US dollar Ponzi scheme is running out of steam.

    • @ianboard544
      @ianboard544 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      That would include us too.

    • @avrahamkrichevsky4831
      @avrahamkrichevsky4831 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@ianboard544, yep. If the people of US would not regain their power as the only sovereign of the country, if they will let it slip to the hands of rascals completely, it should happen inevitably.

  • @kanzeon7729
    @kanzeon7729 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Man, your videos got so good. I really like how awesome they're cut and how you use video sequences to communicate beyond recorded voice.

  • @MRRookie232
    @MRRookie232 ปีที่แล้ว +83

    Really enjoying these long form videos!

    • @RustyVaperGameplay
      @RustyVaperGameplay ปีที่แล้ว +20

      For you 13minutes is long form? Fucking hell tiktok has ruined attention spans.

    • @MRRookie232
      @MRRookie232 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      @@RustyVaperGameplay Leave it to the internet to jump to conclusions. It’s long compared to YT shorts. He’s also managed to subtly alter his tone and narrative without making it another cumbersome military channel.

    • @RustyVaperGameplay
      @RustyVaperGameplay ปีที่แล้ว

      @@MRRookie232 I didn't jump to any conclusion. You seem to think 13 minutes is long.

    • @NotWhatYouThink
      @NotWhatYouThink  ปีที่แล้ว +32

      @@RustyVaperGameplay TH-cam "Shorts" are considered vertical format videos that are no longer than 1 minute. We make 3 of those each week.
      The "regular" videos, in land scape format, which are usually a few minutes long, we refer to them as "long" videos. In contrast to the 1-min videos, these are long. That's all 😉

    • @CATDRL2
      @CATDRL2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@NotWhatYouThink Which pays more per minute?

  • @smix8780
    @smix8780 ปีที่แล้ว +206

    When President Bush visited Ukraine in 1990 or 1991 he also insisted that russia is too big to fail. He was clear that we should not fight for independance, because western countries afraid of russia collapsing. Now we're told the same thing - russia is too big to fail.

    • @Freshbott2
      @Freshbott2 ปีที่แล้ว +27

      Just a few months before dissolution. If it was untrue then it can be untrue now.

    • @dobrasilaomundo.8086
      @dobrasilaomundo.8086 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Why would the world go into war just for one country?????

    • @Demedik1988
      @Demedik1988 ปีที่แล้ว +23

      ​@@dobrasilaomundo.8086not for one country, but for safety of all. Ukraine gave nukes(3rd place in amount of nukes at time) for guarantee of safety from 3 countries - US, UK and Ru). If Ukraine lose this war other countries will do anything to get nukes for them, just because it only thing that can protect them from those who now possess nukes. In the world now rough 180 countries and plenty of conflicts between them... and if there all or at least most of them will be having nukes - it's just matter of time when nuclear war begin. And if somebody will try to convince them not to get it, this countries will point at Ukraine.

    • @steel-r_ua
      @steel-r_ua ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Yeah, he was in Ukrainian parliament convincing Ukraine to stay in USSR

    • @andrerothweiler9191
      @andrerothweiler9191 ปีที่แล้ว

      But there is No other way around

  • @filipkyslik3092
    @filipkyslik3092 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    This is very interesting video and very informative! Thank you)

  • @zzz573
    @zzz573 ปีที่แล้ว

    Very thought provoking. Thank you

  • @meteorogames9523
    @meteorogames9523 ปีที่แล้ว +235

    "100.000" is the number of dead soldiers reported by UAF, not casualities

    • @multipl3
      @multipl3 ปีที่แล้ว +29

      Exactly 2-300000 total casualties so far

    • @baronvonlimbourgh1716
      @baronvonlimbourgh1716 ปีที่แล้ว

      Russia lost over 100k soldiers already. So many mourning mothers and wives. It's just criminal and putin will pay for every single one.

    • @Albiliuss
      @Albiliuss ปีที่แล้ว +36

      @@multipl3 I heard say it’s about 100M!

    • @peteeblack7061
      @peteeblack7061 ปีที่แล้ว +45

      And almost half of this number of dead have picture or video confirmation. Imagine how many more are not captured on camera.

    • @DroneStrike1776
      @DroneStrike1776 ปีที่แล้ว

      The Pentagon has 100,000 casualties on each side. Military casualties including dead and injured.

  • @skadoink1736
    @skadoink1736 ปีที่แล้ว +37

    Putin has been offered so many exit ramps and has refused to entertain any of them. Right now any such exit would be synonymous with appeasement, and we all know how successful that is long term

    • @theotherohlourdespadua1131
      @theotherohlourdespadua1131 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      Appeasement: have war now or have war later? The ending is the same regardless of the choice made...

    • @KanyeTheGayFish69
      @KanyeTheGayFish69 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@theotherohlourdespadua1131 right and appeasement worked really well in the 30’s…

    • @SweBeach2023
      @SweBeach2023 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@KanyeTheGayFish69 Non-appeasement in 1939 left us with 70 million dead. So can you really claim it worked that well?

    • @SchemingGoldberg
      @SchemingGoldberg ปีที่แล้ว

      @@KanyeTheGayFish69 Hitler tried to make peace many times, it was Churchill and the other sabre-rattlers who insisted on the war.

    • @KanyeTheGayFish69
      @KanyeTheGayFish69 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      @@SweBeach2023 there would have been a lot fewer deaths if hitler had been dealt with sooner

  • @kadu2be
    @kadu2be ปีที่แล้ว

    Amazing report and thank you.

  • @kadu2be
    @kadu2be ปีที่แล้ว

    Wow, you put it to and easy understanding to many of us.

  • @MultiSciGeek
    @MultiSciGeek ปีที่แล้ว +15

    Great analysis! Never really thought of it this way...

  • @mr.fishfish570
    @mr.fishfish570 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I love your coverage!

  • @acook213
    @acook213 ปีที่แล้ว

    Fascinating analysis. Thanks for this!

  • @ingridmace2530
    @ingridmace2530 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    This is a VERY informative video on the situation, thanks for explaining it like that, I might be a geopolitical nut, but half of the information on this video I didn't know!

    • @vyacheslavpetrov4713
      @vyacheslavpetrov4713 ปีที่แล้ว

      I can assure you that more than half of this info is a lie, or just twisted.
      First of, American aid to Ukraine is not 40 billion, it’s over 110 billion, “Of the $113 billion approved in 2022, about three-fifths ($67 billion) has been allocated toward defense needs and the remaining two-fifths ($46 billion) to nondefense concerns such as general Ukrainian government aid, economic support, and aid for refugee resettlement. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided cost estimates of the four funding packages at the time each was passed.” But what ever, I guess the this article from American media is a lie.
      Second, 2:30 Russia losing 8600+ military vehicles is just a fkn joke….. that it’s 23 trucks per day, in 365 days. That’s almost 1 truck, every single hour, for an entire year….. does that sound possible to you? If it does, than you know nothing about modern combat.
      2:08 “destroying nearly half of Russian conventional military capabilities” facepalm…. Khrushov in 1998 said Russia can produce bombs like sausages, and now apparently it lost half of everything in a year…. That economically makes no sense at all.
      2:18 “according to US officials, Russia lost over 100k casualties, with 25k dead” first of, Ursula von der Leyden came out and said that UKRAINE lost 100k soldiers (dead) and 20k civilians dead. Not Russians, but what ever, I guess she is a lier too…. You can TH-cam search that video btw. Second, even if it is the Russian part, 100k casualties are not dead, so they are not lost.
      2:45 “it’s a clear bargain for the US, American weapons, and Ukrainian blood” that sentence is solid, XD let the Ukrainians die, for something that Americans need.
      4:00 other countries were buying cheaper Russian military equipment are now considering to go to Americans? My lord, what a joke that is… I guess by “military equipment” he refuses to tanks and trucks, and russia has never sold those to anyone past china. As for conventional weapons like assault rifles and such, I guess the whole world is stupid, for buying AK-47’s because they are “poor performance” XD
      Half the crap said in this video is a lie. And you don’t have to take my word for it, you can do your own research. Everything i said is searchable on the internet.

  • @MrGustav1993
    @MrGustav1993 ปีที่แล้ว +41

    Very good analysis of the situation on a objective global level.

    • @williamyoung9401
      @williamyoung9401 ปีที่แล้ว

      And this is what happens when an entity becomes "Too Big To Fail." We're doing what's economical, not what's right. Let the Russian Federation fall a part and give those people Freedom. Worried about nuclear weapons? Send in the international Nuclear Regulatory Commission. With an escort. More expensive food? Well, then you have government subsidies to combat that. Make the 1% pay their taxes again. Isn't that what we sent Al Capone to jail for; federal tax evasion? Now it's the 'In-Thing' to do in the Corporate world...

    • @docprune9922
      @docprune9922 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Basically US/Western propaganda in a Ukrainian accent.
      Twaddle.

    • @hrissan
      @hrissan ปีที่แล้ว

      No😹, this is western propaganda so blatant no grown ass adult can seriously believe it. I watched it because of interesting video content, though.

  • @RicheBright
    @RicheBright ปีที่แล้ว

    That was very interesting and covered stuff I didn't know. Thanks!

  • @OctavChelaru
    @OctavChelaru ปีที่แล้ว

    What a good video, many strong points. Thanks!

  • @michaelrtreat
    @michaelrtreat ปีที่แล้ว +5

    I think you nailed it.

  • @liampanzio7412
    @liampanzio7412 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    I really like that you don't do only shorts anymore

  • @recupglobe7420
    @recupglobe7420 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Great video... thank you

  • @pvm1081
    @pvm1081 ปีที่แล้ว

    Very interesting perspective. Thank you.

  • @Biologist19681
    @Biologist19681 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    The cost of the aid to Ukraine is very much overstated. The vast majority of that aid is in the form of military hardware that is gathering dust in the US. It costs money to maintain this equipment. By giving the equipment to Ukraine, it no longer has to be stored and maintained.
    One example is the Stryker. The Stryker is being retired. The US could give all of its Strykers to Ukraine and save a lot of money on decommissioning costs. The aid package would still be quoted as the actual costs of the Stryker, but it would actually save the US money.

    • @docprune9922
      @docprune9922 ปีที่แล้ว

      The cost is in replacement. paid to US MIC by US taxpayers. Do keep up.

    • @Biologist19681
      @Biologist19681 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@docprune9922 that cost would have been paid anyway. And in fact much of the equipment will not be replaced. For example, the Sttykers we are sending are being retired. The M777 artillery is not the top of line eithe5. And the ammunition would have to be destroyed once it expired, at no small cost, which we will save. The new ammunition being manufactured will have a longer shelf life. And we have far more Abrams than we need, so if we send those it won't be at a cost to the taxpayer.
      And in return we help a democracy defend itself from unprovoked aggression by a neighbor. A country that is responsible, in part, for causing economic damage to the US and Europe and is one of the reasons why the US has had to spend a significant amount of money on the military.
      The defeat and collapse of Russia is in the best interests of the US.

    • @docprune9922
      @docprune9922 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Biologist19681 The US spend big on weapons because of the MIC.
      Eisenhower warned of that and he was correct.
      There is no inherent threat to the US from Russia or China. The US is the problems interfering where they have NO reason to be.
      Are you so wilfully unaware of the damage and destruction done by the US to numerous countries around the world, how many are still in utter ruins post your efforts to 'bring dumbocracy'
      The US taxpayer spends huge sums building a military that is bigger than the 9 next l, of which 8 are allies (!) Also the single biggest polluting entity in the world, as it goes about its task of invading and destroying to steal more resources and inhibit other economies.
      No wonder US is considered to be the most dangerous country in the world.
      What hubris tell you that US needs 750 + bases around the entire world?

    • @docprune9922
      @docprune9922 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Biologist19681 The US spend big on weapons because of the MIC.
      Eisenhower warned of that and he was correct.
      There is no inherent threat to the US from Russia or China. The US is the problems interfering where they have NO reason to be.
      Are you so wilfully unaware of the damage and destruction done by the US to numerous countries around the world, how many are still in utter ruins post your efforts to 'bring dumbocracy'
      The US taxpayer spends huge sums building a military that is bigger than the 9 next l, of which 8 are allies (!) Also the single biggest polluting entity in the world, as it goes about its task of invading and destroying to steal more resources and inhibit other economies.
      No wonder US is considered to be the most dangerous country in the world.
      What hubris tell you that US needs 750 + bases around the entire world?

    • @docprune9922
      @docprune9922 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Biologist19681 The US spend big on weapons because of the MIC.
      Eisenhower warned of that and he was correct.
      There is no inherent threat to the US from Russia or China. The US is the problems interfering where they have NO reason to be.
      Are you so wilfully unaware of the damage and destruction done by the US to numerous countries around the world, how many are still in utter ruins post your efforts to 'bring dumbocracy'
      The US taxpayer spends huge sums building a military that is bigger than the 9 next l, of which 8 are allies (!) Also the single biggest polluting entity in the world, as it goes about its task of invading and destroying to steal more resources and inhibit other economies.
      No wonder US is considered to be the most dangerous country in the world.
      What hubris tell you that US needs 750 + bases around the entire world?

  • @eyoutube1
    @eyoutube1 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    Nuclear weapons make a country seemingly invulnerable even if unused. This is why many smaller nations like North Korea pursue nuclear weapons so vigorously.

    • @paulbedichek5177
      @paulbedichek5177 ปีที่แล้ว

      Obviously ,they don't, USSR had more nukes than anyone, and they melted like the morning mist,the same fate awaits this kleptocracy.

  • @digida9351
    @digida9351 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great and different point of analysis !

  • @Grz349
    @Grz349 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    Don’t forget that large parts of the aid was paid for before the conflict, things like Bradley May face decommissioning if not used. Same for ammunition stockpiles, they degrade overtime if not used.

    • @DJAKONDATM
      @DJAKONDATM ปีที่แล้ว

      18.000 dead russian soldiers vs 200.000 ukranian 5.000 nato and 10.000 worldwide mercenariec. Sorry but..what was cost effective again?

    • @scottyd3138
      @scottyd3138 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @DJAKONDA way to be a 🐑 🤣🤣

    • @bickyboo7789
      @bickyboo7789 ปีที่แล้ว

      Depends on the conditions of the warehouses ammunition is stored in. A lot of people are still shooting Turkish 7.92mm surplus that was made during WW2.

  • @pinkyfull
    @pinkyfull ปีที่แล้ว +10

    The thing that people in american politics don't understand is that while the face value of teh support was 40 billion its actually significantly less. Lots of military surplus gets sold or passed on every year, often at-cost to the military, and storing equipment isn't cheap. Giving away old equipment to Ukraine actually SAVES the US government money from less costs associated with storage and upkeep. And everything they are sending is surplus, or stuff that is in storage or will never practicably be used in the future anyway. Whats more it was all MADE to fight Russia (soviet union technically). So giving it away to someone who IS fighting Russia is the best possible investment that could be imagined.

    • @Indeterminite
      @Indeterminite ปีที่แล้ว

      @@MS-ii1sv it already was when the hardware was made. It make no tax dollar difference if it is given to Ukraine or decommissioned

    • @kentl7228
      @kentl7228 ปีที่แล้ว

      And people see the dollar numbers and are shocked, but they don't realise how small the number is compared to the USA
      Military budget.

    • @20165776YEAR
      @20165776YEAR 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      money was also given

  • @theofficialstig
    @theofficialstig ปีที่แล้ว +3

    your channel is so great
    I love learning about history with these

  • @daviducockny
    @daviducockny ปีที่แล้ว

    Very insightful information, congratulations.

  • @chris714n83yh1
    @chris714n83yh1 ปีที่แล้ว

    Outstanding geopolitically, simplified review.

  • @coreytaylor5386
    @coreytaylor5386 ปีที่แล้ว +37

    "its not to big to fail! it can fail at any time!!!"
    these comments missed the entire point if the video, its not that its impossible for Russia to fail and fall apart, its that its to dangerous for the rest of the world for it to fail

    • @kevjtnbtmglr
      @kevjtnbtmglr ปีที่แล้ว

      No, it would make the world safer. It is only a matter of time that this Russia will start a new war somewhere.

    • @BobSacamano666
      @BobSacamano666 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Same could be said about the holder of the world reserve currency.

    • @coreytaylor5386
      @coreytaylor5386 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      @@BobSacamano666 i dont know, nuclear weapons getting into the hands of terrorist grounds sounds just a little more dangerous to me

    • @jamsbean4383
      @jamsbean4383 ปีที่แล้ว

      More dangerous than an aggressive expansionist country who has been in over 10 wars since the 90's?

    • @coreytaylor5386
      @coreytaylor5386 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@jamsbean4383 their massive nuclear stockpile suddenly having no supervision and no one willing to trust nuclear umbrellas now that the invasion of Ukraine happened, a country that gave up its nukes in exchange for absolute protection from both the US and Russia, was outright invaded and threatened by use of nukes by one of the parties and the other is just sending basic aid. thats the main concern addressed in the video and at least in the eyes of the world powers, is in fact more dangerous even if the average person doesnt

  • @zenrhees9083
    @zenrhees9083 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    This is one of the best videos out there outlining the political and economical of all the major parties involved in the war in Ukraine. 👌

    • @marcv2648
      @marcv2648 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Well it's got the highest views for Ukrainian propaganda. I'll it that.

    • @MYwinters1945
      @MYwinters1945 ปีที่แล้ว

      is one of the cheapest pieces of propaganda out there "the russian federation only exists becuase of the noble western nations allow them to continue united" GTFO

    • @baneofbanes
      @baneofbanes ปีที่แล้ว

      @@marcv2648 alright, so what’s the propaganda?

    • @marcv2648
      @marcv2648 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@baneofbanes Telling us to invest our tax dollars in their war campaign. Telling you it's a good investment.

    • @baneofbanes
      @baneofbanes ปีที่แล้ว

      @@marcv2648 that’s not propaganda, that’s just true. We unload a shit ton of military equipment that’s in storage and that’s we’re replacing, and in return the Russians get humiliated and crippled.

  • @pickmandaily
    @pickmandaily ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Love the video, but not the worlds current circumstances.
    🍻 to a brighter future for all.

  • @poha4749
    @poha4749 ปีที่แล้ว

    Informative

  • @SkipMuck
    @SkipMuck ปีที่แล้ว +5

    OMG what an in-depth analysis! Thank you again for the quality in which you expose NWYT

    • @marcv2648
      @marcv2648 ปีที่แล้ว

      This looks like a Ukraine propaganda account with comments full of Ukraine propaganda. I'm tired of my taxes being sent to zhitholes for no reason.

  • @moonasha
    @moonasha ปีที่แล้ว +55

    even with the lowball stats, the amount of casualties in this war is just sickening. It's can't be overstated just how much russia is weakened by this war. And it really makes you wonder what its neighbors will do

    • @theotherohlourdespadua1131
      @theotherohlourdespadua1131 ปีที่แล้ว +19

      Russia is having a hard time being a big bro to the CSTO. Armenia has been dissing Russia constantly since the second attack by Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan is in a shooting war again, and Kazakhstan explicitly declared they are against this war from the get go...

    • @LegendOfTheFLame393
      @LegendOfTheFLame393 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      Better pray that china doesn't shank them while their down

    • @quasimotto8653
      @quasimotto8653 ปีที่แล้ว

      Those neighbors will join NATO where possible or at the very least try to align with the US/West/NATO for protection against Russia or the next 'bad actor" in the region. Does anyone with at least half a brain REALLY think that Poopin would not decide Poland or Estonia or Latvia or some other country in the area does not also need to be 'De-Nazified"??

    • @springbloom5940
      @springbloom5940 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      You have been brainwashed

    • @quasimotto8653
      @quasimotto8653 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@springbloom5940 So anyone that is pro-Ukraine in this conflict is "brainwashed"?
      Does that mean that YOU think Poopin's "special military operation" is going well for him?
      If you believe that, please provide some sources for your information that leads you to believe that this situation is "going well" for the Poophead in Moscow.

  • @exportedafrican
    @exportedafrican ปีที่แล้ว

    Very very very good video!

  • @goodlese
    @goodlese ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Is amazing how you repeatedly connect your video’s sequences when you mention “falling into wrong hands…” amazing 😂

  • @f9658
    @f9658 8 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    We need a new analysis on the Russian-Ukraine war. A lot has changed today… Ukraine has failed a massive counteroffensive and the Russians are beginning to start their own. The Russians seems to have also rapidly started rebuilding their armoured force that has been lost at the start. The people of the West are also starting to change their view on Ukraine and Zelensky. So I wonder how you will analyze future scenarios that Ukraine is going in.

  • @alek0245
    @alek0245 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Ye, Russia uses old stockpiles of tanks which costs around 300 - 700k to make, whereas Ukraine is using western anti-tank weapons that cost millions + ammonition that cost 500k - 1.2m to make. It is the same as throwing the worst stuff out which will deplete your enemy fully. Even military experts came out and said if Britain were to fight Russia, it would last 2 weeks with the stockpiles and ammunition it has left.

  • @panagiotisskordidis4727
    @panagiotisskordidis4727 ปีที่แล้ว

    A legendary video congratulations

  • @user-cd4bx6uq1y
    @user-cd4bx6uq1y ปีที่แล้ว +2

    A very well needed reality check

  • @purifiedh2027
    @purifiedh2027 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Great video!

  • @kblegolover7802
    @kblegolover7802 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Amazing video, glad you could clear up the possibly economic ramifications of a total Ukrainian victory

    • @DJAKONDATM
      @DJAKONDATM ปีที่แล้ว

      18.000 dead russian soldiers vs 200.000 ukranian 5.000 nato and 10.000 worldwide mercenariec. Sorry but..what was cost effective again?

  • @dudu8la162
    @dudu8la162 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great vid

  • @FalkiXd
    @FalkiXd ปีที่แล้ว

    Amazing video

  • @jaysdood
    @jaysdood ปีที่แล้ว +65

    You failed to mention that much of the US military aid to Ukraine is equipment earmarked for decommissioning and as such, whilst it has a book value of Billions it's actual value is negative since they would otherwise have to pay to safely dispose of it.

    • @Sphere723
      @Sphere723 ปีที่แล้ว +18

      Yeah, that basic idea tends to get lost. It's even more pronounced in Europe, where the former warsaw pact nations have been eager to get rid of their soviet era equipment.

    • @nilspaar1999
      @nilspaar1999 ปีที่แล้ว

      I agree with both you and @Sphere723. You are absolutely correct that the equipment is no longer in service. However, I would argue the point it wasn't for decommissioning, but for mothballing. I could be wrong as I don't have access to procurement and equipment readiness evals. I would hope we send the most recently decommissioned equipment to give Ukraine the best fighting chances.

    • @jaysdood
      @jaysdood ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@nilspaar1999 Either way it will reduce cost. In fact mothballing equipment would cost more because there is still a minimal amount of work required to maintain equipment, with vehicles especially maintenance intensive.

    • @martinxy1291
      @martinxy1291 ปีที่แล้ว

      When you have a shitton of random out dated equipment that needs to be scrapped, best give it to someone else so you can upgrade on a shitton of *new* random equipment that'll be out dated in a few years

    • @harleyb.birdwhisperer
      @harleyb.birdwhisperer ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@martinxy1291 In the meantime, you have fed, clothed and housed the employees of the manufacturers and the employees of their suppliers.

  • @richardbrousseau3412
    @richardbrousseau3412 ปีที่แล้ว +53

    Ruzzia is now selling its oil for about 55 USD per barrel and not the 110 USD initially after the start of this war. Since it is estmated that the production and transportation costs for Ruzzia is at least 50 USD per barrel, then its actually profits, if any, have been recently dramatically reduced. Its national deficiet is so severe that it had to drastucakky reduce its already low health, education and social services expenditures. This is a country already spiralling down to bakruptcy.

    • @handthroat3867
      @handthroat3867 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      It doesn't cost ANYBODY $50 usd for a barrel of fuel. You're way off and just a democrat shill

    • @khizerqureshi2492
      @khizerqureshi2492 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      32 trillion American dollars in debt have entered the chat

    • @eleventy-seven
      @eleventy-seven ปีที่แล้ว

      @@khizerqureshi2492 Western apologists like you entered the chat. Now shudap.

    • @khizerqureshi2492
      @khizerqureshi2492 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@eleventy-seven not sure what western apologist means but your display picture says that you stand with ukraine which means you stand with nazis and NATO (North Atlantic Terrorist Organization)

    • @ManderSeis
      @ManderSeis ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @@khizerqureshi2492 except that US will still be able to pay their debt. Nobody in their right minds would lend their money to an about to fail economy.

  • @privatefrizz8627
    @privatefrizz8627 ปีที่แล้ว +57

    Reminds me of the Revolutionary War. One side was vastly outmatched but the other had an unmotivated army. The war had a very positive ripple effect on the rest of the world as whole and it transitioned into what we know now today. (It was such a huge win for us Americans. You guys have no idea how big it is.) Im cautiously optimistic that Ukraine will win due to their faith in themselves and belief in their country. Fighting against an occupying force that wants nothing more than to get rid of them permanently for more space of their own. Even though their army doesn’t believe in themselves much if at all.

    • @user-pe6sg6fu7r
      @user-pe6sg6fu7r ปีที่แล้ว

      Все ваше оружие сгорит при ядерном ударе, а Украина покроется слоем стекла, песок превращается в стекло при большой температуре, У нас есть 6000 ядерных ракет при желании мы можем вернуть Аляску себе так как это исконная Русская земля.

    • @drmodestoesq
      @drmodestoesq ปีที่แล้ว +14

      Yes....Americans were vastly outmatched and lost every battle....until the French decided to use the colonists as proxies against the British Empire.

    • @HaloForgeUltra
      @HaloForgeUltra ปีที่แล้ว

      So what about Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008? Nobody cared then, so why do people care now?

    • @itsohaya4096
      @itsohaya4096 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      Dude America wouldn't have won without the French. US schools tend to gloss that over but France basically carried the war

    • @drmodestoesq
      @drmodestoesq ปีที่แล้ว

      You won't find many mainstream historians, American or otherwise, who think that becoming an independent nation was a big win for Americans.
      There are dozens of massive negative things that came out of the revolutionary independence of America. And no positive ones.
      America would have been much better off if it simply gradually became independent like Australia or Canada.

  • @kevinmunz402
    @kevinmunz402 ปีที่แล้ว

    This video is on point. Great bang for buck!

  • @manuelkleflin4618
    @manuelkleflin4618 ปีที่แล้ว

    Danke!

    • @NotWhatYouThink
      @NotWhatYouThink  11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Thanks very much! Glad you enjoyed the video :-)

  • @V3RTIGO222
    @V3RTIGO222 ปีที่แล้ว +22

    The collapse of Russia might be what needs to happen, the question is whether or not that will lead to nuclear conflict.

    • @xponen
      @xponen ปีที่แล้ว +1

      people can just buy the nukes when Russia superstates don't exist anymore. It is how Oligarch existed in the first place, when Soviet superstate suddenly collapse, random Russian bought the orphaned industry and became superrich. Ukraine also left with orphaned Soviet nukes, which is given to Russia.

    • @user-qw3gz9qx4y
      @user-qw3gz9qx4y ปีที่แล้ว +8

      Western hagemony is what need to collapse...

    • @marcv2648
      @marcv2648 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Why would that need to happen? What kind of nonsense talk is that? Seriously, explain why.

    • @start2957
      @start2957 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      That's what they said about Iraq, libya, syria look what that caused total chaos and countless deaths but hey America said it's ok!

    • @KanyeTheGayFish69
      @KanyeTheGayFish69 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@user-qw3gz9qx4y lol that’s not happening

  • @jtgd
    @jtgd ปีที่แล้ว +9

    No country is too big to fail

    • @brianmatthews4323
      @brianmatthews4323 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      So, if the US disintegrated, you don't think that would be catastrophic for the world?
      That's what the phrase, "Too big to fail." means. It doesn't mean a country can't actually fail.

  • @petercameron2137
    @petercameron2137 ปีที่แล้ว

    Really nice video. I appreciate the way you compare and contrast everything factually but still try to bring some gravitas to politics of the whole situation.

    • @icemike1
      @icemike1 ปีที่แล้ว

      Factually 🤣

  • @saurabhdang7307
    @saurabhdang7307 ปีที่แล้ว

    A new way to look things

  • @DSNSGaming
    @DSNSGaming ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Good way to get your weapons systems tested in the field as well.

  • @FckngGoogleGaveMeThatShit
    @FckngGoogleGaveMeThatShit ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Arestovich is not so popular, we’re just joking about him
    “The war will end in 2-3 weeks” ©️ Arestovich

  • @himabimdimwim
    @himabimdimwim ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I'm so glad you posted this video, I've been trying to explain the incredible bang for buck to no avail.

  • @edreusser4741
    @edreusser4741 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Lets not forget Baltic Birch plywood please. I am still determining how they are still getting that out, but woodworkers around the planet await the return of this lovely crafting material. I can still get it at about 100 bucks for a 5x5 sheet of 3/4 inch plywood.

  • @EMOJO_2001
    @EMOJO_2001 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    Balkanized Russia? "Please don't do that, don't give me hope."

    • @thijsvanderveen231
      @thijsvanderveen231 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      There is no reason for russia to be balkanized lol maybe only some regions in the caucasus should get independant but the rest not

  • @xboxbam3979
    @xboxbam3979 ปีที่แล้ว +17

    As far as the Platinum/Titanium/Uranium mining and Ammonia production goes, there are options to increase demand elsewhere. It doesn't HAVE to be from Russia, especially the titanium mining as Russia isn't even in the top ten for titanium reserves.
    For these following reasons, I do NOT think Russia is too big to fail:
    For Titanium, The top two spots are China (230 Million) and Australia (191 Million), with India (92.4 Million), Brazil (43 Million), Norway (37 Million), Canada (31 Million), South Africa (36.5 Million), Mozambique (26.89 Million), Madagascar (22.4 Million), and Ukraine (8.4 Million) taking the rest of the top spots. So Russia isn't even in the top list of Titanium reserves by country list.
    (Numbers are proven reserves as of 2021 in units of metric tons)
    For Platinum, top reserves by far go to South Africa (69,000 Tons), Russia (3,900 Tons), Zimbabwe (1,200 Tons), United States (900 Tons), Canada (310 Tons). Clearly, South Africa controls this mineral industry. (Numbers are proven reserves as of 2020 in units of metric tons)
    For Uranium, top reserves are Australia (2,049,400 Tons), Kazakhstan (969,200 Tons), Canada (873,000 Tons), Russia (661,900 Tons), Namibia (504,200 Tons), and South Africa (447,700 Tons).
    So, we can simply boost production in Australia and Canada to compensate for Russia's lost of production. Also, Ukraine is the highest Uranium reserve country in Europe with 186,900 tons, so after the war, the EU can simply start pulling from Ukraine more as well (would help rebound their economy).
    (Numbers are proven reserves as of 2019 in units of metric tons).
    For Ammonia, the top producers are China (48.2 Million tons), Russia (12.5 Million tons), India (11 Million tons), United States (9.8 Million tons), Indonesia (5.2 Million), Trinidad & Tobago (4.8 Million), and Saudi Arabia (4.5 Million tons). While China and Russia are the top 2, there are other options available too. Might could boost production in places like India, China, United States and Trinidad & Tobago to aid any offset by Russian ammonia production losses. (Numbers are production numbers as of 2019 in units of metric tons)
    So, as far as resources outside oil and natural gas go, there are options for pulling away from Russia.

    • @fedorbutochnikow5312
      @fedorbutochnikow5312 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      I support your argument, raw resources are no longer scarce in a world of globalized mining industry with ever more efficient extraction processes and ways to ship material cheaply from anywhere. This would be a mere matter of recalibration, market adjustment in the next several years until Russian markets are fully displaced.

    • @AjayTiwari-en9nz
      @AjayTiwari-en9nz ปีที่แล้ว

      About 40% potash comes from Russia and Belarus, which is extremely important for modern agriculture. India is moving to Nano fertilizers, and within 3-4 years, we won't need any fertilizers from Russia. The problem is natural gas, and LPG as Iran and Russia are big producers.

    • @MrVellot
      @MrVellot ปีที่แล้ว +2

      From the point of view of net reserves of resources - you are right, but you do not take into account a simple point - resources must be mined, processed and delivered. It's one thing just explored reserves, and another thing is well-established infrastructure. Just for example - Norway has a lot of natural gas, but it cannot take and satisfy the needs of Europe at one moment, simply because explored reserves are not equal to those produced.
      It's the same with uranium. You are clearly not in the subject, because you do not understand how much energy you need to spend to enrich it so that it turns into fuel. And Russia does it better than anyone and many times cheaper than the United States.
      Sure we can live without Russia, but at what price. Globalisation =)

  • @blesfemy
    @blesfemy ปีที่แล้ว

    The map at the end. Is that from GUR Budanov’s office?

  • @unworthy42
    @unworthy42 ปีที่แล้ว

    Deal of the century. : )

  • @stephenphillips4609
    @stephenphillips4609 ปีที่แล้ว +42

    Trying to prevent something falling apart doesn't prevent it from falling apart, in the long run. If you look at history, empires collapse all the time, and the aftermath is dealt with. Nukes make it more complicated, but Russia breaking up might not be a bad thing. It might even make the former Soviet republics (and Europe) safer

    • @Eletruun
      @Eletruun ปีที่แล้ว +1

      It would be a bad thing for everyone in Russia

    • @docprune9922
      @docprune9922 ปีที่แล้ว

      It is the West that is flailing and failing.

    • @stephenphillips4609
      @stephenphillips4609 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@docprune9922 You think Russia's losses & defeats are part of Putin's plan? They're losing deliberately?

    • @docprune9922
      @docprune9922 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@stephenphillips4609 They aren't losing.
      UkroNazi propaganda.
      Change the channel.

    • @vortolex
      @vortolex ปีที่แล้ว

      Nearly we can hold our own at home with civil war even with internal silly problem. Instead of wasting money giving away our tax money why not fix the country. We have not interest in Ukrain just more unpaid unending waste of materials not even ukrain can paid it all the borrowing…. It would be funny 😆 see what happens next.

  • @filippopotame3579
    @filippopotame3579 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    One of the elements left out by this video, is how much the US miltary industrial complex is profiting from the war, Lockeed Martin alone gained $22bn in market capitalisation, since the war started and triggered a global rearmement. The 40bn could be seen as a very profitable subsidy to the US arms industry.

  • @YXUHUNTER
    @YXUHUNTER ปีที่แล้ว

    Interesting...

  • @dohminkonoha3200
    @dohminkonoha3200 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Just supporting enemy of enemy is always good investment .

  • @njpme
    @njpme ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Too big to fail:
    Titanic: oh ooh

  • @DNG12900
    @DNG12900 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    To the west, the war in Ukraine is a surprisingly good investment and while the loss of life is tragic on both sides, this can help prevent any future conflict that the west might have with Russia, because now they see that the one of their biggest enemies is weaker than they look like while seeing effectiveness of their own equipment against an enemy with a large army. Not only that but European countries are actively seeking other ways to gain oil and gas and not be dependant on Russia. At the end of the day, it's a win win for the west.

  • @JTMaster
    @JTMaster ปีที่แล้ว +1

    And what is more, the money value on these packages is just the value of the equipment being sent plus the cost to deliver it all. The equipment of which has already existed for years. Those Bradleys we sent? We had 2000 Bradleys just sitting in storage plus 2600 in operational use.

  • @maxwalker1159
    @maxwalker1159 ปีที่แล้ว

    Interesting

  • @TiagoTiagoT
    @TiagoTiagoT ปีที่แล้ว +35

    I haven't seen all the numbers, but I strongly suspect that even if the fall of Russia turns out to be a negative to the world, long term it would still be a net positive thing for humanity. In general, "too big to fail" tends to be "too big to be allowed to exist"; and it's the type of mistake that must be corrected for the good of humanity.

    • @docprune9922
      @docprune9922 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      The choice is between a unipolar world of US dollar dominance of EVERYTHING commerce, trade and policy wise, for the benefit of a predominantly white elite OR a multipolar world where all nation's sovereignties are respected and all countries trade and work together for the greater overall good, using a basket of currency.
      ie Do you want US oligarchs and corporations to run the world or countries to look after their own affairs, cooperating with each other?
      That is the choice here.
      Either way, dollar hegemony is gone, the US/West are in decline.
      It can only get worse.

    • @TiagoTiagoT
      @TiagoTiagoT ปีที่แล้ว

      @@docprune9922 You won't have a world where "all nations' sovereignties are respected" if Russia is allowed to get away with what they've been doing.

    • @docprune9922
      @docprune9922 ปีที่แล้ว

      You want a world run by and for US/Western elites?

    • @hayabusa1x
      @hayabusa1x ปีที่แล้ว +11

      @@docprune9922 "...OR a multipolar world where all nation's sovereignties are respected and all countries trade and work together for the greater overall good, using a basket of currency."
      This is not the choice being put forward by Putin. Neither the collapse of the US empire nor the success of the Russian army will lead to a world of multipolar cooperation. Human nature proves otherwise.

    • @TiagoTiagoT
      @TiagoTiagoT ปีที่แล้ว

      @@docprune9922 Do you want a world run by people like Putin?

  • @westrim
    @westrim ปีที่แล้ว +4

    To some degree this hearkens back to the Great Power jockeying of the 1800s, where said powers consciously positioned smaller nations as buffers and switched alliances as necessary to keep other powers from becoming dominant. Of course, that didn't turn out well in 1914 when combined with factors such as *16 paragraphs later*. And history only rhymes.
    But still, planning to keep a Power down but not out may be relatively peaceful in the near term ('only' tens of thousands dead from two nations), but result in vastly more destruction in the long term. Russian collapse now could be more peaceful in the long term. Or its disintegration now might result in loose nukes and close term catastrophe. I don't know the right answer.

    • @BobSacamano666
      @BobSacamano666 ปีที่แล้ว

      And they've already resorted to digging trenches again. Luckily this time they can save money on wmds and a second world war.

  • @sidthesciencekid4314
    @sidthesciencekid4314 ปีที่แล้ว

    this reminds me of the movie war-games

  • @user-xt1zg9yd9f
    @user-xt1zg9yd9f ปีที่แล้ว +1

    "The money should be spent at home" Yeah, go pay teachers in 155 mm shells and m 113s.

  • @stischer47
    @stischer47 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    Another benefit, Ukraine regains the oil fields they were exploring off Crimea.

  • @Nturner822
    @Nturner822 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    They are not only holding off the entire Russian Military but are making gains without air superiority…that is hugely impressive

  • @saltA-saurus
    @saltA-saurus ปีที่แล้ว

    What is the footage used at 9:44?

  • @codemonster8443
    @codemonster8443 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    To the politicians that say they will spend that money at home : will you? Why did you not do just that up until now?

  • @damnwereinatightspot
    @damnwereinatightspot ปีที่แล้ว +33

    so america is battle field testing their own equiptment by proxy?

    • @baronvonlimbourgh1716
      @baronvonlimbourgh1716 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      The last thing they need is more places to test their equipment lol.

    • @spy_balloon
      @spy_balloon ปีที่แล้ว +6

      They finally admitted it hahaha

    • @pHixiq
      @pHixiq ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Yes

    • @theglitch312
      @theglitch312 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Not really. Nothing the US has sent is state of the art that needed battlefield tests. It’s mostly late cold-war era stuff.

    • @fredmdbud
      @fredmdbud ปีที่แล้ว +6

      You mean like Russia in Syria?

  • @Kiyoone
    @Kiyoone ปีที่แล้ว +4

    The new batch and freshly made copium and hopium just arrived bois :) :) :)

  • @user-cd4bx6uq1y
    @user-cd4bx6uq1y 10 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I already watches this but only remember the nuclear too big to fail jokes exactly as they are

  • @weedsgaming420
    @weedsgaming420 ปีที่แล้ว

    as long as it takes!!!!!!!