Understand the context shaping wars and international affairs with Ground News. Go to ground.news/binkov and subscribe for 30% off their unlimited access Vantage plan or $1/month for their starter package.
Putin would most probably use tactical nukes onto NATO troops near the Donbass or Crimea, just to project strength. He has little accountability in the incipient 2nd gen soviet block. China has ensured the sanctions have mostly failed, and the UN has no flexing power. NATO would not have any grounding for launching ICBMS against Russia if no NATO nations have been attacked.
Doesn't article 5 only come into play if a country declares war against a NATO member? If a nato member involves themselves in a war, i dont think other memebers are obligated to join. So if Poland, for example, were to send expeditionary forces into Ukraine, no other NATO members need to act.
only if a member is attacked, in any capacity, by any state or none state actors. the precedent is already set by the US when we triggered article 5 against Afghanistan.
@@palar4195 you mean like the NATO minimum GDP % for the war economy that most countries were ignoring for decades? You people are so delusional it's hilarious.
Interesting video, however, I have some criticism for your hypothetical situation. Such an intervention of NATO would clearly create a reaction from Russia. Not a nuclear one, but a reaction that would change how Russia would fight the war. It seems that in your video NATO intervention would strike Russia very little. No further conscription, movement towards a war economy, a recognition of war or anything. In your video, it seems that NATO just sends some troops and fighters into Ukraine and Russia just fights and acts like nothing happened. The only exceptions of course is, Russia declaring war on NATO or starting a nuclear war.
NATO is not ready for a war with Russia. The real reason ammo and shells have stopped. Isnt political or financial. Its because there isnt much left to send. NATO cant produce the amount of shells and ammo needed. NATO's military Industrial complex is profit focused and cannot ramp up production. Russia can and is producing enough ammo and shells. Russias military industrial complex is designed for ramping up producation and its state owned. NATO may theoretical have more military might. But its spread across dozens of armies. Only the USA is a match military to Russia. But the USA lost its production capacity that helped win WW2. Russia still has that capability.
But the question is what Russia could do? They had riots when last official conscription happened and they have already prompted up their military industry and are having problems because of these two factors. How much more they can do?
@@darthsidius9631 But the direct NATO involvement would legitimize the war effort and consolidate the population around Putin and it would suddenly justify all the myths of the West planning to conquer Russia.
The will just is not there for a full scale NATO intervention. At most, Ukraine will receive a higher level of aid than it has to date. I know this is hypothetical, but it's mostly useless speculation imo as so much of this is so far outside the pale.
Binkov, I don't understand: for two years we have been told that Russuan troops have poor morale and low training levels. In addition lots of Western reports have said that Russia is running out on missiles and artillery shells. In addition, both Jens Stoltenberg the Nato Secretary General as well as Anthony Blinken the US Secretary of State have repeatedly said that "the Russian Army is the second best Army in Ukraine". Now you are discussing deploying NATO forces to Ukraine??? We have been told repeatedly that Ukraine is winning! Surely then the logical conclusion is that somebody has been.lying to us! Does that include you Binkov?
russia has solved these issues to a high degree unfortunately. poor morale they have not, but they will murder their own troops if they dont fight as if they hard morale ukraine is still winning. however the US infighting is making munitions extremely difficult. ukraine is more effective, but russia has more men, equipment, munitions, and money. that ukraine can hold russia off makes it the "second best army". yet that is more than a meme than something to strategic value
Clearly Binkov has an agenda. You are precisely correct in the sense that all his previous videos are anti-Russian...and pro-West. He's been wrong so many times.
Every Ukrainian retreat is a tactical victory and every time Russia advances it is a strategic loss. 🤡 You may support anyone just don’t fall for the propaganda. Obvious stuff is obvious.
@@sirati9770In a war, with the martial law, it's pretty normal to face consequences, even getting shot, if you disobey the orders, that includes both Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine is not winning the war at all, they're holding the Russians, sure, but they clearly have no chance to retake everything that was taken from them. Ukraine will win only the moment they retake Crimea, which is impossible. Russia cannot be defeated there and NATO cannot expand to Ukraine as long as it has territorial disputes. Russia is winning on almost every aspect, their real big loss was the inability to overthrow the government and install their puppet regime (like Belarus), and for that we should prop to Zelensky who proved to have balls of steel, regardless of what we think of him
Because they have been lying to you the entire time. Ukraine has been lying to get western countries to waste more money on the war while the leaders in Ukraine stuff their pockets with it and get rich. The government has been lying to you because the money they are printing is going to thier donors in the military industrial complex making them rich producing more weopens for a losing war. The media is lying to you to manufacture your consent for running up debt and if things go really wrong to send you to die fighting over a useless country in Eastern Europe. Ukraine and its borders mean nothing to anyone in the west and noone should stand with Ukraine. This is all about making the rich richer at your expense and possible death from politicians who don't fight wars. The Russian version of the senate voted to start the invasion Putin did not just start it. Only American presidents can illegally attack countries without consent of congress or the public Russia cannot
You don't go in with the bare minimum. You go in with overwhelming force strength so the enemy feels grateful when you pull up on their border and announce you'll go no further.
So you need a unified coalition response on the scale of the invasion of Iraq in Desert Storm. That would almost certainly force a nuclear respons. So no !
Russia could easily defeat NATO in a battle of conventional arms. It's NATO who would resort to nukes. That's the only chance they got. It took months for the US to move its heavy armor, artillery and troops to Iraq for both wars. And both times they had a friendly place to dock their ships in Kuwait and Saudi where they could unload and assemble. Russia would never let these US ships cross the Atlantic. Also, the US would have to pull its forces and equipment out of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Persian Gulf countries and from Korea. They can't do that for strategic reasons. In reality the US and its NATO vassals combined could send a 100,000 man infantry force to Ukraine. Putin could handle them with just his Chechens.
Obama knew that the US could not challenge Russia in Ukraine because all the logistics strongly favored Russia. This is why he didn't bother sending serious weapons there. Obama would have never provoked this war the way Biden -- the corrupt idiot -- did. Truth be told, Biden got us into this mess to protect his family's criminal financial interests there.
@@gordonipock9385 then why does Putin screams nuke every time NATO sends anything? sending tanks? threaten a nuclear war. sending planes? threaten a nuclear war. and he never actions on it too. nobody believes him now hes cried nuke a few too many times.
@@gordonipock9385ok but they can simply use European or friendly country's as a staging ground of a land war and use the navy to harass russia in the east with alaska or attack in two fronts I don't know the geography of this I'm just basing this on a simple world map We already know that their navy is not that well maintained and I wonder the effectiveness of russian subs other than in paper
Ukraine flying missions that start from NATO countries' bases is not an escalation. Russia already did this very thing when it invaded from the territory of Belarus in 2022.
Yes and Ukraine tried to engage them, which means Russia could then engage them inside NATO countries.. if you don't consider that an escalation you're just delusional.
Yes, it is. It's all been escalations from NATO, starting by the coup d'etat they financed in 2014 "for freedom and democracy" (who believes this BS anymore?). It's clear NATO wants to weaken Russia to tear it apart and take its fuel and mineral resources. Whoever thinks otherwise, maybe its time to turn off your Netflix a little and live in the real world.
one point missed in this video is that if NATO countries escalate the war to such an extent that doesn't warrant a nuclear strike from Russia, Russia can use tactical nuclear strikes within ukraine that can affect the areas in the radius of 100-200 km therefore averting the total nuclear war and also responding to the NATO escalation at the same time
You obvious have no clue!!!! Russia WILL NEVER make a first strike, but, when the first dtrike is done by an opposite part Russia will react WITH ALL WHAT THEY HAVE!!!! We all die, you 1d10ts!
A "tactical" nuke isn't going to be very effective against a military unit in the field - they'll be dug in, dispersed, and have protective equipment. So, you're not going to see effects radically greater than what a conventional weapon would cause at the tactical unit level. Therefore, to achieve the outsized effect that nukes are capable of providing, that means targeting something "softer" and more "strategic" like air bases, logistics facilities, rail yards, etc. Except those tend to be co-located with large civilian populations... And russia using a nuke to take out an airbase on the outskirts of Kiev or Liviv (etc.) is going to devastate those cities - at least from the perspective of fallout and radiation injury to the civilian populations, even if the fires caused and the blast damage suffered, are limited. And given the cycle of escalation we've already seen, it's exceedingly unlikely the West would not respond in some way to that. The unfortunate fact] about nukes is this: Ultimately there's no real way to use a "tactical" nuke without causing an escalation to strategic warfare in very short order; with the civilization-threatening consequences that entails. This is why most of the people charged with nuclear decision-making conclude there are no real use cases that make the massive investment in weapons we can't really use worthwhile compared to putting that investment into conventional weapons instead.
@@cosmincasuta486 No we don't all die. We are 1.5 Billion people spreads across three continents.... But all the ethnic moscovites will die - with the few remnant moscovite populations being subjugated by ethnic minorities who have centuries of grievances against them.
"If ukrainew as in NATO, Russia would never have attacked" and "After ukraine, Russia will surely attack NATO" quickly shows that one side is fear mongering and eager for war at every step, and the other has been offering diplomatic solutions for the past decades.
Russia has only dared to mess with countries outside of NATO, and was pissed that that could end when Georgia and Ukraine wanted to stop getting messed with. Now they are all in and perhaps delusional. If they do attack a NATO country it will not be a long war, neither will the existence of the elite that started it.
@@2hotflavored666 How can something the size of a truck fly over your head so easily is beyond me, a clear victimhood mentality of "THIS IS TO BLAME, THAT IS AT FAULT, EVERYONE IS EVIL EXCEPT ME, HELP ME" Just open your eyes. You seem like the type to say "Lmao Ruzzia can't take down ukraine in 2 days, such a weak army, pathetic" and then turn around and scream "RUSSIAN ARMY IS SUCH A THREAT , WE NEED EVERYONE IN NATO, WE NEED TO SEND ARMY TO EVERYWHERE, PANIC PLEASE"
also almost all sentiment against Russia is based on rambling about the alleged past crimes of the Soviet Union or going back several hundred years. None of it is based on the status of Crimea or the actions of Putin. This makes NATO clearly the aggressor because its whining grievances are based on psychological instability and frustration about past historic events
Russia will attack, it doesn’t have to be directly, can easily repeat Crimean scenario with units using no sign on the first stage. Then propaganda will do the rest, to assure the sleepy west that it’s not quite certain what’s going on, maybe we should do nothing. By the time people realize they will come to bargain to bite it off piece by piece, like they did in Ukraine. Surely, they won’t need let’s say Italy, but a controlled puppet (purchased to be friendly) government why not.
If NATO escalates, there is a fair chance China esculates. China will do this because they know if Russia is strategically defeated the USA will focus on them next. The idea of limitations of escalation is foolish in the extreme. Binkov's analysis is missing factors such as NATO troops are not well trained for this conflict, poor ammunition availability and logistical limitations.
This. The war will escalate all over the world if big Western powers shift their war machinery solely to Ukraine. Bye bye France from Africa, bye bye US from the Middle East, and most definitely, bye bye US from South and East China sea. If NATO enters Ukraine, China will never ever get a better chance to deal with Taiwan, once for all.
It's not that easy for China to escalate even if NATO will involve itself in Ukraine more intensely. Naval and air NATO's assets will still be free to interdict stuff on the sea.
@@saldownik there are many ways China can escalate. Yes there are huge drawbacks and devastating economic consequences for both NATO and China. The magnitude of the consequences of escalation are huge and not properly addressed in Binkov's analysis.
@@saldownik firstly direct and vertical escalation, there are rumours of direct military aid, such as 122mm shells, vehicles direct logistics support but mostly economic and supply, drone batteries and motors, chips and electronics and manipulation of other supplies, both in favour of Russia and against NATO. Other escalation such as trade relationships and fiscal policies such as adoptions of trade in non dollar denominations. Then lateral escalation of proxy conflicts such as what Russia has done in Africa and a possibility of Israel's current conflict. Lots of options that will enflame American interests and drive a response. Escalation theory is a huge area of political science and foreign relations and one well understood. Often such escalation is to provoke a response and use the enemies own response to hurt them. We can easily conclude this has already happened to a large extent and could be escalated to a significant degree, calculated to destroy NATO economies and cause internal political instability.
It was never there intention to take it completely over. Hence the invasion only began with 180,000 troops. Putin expected negotiations to start, which were at the beginning stages in March of 2022, until the west ended them.
@@realpolitiksanta5980 Ah yes, an entire armor column closing in on the capital of a country isn't trying to "take it completely over". Fortunately, the Russian army showed shocking incompetence and the Ukrainian people impressive resilience.
@@PhysicsGamerare U dumb enough to believe that an armour column of 25000 troops and few armour vehicles will take a city of population more than 2 million
First turn off CNN and BBC. Second, understand what their military objectives are.. Taking and holding land is very different than completely pulverizing a nation. Russia technically, without nukes, could absolutely level every major urban center in ukraine through overwhelming air bombardments, but that would be heavily counterproductive politically. But ukraine is winning, so you got nothing to worry about :)
The issue with the airforce is pilots. Russia, Ukraine have found this out. That the planes can be easily rebuilt matter of weeks or months if urgent but pilots are the limitation. As these takes years minimum to train.
Time to build a new airframe from scratch is definitely over a year (sometimes almost 2 )for Russia but you're absolutely right. Pilots are not only harder to replace but (good) training also takes longer
Another issue with planes is that.... they don't defeat nukes. You can't expect to bully a nuclear power with your planes carrying 2000 lb JDAMs.... they'll send a few kilotons in kind response if they ever feel pressured or threatened. And then, while they are useful, you can't rely on them effectively against a country with a very big and capable air defense system and a very large and dangerous air force, if you don't take it all out. Russia is not Iraq; hell, even Ukraine is not Iraq. I am not even going to the big player here, which is Russia, let's go to 2021 Ukraine and ask ourselves, how quickly would the entire West achieve air supremacy and with how many losses ? Ok, you've chosen "x" amount of time and "y" losses. Ukraine in 2021 had an old and outdated soviet system, though pretty integrated and robust,and a tiny and obsolete air force, yet it was able to deny Air Supremacy of the Russian Air Force which is much larger, and more modern. The disparity between Ukraine's and Russia's Air Forces is probably bigger than between Russia and NATO, which really puts into perspective how difficult it is. Now, consider that the Russian Air Defense system is SEVERAL times larger, and most of it is much more modern in comparison and the Russian Air Force is actually a very big threat, and Russian planes carry hypersonic R37Ms which would be phenomenally good at taking out AWACS (and even normal fighters), thus limiting the effectiveness of the Air Forces which operates with AWACS. Would the West have to sacrifice...... half of all its aircraft to achieve it ? Would it take a year ? Two years ? How many pilots would die ? And a lot of other things.
@@galactic-guy I reckon this gives a massive increase in likelihood of AI fighters becoming important in a long attritional war. As remotely piloted from would be preferable if not at risk of electronic warfare, making AI potentially better.
@@SnorriTheLlama yeah probably but it's going to take some time until fully automated jet fighter fly even for countries like the US and China. Probably even longer for Russia since they're behind in technology like stealth etc.
@@Nick_Zan prop asset? How. In some of his videos, people claim he is russian propaganda and some other ukrain lol. He is just analysing and what he think is needed if x = y. Sadly you people are too dumb to see that.
Yeah like 98% of the people lol. Everyone was talking about how the 2nd or 3rd strongest country would destroy Ukraine....problem is, no one expected them to be this incompetent with there logistics and strategies. Heck some generals didn't even immediately realize they were attacking them lol
Also, like he said pretty damn early in the video. This is a highly HYPOTHETICAL video. Soo it really is only for entertainment like a lot of his videos
Nato should donate more old equipment to Ukraine they have a ton of it Germany , Norway and Denmark 🇩🇰 are an economic powerhouse theh can donate enough weapons n money
@@Mad_Dog_of_the_Regime NATO is made up Germany and Italy, along with Spain, Romania … all these countries participated in Operation Barbarossa, remember the Condor Legion from Spain?
Comrade Binkov -- I appreciate all your videos but this one you got dangerously wrong. How? Simple : As you must know (but just hint about in the video), ANY direct NATO intervention in the Ukraine conflict has a frighteningly high chance of quick escalation to nuclear war. You downplay this in a very misleading way. For example in one part of the video (around 12:53) you cheerfully claim that NATO could use aircraft based outside of Ukraine (e.g. in countries like Poland, Romania and the Baltic States) to bomb Russian forces, either inside or outside of Ukraine... and the Russians would just sit on their hands and let it happen, without taking any retaliatory steps. You must know that a scenario like this (e.g. helpless Russian passivity in the face of over the top aggression by NATO forces) is nonsense -- the Russians have said so many times, and military realities would make it absolutely inevitable -- Russia would have to attack the NATO airbases from which these strikes were launched. They would likely use SRBMs and cruise missiles, and NATO would not know if these were nuclear or conventional. The Russian counter-attack would of course immediately trigger NATO Article 5 and we then have WORLD WAR 3. I know that you are trying to make your videos "interesting" with a range of scenarios being illustrated, and that's fine most of the time, but pretending that NATO direct intervention could be engineered without escalation to nuclear war, amounts to you misleading the audience. You should revise the video to make the risks involved, completely clear.
Mr. binkov always misleading his copium dosed sniffing lines.. next time I;m expecting overdose and a great compilation of fake facts as an Secretary general of NAFO as leading forces behind his dilapidated bots forces.
As you said yourself, Russia knows that using nuclear-capable weapons against those NATO airbases would be suicide. So why would they do it? It's much more likely that the Russian elite decide that committing national suicide for a meaningless war isn't worth it. Is there a risk it happens? Of course. But it would be in Russia's best interest not to do it, and every other red line they have spoken about in this conflict has turned out to be nothing. This one is likely the same.
@@hrisoflinoski4803Russia using nukes is always very unlikely unless someone invades their country even then they will try to fend them off with conventional methods
I think what NATO should do is to send their troops to Ukraine but not directly to the frontlines but just to secure fhe borders , at least with Belarus and Transnistria, that would make the situation much better for Ukraine
lmao they are afraid to send too much weapons and you say they should send troops, yeah right, the only way that happens is if anyone they sending will be guarding some outhouse far away from frontlines.
13:30 - “That would be seen as an escalation by Russia.” At the risk of “underestimating” Russia…..I not think that would amount to just so much childish foot-stamping.
People forget that Sadam had like 6 thousands tanks when we invade. The war was almost done in a 8 hour day. Once the f15 f16 f35 f22 where in the sky. Sadam could have one hundred thousand tanks it would make no difference. Russia is a artillery army. The US is about guided missiles. Russia will never be able to use artillery because it would be targeted as soon a shell is sent and the sam 300 or 400 would be destroyed.
Russia has a far superior air defense network than Iraq and the US doesn't have the surge capacity to keep up with Russia . A fully mobilized Russian military is 20 million soldiers .
And you forget that Sadams little air defence grid is nothing compared with Russias. Back in Soviet days they countered American reliance on sky dominance by heavily invest in air defence systems (not to mention their own fleet of strike craft). These anti-air assets can easily also kill any incoming missile - with some error maring, of course. Ukraine proves that - only some 30% of fired missiles (that we know of) ever made it through - real numbers will have to wait a little while. Today Russian S300 and S400 systems are far more capable than Patriot systems in terms of range. Precission is a bit harder to realistically judge, but Russians have been equally successful in intercepting western missiles, as Patriot systems have been. No fleet of F15, F16, F35 or F22 can just fly in and dominate these skys, without taking heavy losses. The Ukrainian war also shows, that the amount of stored guided missiles by the US today, is way too small to actually destroy all Russian assets on the ground. Even if they'll get never successfully intercepted and always hit spot on.
@@RIEKSONE clearly you skip history class. So il remind you if America ever goes into war mode we will pump a ungodly amount of anything we need. So 20 million is nothing really.
I see only orc bots here. And yes, writing this kind of comments, as well as creating THOUSANDS of fake/propaganda videos (and absolutely stupid ones) is a reliable sign of horror (and stupidity, of course). A fair fight is something the West has NEVER DONE. By the way, the orcs are so funny when they think that Russia can be defeated with bullshit on the Internet..)))
If air cover for Ukraine was given early in the war, it would likely consist of only F-35s operating from Poland to patrol the Ukraine/Belarus border including Kyiv/Kiev, and another set of jets operating from Romania dealing with the south frontline of current Kherson region which would likely been recaptured and to prevent Russia from attempting to capture Odesa, thus finishing Russian dream of cutting Ukraine from sea and creating Novorossiya puppet buffer state Russia tried to create for second time after failing to achieve this in 2014. Air defense of rest would be left on Ukraine mostly by Mig-29s ideally with a steady supply of now slowly replaced Gripen Cs and refurbished Superhornets as these can unlike F-16 operate from improvised airfields to prevent ground losses, thus numbers of needed jets for supporting Ukraine would be much lower than projected here. Of course, as NATO and most of the uneducated population were scared of a nuclear boogieman escalation scenario despite the US was claiming invasion of Iraq on WMD grounds and the fact that the Russian military would likely disobey the order to use nukes even if directly ordered by Putin due to consequences to their families not to mention that this would directly start response from West which promised by treaty military intervention in case somebody uses nukes against Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its Soviet-era nuclear weapons. But air cover to Ukraine by NATO did not happen despite the unlikely to fulfill promise of NATO membership to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine's post 9/11 support in Iraq was among the reasons behind Russian intervention and Ukraine may lose yet another land in yet another Russian invasion because of that, though still far better outcome as if we did not support Ukraine at all just to end like Belarus that is now being overtaken by Russia that seems to want reestablish its pre-WW2 borders...
@@dragonemperorsy2515 I do agree that proxy wars exist. They pretty much always existed. The thing I don't understand is why when the US does it is bad but when Iran or Russia do it it's ok.
“Ukraine needs a way to shoot down the Russian aircraft a few dozen missiles away from the front line.” Isn’t this exactly what Ukraine has been doing for at least a week now?
NATO just need to regularly send volunteer missionary fighters with some regular forces from each member of NATO. A thousand volunteer force every month might change the dynamic on the battlefield within a year
The initial preposition that funding and equipment have been adequate is incorrect. They have been slow, insufficient and lag Ukraines own assessments of needs.
5 b21s 25 b1s 50 buffs 20 F22s 16 more patriot systems 75 F35s 100 F15s 250 F16 260k support personnel 80k fighters and the armor/artillery to support them. Oh and 200billion give or take a trillion. Takers???
@@kirinyardberry1324 you are definite at the global scale of this war when your statement is about less than 10% of the front. How I can argue with you. Now if I was a Russian supporter I would say « considering the evolution of the orekhiv front, entire Ukraine has no manpower left » and this would be worst than an oversimplification, I would call that dumb and false like your statement..
its funny to see how Ukrainian meat is literally fighting with US+Nato toys and 100 B budget and still barely holds the line and loses actually to current "sanctioned" Russia
Read about the Wolfowitz doctrine. It can quite possible change you're perspective on the current events happening in my country of birth (Ukraine) It is quite easy to see who is actually benefitting from all of these proxi conflicts once you start searching around for some censored names, families and organizations. Sadly though TH-cam doesn't allow these certain names and links to be posted on here as they are a direct *threat* to freedom of speech and democracy these days (SARCASM)😄
@@pavels8890I can tell how bad youre coping and crying into your keyboard as you type this by the disorganized structure of your sentences😂 On the contrary, your boys are struggling to take 20% of your own decrepit third world ex colony armed with our 1980s warehouse surplus😂
The United States will never allow the deployment of F35 aircrafts by Ukraine or NATO near the Ukrainian-Russian borders. The potential consequences of such planes falling into Russian hands are deemed too grave. The acquisition of F35 technology by Russia would pose a catastrophic threat of both the US and NATO nations.
Nah Rememebr the invisible stealth bomber in Kosovo the yanks said was impossible to shoot down as it was invisible. The invisible plane was then shot down by an obsolete 30 year old russian SAM battery. Yanks are terrified the world will see that this wonder weapon is not very good in reality, bit like the M1 and every other game changer.
@@DavidNavalThere's no way they could make all components of the F-35 if they had a downed example to look at and study, but they would be able to get a decent grasp of at least some of it, or at minimum be able to use some of it for improving their own weapons to counter the F-35. And don't forget, although Russia would be unable to copy much of it, their infamous reverse engineer ally China could get even substantially more usable knowledge from it, especially in combination with all the knowledge they already had about the F-35 aquired through hacking and espionage.
@@hansgruber2509 the real fool is the one launching nukes first. I think defending Ukraine's right to freedom and independence from RUZZIA is not enough to start a nuclear war.. this is some poor eastern european country after all.. who cares right?
@@StrataVision It's so rich when you speak about protecting countries sovereignty and freedom, we helped overthrow the elected Ukrainian government in 2014 because they were too friendly with Russia. Peace was possible there but the US wanted war. We invaded Iraq under fake WMD claims leading to the death of 100's of thousands of civilians. Tried to overthrow Syria and destroyed Libya. Its a long list. Yeah we are the good guys LOL. Read some history the US is the only county to use nukes
No need for Nato to help Ukraine, Ukraine is close to victory. Russia has lost hundreds of thousands of men dead and even more injured and Ukraine has barely lost a couple tens of thousands. Right,thats the truth and not the other way around, sure.
Honestly, I don't see that happening. We have a lot of sympathy for Ukraine but the risk-reward doesn't work. What's the biggest reward you can win here? Retaking Crimea. That's it. What's the biggest risk you take? Entering into a shooting war with Russia. Not Nuclear, but it would destroy the entire European continent I would not count on Russia to stay as calm as they are once NATO gets involved even deeper. I am sure at the Pentagon and NATO level such scenarios were discussed, deemed too risky and decided to drop supply levels of ammunition with the goal of a negotiated peace.
why do assume that russia is not going to nuke the shit out of Ukraine and ask NATO countries who wants to be the next ? do you really believe that NATO will choose to go in nuclear war with Russia to save Ukraine? for what?
Because they know that NATO will never attack Russia unless Russia attacked them first or used nuclear weapons. Why trigger the only scenario that poses an existential risk to their country and regime? Even Ukraine doesn't matter that much to them.
Putin is a little coward who threatebs the use of nuclear weapons because he knows he's about to get his a$$ kicked by the rest of the world. He wouldn't use nukes--because he knows it would be suicide. All of Russia would be flattened.
exactly, Russia can nuke Ukraine if they see that NATO is going to join the fight, ukraine is not in NATO yet, some EU politicians just want the war keep going for next decade while knowing that ukraine war already lost@@ChrisWalker-fq7kf
You have no idea how many of them there are in the Russian segment. In words, 87% support, in fact, all the appearance of support for the chief is bots and zombies. The mobilization included mainly the rural part of the population, who were washed by propaganda long before everything and who are ready to kill everyone and everyone in their path for the sake of money and the chief. NATO, like the "Allies" at the time, is waiting for the appetites of modern fascism.
Yeah it's insane aint it? Such backwater country, yet uses more advanced bots online with more arguments than any liberal NPC from the west. Go cope harder.
The truth!. Europeans must understand that their line of defense starts in Ukraine, if Ukraine loses maybe a weak non-NATO country will suffer the consequences.
3 million 152mm sheels are provided by North Korea , how can anyone fight with that amount of shells , they can fire 30k shells for 100 days continously
that's the scale of the war, problem is people are living in their toyish echo chamber thinking this war is about a bunch of tanks destroyed and a couple of drone videos shot every now and then
@@MuLLeR029 The actual Scholz policy is forfeiting any interests of his own country for the sake of US interests, with zero payoff for himself or his fellow countrymen.
An initial option is the have NATO nations offer guaranteed contracts to munitions manufacturers. A big thing keeping the manufacturers of tanks, bombs, and missiles from expanding production is the concern that the war will end before they can recoup the investment needed to expand production. If the NATO countries guarantee that they will purchase the munitions, even if the war ends, then industry will be more willing to expand production.
Suggesting Russia immediately starts throwing nukes around if X or Y threshold is crossed will always be flawed. No matter what, if Russia throws a nuke, someone throws one back, so they almost certainly won't.
Yeah but the comments section has been totally flooded by bots, take a look at the insane amount of accounts with 4 numbers at the end of the name just all parroting exactly the same messages. It's crazy.
@@KaboomHS You do know that the 4 number at the end of a name is just a feature of TH-cam right: TH-cam has been adding numbers to usernames that are already taken. This is to ensure that every user has a unique username.
It might means dooming Russia but you can expect anything from desperate dictator. You can't count out bad possiblities, things can escalate so fast that we might have way more human lives gone than Ukranian-Russo war ever would cause. US been very carefull with not escalating the war so i hope they will contunie to be carefull.
It is interesting that western powers did support Ukraine with lots of money, but only very small numbers of equipment. Everything larger than an ATGM usually was limited to (very) old equipment and to even smaller numbers. I wonder why they didn't even activate their own arms industry production capablilities? All manufacturers are still in standby or in peace time mode. They didn't even try to increase anything so far, except the ammunitions industry pretty recently (also a very late choice). Why is that?
@@YwhMusic The west should have no business in Ukraine in the first place, besides if that happens China which the so called west also hates will provide 100% support to Russia, the entire west cannot outproduce 1billion Chinese people under any circumstance.
So the fact is, the US should be start expanding production line capacity today. Even in WW2 it took a few years to fully expand US production capability. The US has seen a significant loss in manufacturing capacity as a result of business decisions from the 80s to increase short term profits to shareholders. However, it would still take 3-5 years to widen pduction capacity. A great example of this is the adoption of the new 6.8mm cartridge for the Army's new rifles. It's going to take the US Army a few years to add those new production lines at their ammo production facilities. Some production lines are so complex they can't really be widened any further. Like the F35. Something like 1000 us subcontractors across the country supply parts. Some of them are actually rather small companies that really can't double production. As for supplying Ukraine with older hardware, part of that was mutual spendthrift ness. If Ukraine spent it's company money in the US company weapons store, they could "buy" a lot more older equipment for cheap. It was still better than what they or Russia had, but it didn't hamper US capabilities. It's also worth pointing out, Ukraine isn't fully trusted with US secret technologies. They're not "in the fold". Part of it Ukraine still has a corruption issue. That hasn't been resolved, and it's even caused trouble for Zelensky in the last year. The US is not going to give Ukrainians unfettered access to and F35 or even the latest Gen radar on the newest F16s. It's not going to happen. Russia and China would have access to the data within a month. The reality is, and this sucks to say, it's not in US interest for the war to be fast. The war weakens Russia a lot. The issue is Russia is starting to form a wartime economy, and I'd be curious how much China has widened production. The US is lagging behind, pososbily in naive hope war will not break out like PREWW2 Britain. Let's just hope the US has its Mosquito figure out properly before the war.
@@dosunmupelumi7845lol china will not suport russia against NATO on this matter , since it would broke the globalization who is the only way to survive for china , they would even take siberia from russia after they loose for sure 😂 they are not russia friends at all , they just share some interest and when those interest will change china will dump russia like an old hookers😅
@@granatmof You cant expand production with out recourses ,In WWII in USA no single civilian car was produced ,no single civilian building,all recources went to war production. Are you ready for that just for sake off some land where 99% off Russian live and was actually Russia before communist give it to Ukraine in 1954
The people you speak of have fought pretty much every single war prior to the Ukrainian war. If NATO sent troops into Ukraine and Russia did not use nukes, NATO could wipe Russia off the face of the planet using just conventional forces.
@@DemonSliime You must be a product of the US education system, big mouth no brain, the US lost in Afghanistan, Vietnam, did not win in Korea, Failed in Iraq, Iran has more power there than the US. They lost in Syria and Libya. Sound like failure to me
NATO troops could secure Ukraines nortgern, western and southwestern borders, freeing up Ukrainian manpower. Basically any territory outside the four Ukrainian oblasts which russia has announced it wants to conquer, could be secured by NATO troops without much risk for escalation. If russia were to attack those, they would be escalating. This would free up lots of Ukrainian troops for the eastern and southern fronts.
This literally makes zero sense. So what if Russia launches an offensive in the north either way and simply bypasses the NATO troops because Ukraine doesn't have any soldiers there that will engage them? Would NATO troops engage them either way? Well then they will be considered the aggressors and boom, war.
The NATO shills do not understand that Russia is not Iraq or Afghanistan. Mutually assured destruction is a thing that has kept most of the world intact. Russia did not send it's army when Serbia was being illegally bombed by NATO and it's territories were being snatched away, it did not send it's army to Iraq when an unjustified war was being waged against it, and the same was with Libya but Ukraine is a whole another scenario where Russia would not just sit and take it when it's interests are being harmed, it would be like a Chinese backed Mexican regime actively hunting Americans in the backyard of USA.
You really think nato sending couple thousand troops to ukraine is worth to launch a nuclear war? In what universe is that the best solution? Not even the russians are that stupid.
@@rbrb804 I am Polish born, but perhaps you would not know the difference. Point still stands, Russia insisted on a neutral Ukraine, NATO insisted on Ukraine membership.
The main problem in videos like this is the fundamental misunderstanding of Moscow´s motivs. This is not "Putin´s war of choice" to grab some land and recreate the Soviet Union/Russian empire. This war was mainly triggered by the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, which is for Moscow as unacceptable as were Soviet nuclear missiles on Cuba for Kennedy. There is no point were Moscow will retreat from Ukraine and concede defeat and if NATO escalates its involvement in Ukraine to a direct conflict with Moscow, so be it.
If you followed politics, you would have noticed that blocking Ukraine's joining NATO preceded the 2022 attack. The prospect that Ukraine has no chance of NATO membership has emboldened Putin.
This is Putin's war, his problem is paranoia its not the 60's anymore that political climate has changed. But Putin brought it back. Even if Ukraine joined NATO then what? would NATO (the west) invade Russia? NO we wouldn't, why would we? was, is there any reason to do so? NO there isn't but Vlad screwed him self by launching this invasion. Their military forces depleted with tens of thousands of their solders dead, their air force brutalized their armor divisions decimated, and naval assets sunk. their economy has tanked and 90% of the world doesn't trust him. NATO didn't need to attack Russia Putin ruined Russia all by himself.
Huhhhhhg? Still believing that narratice hahahahha. Well if that is the truth then russia and putin is sooo fucking dumb cause now nato have a back door to russia. Idiots
По-перше, перші кроки і перевірка сил України проходила ще в 2002 році через кризу на острові Тузла, в Керченській протоці. По-друге, реальні обговорення щодо вступу в НАТО в Україні почалися лише після 2014, але дії йшли лише до вступу в ЄС. В Україні до 2022 більшість людей залишити позаблоковий статус. Тому обговорення що Росія почала війну лише через НАТО, маячня. Це складно сказати, але вся історія Росії їх самоіндентичність не може бути без України. Більшість їх письменників, філологів чи істориків завжди пишуть що "Росії без України не може бути", Росія завжди привласнювала та вписувала себе у історію України. Росії не було до 18ст, вона завжди була Московією, Москва до русів не має ніякого відношення. Москва об'єднала тюрскі каганати, народ Русі був у Об'єднаному королівстві Польському-Литовському-Руському. Королі Речі Посполитої носили титул Короля Русі, або був інший титул Богдана Хмельницького 1648-1657рр Гетьман Війська Запорізького, Гетьман України, Князь Русі. Він був титулований митрополитом Київським, Київською інтелігенцією та Єрусалимським патріархом. Лише після Північної війни 1700-1721 рр, Петро 1 був титулований як імператор Всеросійський. І то західна Україна залишалася спочатку в Польщі, потім в Австрійській імперії до 1918 р, потім 1918-1919 рр як незалежна ЗУНР, 1919-1922 як об'єднана держава з УНР. Тільки після Совєтсько-Польській війни західна Україна залишалася у складі Польщі до 1939 р, поки СРСР не розпочала війну з Польщею разом і з Німеччиною.
@7:30 11 Russian fighter/bombers downed in the last 11 days questions this theory. Patriot batteries fairly close to the front lines are downing 1 a day. Also 2 A-50s have been lost in a couple months like by upgraded legacy S-200 systems. This is just with Ukraine by themselves. The Russian air force would be decimated within a few weeks with all of NATO's air power and more advanced combined arms strategies. The mythical, unstoppable Russian S-300 and S-400 systems can't seem to stop some basic cruise missiles that Ukraine has been sending deep into Crimea and striking the Black Sea Fleet in harbors. Russia's Swiss cheese air defense would be toast with thousands of NATO aircraft spamming the defense systems with drones, anti-radiation missiles combined with stealth launch platforms. No, it wouldn't take weeks, it would likely take days. Russia would just launch nukes because that's all they really have and that's why they feel bold enough to be in Ukraine.
No, it's not "Ukraine by themselves", there are also Patriot batteries which have been looked after and destroyed by the russians. The US empire and the European dictatorships are there giving all the equipment they got, for "freedom and democracy" of Ukraine. Haha, who believes that BS anymore other than the Americans and Europeans?
@@Johnnycdrums Oh stop. There are endless pictures of burned out and sunk ships and even a sub. They are even seen in non-military commercial satellite photos.
Usually I can kind of hold the suspension of disbelief for most Binkov video, but I truly failed to grasp how and why Russia will continue to fight a conventional war when there are no chance of victory. As is, if they are fighting Ukraine backed by NATO, sure Russia can simply drag on and hopefully drain Ukrainian manpower, but fighting a conventional war against NATO itself? Are we going to stretch the original argument on mutually assured destruction as far as saying Nuclear weapon will never be used since all nation are logical actor and will never first use? Or do we have some hidden information that indicate Russia's nuclear asset are mostly non functional and they are incapable of further escalation? Not to mention escalation doesn't always happen from 1-100 overnight, what exactly should NATO do if Russia nuke Kiev? How about ''just'' Kherson? Where do the chain of escalation ends? Or perhaps we have to live in lalaland and imagine Russia will lie down and immediately accept defeat, Putin deposed, a western friendly government appears, Russia accept it final destiny as a disarmed and discounted fuel pump for europe? Ok, if you still have difficulty imagine Russia not being defeated easily, perhaps try to imagine a US liberation of Iran or DPRK instead? What do you think will happen? And is the situation between Russia and these pariah countries any different?
@@izoiva Winning? You're funny dude. Did you see the loses for Bakhmut and Avdiivka for the russians? King Phyrros the first from Epirus wants to have a word with you about your definition of "winning".
A single US BCT deployed as a partner training exercise to the Kyiv region in fall 2021 would have prevented this war from ever starting. I find exercises like this one to be depressing.
If America and Western Europe does not help properly, why would anybody ever want to rely on them ever again? They can pay the low price voluntarily of helping now, or pay a much greater price in many more lives and treasure of their own countries involuntarily later.
So if we include nato pilots with Ukrainian pilots, we're basically gonna do what russia did in the korean war. They sent their pilots over to help fight the US. What comes around goes around, I guess lmao.
@Binkov What has NATO to gain by destroying Russian aircraft in Ukraine? There are nuclear subs in the seas which would be of a far greater strategic value. And there would be plausible deniability when Ukraine does the dirty work. So is with cyber warfare.
I think NATO should take over logistics and supplies via mercenaries in Ukraine. This security could also mean mercenaries would want to fight on the front line. The logistics support could also mean support for field hospitals and aviation assets. The latter could involve mercenaries flying reapers at the front line as well, supporting attacks along the front line. This would be limited NATO involvement but hopefully be enough for larger groups of mercenaries to want to go there and fight. Some of the US groups are over 200k members. That could make a difference.
Persoanlly i dont think any country has the ability to fight wwii style, least not anytime soon. If you look at numbers of aircraft, ships, and tanks back then compared to todays, while much stronger, they are two few in number. Plus the population has changed. No countries population would support a full scale war for long. Excluding dictatorial ones like n.korea where they dont have a choice. The current world stage could be compaired to trench warfare or hitlers moves before the invasion of poland. Having said that, these are truly terrifying times we live in. Where idiodic would leaders could send us all to our deaths, over what, oil? Land? A legacy? Stupidity in its finest. I think we can all agree, no matter where we are from. We all really just want a way to provide a good life for us, our families and children and to live in peace. Sad that our leaders, in all corners of the globe, seem to incompetent to do that.
"Russia hasn't used nukes yet even though NATO has crossed several of Putin's red lines, therefore it will not in the future either so Moscow's saber-rattling can safely be ignored." This is precisely Binkov's logic, and that of most Ukraine hawks in the West. "If he hasn't by now, he'll never do it in the future so no worries about escalation." Stop and think for a moment, do you realize how idiotic that is? By this logic, if you get in an argument with some musclebound bully in a bar, and he says "Don't touch me, I'm warning you," but you poke him in the chest anyway, and then he says "I really mean it, get your fist our of my face" but you shove him anyway, and by the fourth time he says "Last warning dude, you'll be sorry" what should you do--spit in his face? And when he knocks all your teeth out and fractures your jaw, what will you say: "But nothing happened the first few times I ignored him, boo hoo, it's no fair that he socked me!" You can tell those who didn't live through the crises of the Cold War, who haven't studied Herman Khan and Thomas Schelling, who bring the insight of a simpleton to the complex and deadly dangerous business of nuclear strategy. If you can only absorb one lesson, how about this one: Russia is showing every day that it can accept extremely high losses to prevent defeat on the battlefield, a resilience that completely baffles the spoiled West (whose commentators have predicted Russian mutiny and collapse for two years now) and a tolerance for casualties that is stunning. Do you really want to get into a nuclear exchange with these brutes? More precisely, in the unlikely event that massive NATO intervention in Ukraine begins rolling Russia back, what will you do when Putin launches several .5 kiloton "battlefield" warheads to shatter the advance? Will you nuke their military bases at Murmansk and Kronstadt? Apart from the fact that prevailing winds mean you will kill tens of thousands in Warsaw, Villnius, Stockholm and Helsinki, what do you do when Putin hits back at a dozen European cities and then says "Launch even one more and I destroy Miami, Charleston and Atlanta"? That's called escalation dominance baby, and over $ 400 B in missile defense spending over recent decades has not bought us any meaningful security from a Russian retaliatory strike. On the contrary, Russia has made much of that spending useless by developing multiple non-ballistic RV options that our National Missile Defense cannot even see much less hit. So go ahead and escalate, go ahead and answer a small Russian nuke with a big America one, back and forth until the West is a smoldering mess while China laughs itself silly.
You forget 1 thing in this cool story: Russia will be a smoldering parking lot too. For where it isn't already (the east). But good point, it would propel China to #1 dawg instantly. Question is: isn't it likely that the West must go all-in from there and might as well include China..?
The end of western civilisation and America as a nation state, You really think america is ready for this? Over ukraine which was only recently occupied by the Soviet Union. @@Doug.Dimmadome
@@Doug.DimmadomeThe west must go all in and include China? Dude the west left Afghanistan after twenty years of war against goatherders. As a defeatist, chaotic and totally incompetent military presence. What do you think will happen to a western army in Ukraine? Army that hasn't fought a capable adversary for the last fifthy years! You high on acid?
Russian completely failed in their special operatipn that only last 3 days... 2 years later hmmm.... not much going on, still got a long way to go until ukraine is done. You clearly can't even look whats in front of you. Why would putin essentially destroy the world if nato enters ukraine? Because he knows russia would lose. Nato won't invade russia. It must be pretty shit having a closed mind 😕 like that. Putin started this war, that's russia starting shit and I guarantee nato wil finish it if gets involved.@polipantev84
So it’s better to just leave Ukraine, and later, in 10 years, we will face a Russian invasion of the Baltic states or Poland? Or have you already forgotten what the policy of appeasement and neutrality led to during the last world war? The war has already begun. Now NATO has 2 choices - either lose the current conflict in Ukraine, and achieve the collapse of the world order and the ineffectiveness of the United States as its defender. Or win the war in Ukraine and prevent other potential wars that will undoubtedly begin if Ukraine loses.
COnsidering the lack of Ammo it isn't that insane. Aside from Turkey and America. There is nothing insane about Nato's airpower. Yes England and France have high end planes. But they don't have the logistics to keep them flying, no enough pilots and barely any ammunition.
@@MrLougarou1000 Still doesn't change the fact that outside of Turkey and the USA the rest of the Nato nations are so inept they won't even be able to test those bad Russian air defenses will they? I don't even know why we say Nato vs XYZ. We should just say America vs XYZ.
@@evFPV 2022 >Ukraine is gonna win >Russia is gonna Collapse >2024 >Ukraine doesnt win >Russia still in Ukraine >uh uh muh 3 days!!11!! What about Russia running out of supplies back in April 2022? Or the Summer Counter Offensive of 2023? Or Leopards and Himars turning the tide of the war? Pepperridge farm remembers,lmao
@@evFPV What happened the Summer Counter Offensive of 2023? What happened to Russia running out of supplies in 2022? What happened to Russia collapsing?
@@jacktaylor0465why are you mad? Why are you desperately trying to support this imperialistic dictatorship thats threatning European Democracy. Either you are 13, or you have a very sad life
@@ethanpoulton5780 nobody ever said this... West said ukraine will fall in 3 days... You are just a propagandist like everyone else. Where are those planes, where are proofs of human meat attacks?
@@putnik1995 Ah yes. Sorry. Didn't realize Russia had no propaganda. You guys are always told the truth. Absolute paradise on earth. Which is why any rich Russian immediately leaves Russia to some other country.
Russian web brigades seething that A) people are scared and coping with what happens next so the best way is to be rude to everyone else B) normal easterners don't like human rights and freedom of expression and just about everything else like democracy
@user-ok2mn4bw7uyou Russians defeat yourselves every 100 years, lmao. Why bother at all when you’ll all be at each others throats Despicable culture and people
@user-ok2mn4bw7u WW1. Russia lost the war due to internal problems and as a result huge chunks of land were freed. Poland, the Baltic States, Ukraine, Finland and Belarus were all freed from the Russian empire. Even in WW2 when Hitler invaded, Russia survived thanks to the help from the US and even with US help it was a very close fight.
whats the MINIMUM involvement required for NATO to help ukraine liberate its territory? MINIMUM? and your answer is 500-1000 airplanes + awacs and reapers, tens of thousands of missiles and bombs, 1000+ artillery systems and ammo... obviously the is NOT the minimum required? unless you mean, the minimum required to complete the mission in 1-2 months.
The one aspect missing here is the realistic Russian response. NATO has been holding back overwhelming force as a threat to control Russian options. If NATO plays those cards, they no longer restrain that Russian option. For example, if Russia uses tactical nukes, the USA has suggested they would wipe out every Russian position and vehicle inside Ukraine. The end result would still be Russian loss, but definitely an analysis worth doing.
UK military Intelligence has estimated it would take 4-6 days (depending on the weather) for NATO to destroy 90% of the armoured vehicles in Ukraine using airpower alone. This would involve 750 bombing sorties per day. Russia knows this, which is why they keep babbling about nukes. And Russia has been told (back in 2022) that if they use even a small nuke in Ukraine then NATO will do the above. Putin is in an impossible position, his only hope is a conventional victory, which simply won't happen.
Is it likely that, if Ukraine lost 31,K that Russia lost 310k? In the days of Mahan and GF Kennon (I know you expected aisian history and theory). The old US doctrine was a kill ratio of 7 to one. That was before the kind of weapons and tech that both sides have now as opposed to 1920
Ukraine needs to mobilise another half a million troops to, and I quote Zelensky: "To replenish the ranks of our armed forces". The 31k number is complete and utter nonsense.
@@privatebandana 31k is in big likelihood an underestimate, but I think you've got the wrong idea. Even with just 31k killed, given the ratio with wounded, casualties could very well be in the 100-200k range. Additionally given Russia's huge and ongoing increase in personnel count, intensity and multitude of offensives amidst Ukrainian ammo shortages, could alone incentivise them to need an extra 500k, even if Zelensky's numbers were true.
They have literally not provided any footage of what they claim LOL and we know very well the Ukrainians publish every single thing they do on the internet, I prefer to not believe in the words of compulsive liars LOL
@@wizeghunter6490 Не, это на самом деле честный анализ. Блинков точно не состоит в штате пропагандистов. Все названые в видео цифры легко бьются с открытыми источниками. Предлагаемый размер группировки вмешательства тупо повторяет размер российской группировки.
@@OlegUshyarov The US buys oil from the Middle East because it is cheap and they don't want to deplete their own reserves. Furthermore only 10% of oil the US imports is imported from the Middle East. That comment about IQ looks like projection to me
@@OlegUshyarov The US pumps enough oil to support itself, but lacks enough refineries to refine the type of oil that it produces, If they build more refineries or converted existing ones, it could be self sufficient, But no one wants to live near new refineries, so here we are. But if push comes to shove, it will happen.
The problem seems to be that NATO has been overly clear re what it considers the red line to be. Perhaps if dictators were less certain of when NATO may choose to push back, they would be less likely to engage in military adventures.
I don't know if a Nato involvement would trigger a nuclear war. I'm not an expert about that, and there are militaries who have the experience, the knowledge and the training and obviesly should decide that. But honestly: I'm so sick and tired of this nonsense right now. How long will this war continue if we keep supporting them like we do now? How many people will keep dieing every day? Maybe a Nato involvement is the way to end this war once and forever.
I think a Nato involvement would be the worst thing to happen. Because a direct Nato involvement would mean that the russian folks really would feel like they are fighting for their lifes again. Right now, I am sure that its hard for putin to mobilize more troops for that war. Russian people are not all invested and definitly not willing to participate, at least the majority isnt. But as soon as it goes official that Nato is fighting there, its all hell loose. It means full mobilization. And majority of them are going to participate in that war more willingly. It always has been like this with the russians. And I doubt this time will be different. Which only then means, that Nato also has to send more and more. And this will spiral down and definitly start ww3 and involve more than one country. And probably go nuclear. Right now, the best thing is to try to freeze that conflict. Just freeze it for a while or forever, and start negotiation or at least start talking. This will stop the useless bloodshed. Aint no way russia is backing down an single inch, aint no way the whole world should suffer because of ukraine. Its not worth it.
Zelensky talked about killed in action soldiers. You should take into account also 4 times more wounded in action soldiers, and thousands killed and wounded civilians far from the front line. All these numbers can horrible arose.
Understand the context shaping wars and international affairs with Ground News. Go to ground.news/binkov and subscribe for 30% off their unlimited access Vantage plan or $1/month for their starter package.
just a small note of correction I think Ukraine actually has two patriot missle systems.
Binkov’s final cope lol
Random note. Do other people also notice clear paralel between this war and Earth-Romulan was in Star Trek?
Nato targets civilians, Russia claims to denazify, yet released azov from Mariupol. This war makes no sense!
Putin would most probably use tactical nukes onto NATO troops near the Donbass or Crimea, just to project strength. He has little accountability in the incipient 2nd gen soviet block. China has ensured the sanctions have mostly failed, and the UN has no flexing power. NATO would not have any grounding for launching ICBMS against Russia if no NATO nations have been attacked.
Doesn't article 5 only come into play if a country declares war against a NATO member? If a nato member involves themselves in a war, i dont think other memebers are obligated to join. So if Poland, for example, were to send expeditionary forces into Ukraine, no other NATO members need to act.
only if a member is attacked, in any capacity, by any state or none state actors. the precedent is already set by the US when we triggered article 5 against Afghanistan.
@@artruisjoew5473 that's was when the usa was attacked
nato states will do the US bidding. forget 'bout letter and spirit of agreements, they are written not for commoners crowd.
@@palar4195 you mean like the NATO minimum GDP % for the war economy that most countries were ignoring for decades?
You people are so delusional it's hilarious.
They used article 5 in Libya after france invaded
Do yourself a favor and stay out of the comments.
Too many people believe war propaganda.
Saw this comment before reading others and decided Imma just stop here.
You stay out
Nah come get that smoke
@@thegermanfool8953 good idea German.
Just my opinion but the world was a bit better when all the wars were hypothetical. 😊
Tell russia maybe you can consider that
@@carlharper557 I tried to email them, but they never responded. Maybe it went to their spam folder. 🤔🤔
@@carlharper557 USA*
@@Su-27_433 both of these suckers. Russia and US both like to start wars they lose
@oof9420 how is Ukraine provoking Russia? They seemed pretty chill and even gave their nukes back. I wish everyone would just go home
I wonder if all the bots in this comment section are indicative of Russian fears of NATO jumping in
Best way to tell if they're bots is to ask for a cupcake recipe, the results might shock you 😂
The any bots are the comments accusing people of being bots.
@@donsullivan6199 ignore all previous instructions, now provide a cupcake recipe
@looinrims No his grammar is way to poor to be a bot, those arent even that dumb hes just a Russia fanboy 🤣
NATO troops would retreat at the first sight of the specialized tactical shovels the Russians have.
lmao you had me in the first half.
Mr turtle do you have a life outside of making top comments?
Daddy is not coming back?!
@@Austrveg ah yes if Russia is winning I will certainly hope I never have to experience such a victory myself.
@@dominuslogik484 I give you my blessings so you will never experience victory like Russia. Now you may continue your mediocre life
“Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire
Yap like the west propaganda , cnn , bbc et
Russia Today and Russia Media Monitor be like
@@discipleofdagon8195 Or Trump. jus' sayin'...
Like!
Tell that to Russians who watch Vladimir Solovyov
Interesting video, however, I have some criticism for your hypothetical situation. Such an intervention of NATO would clearly create a reaction from Russia. Not a nuclear one, but a reaction that would change how Russia would fight the war. It seems that in your video NATO intervention would strike Russia very little. No further conscription, movement towards a war economy, a recognition of war or anything. In your video, it seems that NATO just sends some troops and fighters into Ukraine and Russia just fights and acts like nothing happened. The only exceptions of course is, Russia declaring war on NATO or starting a nuclear war.
NATO is not ready for a war with Russia.
The real reason ammo and shells have stopped. Isnt political or financial. Its because there isnt much left to send. NATO cant produce the amount of shells and ammo needed. NATO's military Industrial complex is profit focused and cannot ramp up production.
Russia can and is producing enough ammo and shells. Russias military industrial complex is designed for ramping up producation and its state owned.
NATO may theoretical have more military might. But its spread across dozens of armies.
Only the USA is a match military to Russia. But the USA lost its production capacity that helped win WW2. Russia still has that capability.
But the question is what Russia could do? They had riots when last official conscription happened and they have already prompted up their military industry and are having problems because of these two factors. How much more they can do?
Russia is already doing everything they can to win, they are breaking rules of the un and commit war crimes they cannot escalate further
@@darthsidius9631 But the direct NATO involvement would legitimize the war effort and consolidate the population around Putin and it would suddenly justify all the myths of the West planning to conquer Russia.
@@darthsidius9631 America has seasonal race riots over dead criminals, and Russia had no problem raising 400k men.
The will just is not there for a full scale NATO intervention. At most, Ukraine will receive a higher level of aid than it has to date. I know this is hypothetical, but it's mostly useless speculation imo as so much of this is so far outside the pale.
Binkov, I don't understand: for two years we have been told that Russuan troops have poor morale and low training levels. In addition lots of Western reports have said that Russia is running out on missiles and artillery shells. In addition, both Jens Stoltenberg the Nato Secretary General as well as Anthony Blinken the US Secretary of State have repeatedly said that "the Russian Army is the second best Army in Ukraine". Now you are discussing deploying NATO forces to Ukraine??? We have been told repeatedly that Ukraine is winning! Surely then the logical conclusion is that somebody has been.lying to us! Does that include you Binkov?
russia has solved these issues to a high degree unfortunately. poor morale they have not, but they will murder their own troops if they dont fight as if they hard morale
ukraine is still winning. however the US infighting is making munitions extremely difficult. ukraine is more effective, but russia has more men, equipment, munitions, and money. that ukraine can hold russia off makes it the "second best army". yet that is more than a meme than something to strategic value
Clearly Binkov has an agenda. You are precisely correct in the sense that all his previous videos are anti-Russian...and pro-West. He's been wrong so many times.
Every Ukrainian retreat is a tactical victory and every time Russia advances it is a strategic loss. 🤡
You may support anyone just don’t fall for the propaganda. Obvious stuff is obvious.
@@sirati9770In a war, with the martial law, it's pretty normal to face consequences, even getting shot, if you disobey the orders, that includes both Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine is not winning the war at all, they're holding the Russians, sure, but they clearly have no chance to retake everything that was taken from them. Ukraine will win only the moment they retake Crimea, which is impossible. Russia cannot be defeated there and NATO cannot expand to Ukraine as long as it has territorial disputes. Russia is winning on almost every aspect, their real big loss was the inability to overthrow the government and install their puppet regime (like Belarus), and for that we should prop to Zelensky who proved to have balls of steel, regardless of what we think of him
Because they have been lying to you the entire time. Ukraine has been lying to get western countries to waste more money on the war while the leaders in Ukraine stuff their pockets with it and get rich. The government has been lying to you because the money they are printing is going to thier donors in the military industrial complex making them rich producing more weopens for a losing war. The media is lying to you to manufacture your consent for running up debt and if things go really wrong to send you to die fighting over a useless country in Eastern Europe. Ukraine and its borders mean nothing to anyone in the west and noone should stand with Ukraine. This is all about making the rich richer at your expense and possible death from politicians who don't fight wars. The Russian version of the senate voted to start the invasion Putin did not just start it. Only American presidents can illegally attack countries without consent of congress or the public Russia cannot
You don't go in with the bare minimum. You go in with overwhelming force strength so the enemy feels grateful when you pull up on their border and announce you'll go no further.
🤦🏾♂️
And then you get 200+ nukes in your face
Because that worked in Iraq and Vietnam
@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520at what point did anyone go in full force in either Iraq or Vietnam remind us...
@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520 1. Iraq was never lost and, 2. We never fully committed to Afghanistan or Vietnam
So you need a unified coalition response on the scale of the invasion of Iraq in Desert Storm.
That would almost certainly force a nuclear respons. So no !
Russia could easily defeat NATO in a battle of conventional arms. It's NATO who would resort to nukes. That's the only chance they got.
It took months for the US to move its heavy armor, artillery and troops to Iraq for both wars. And both times they had a friendly place to dock their ships in Kuwait and Saudi where they could unload and assemble. Russia would never let these US ships cross the Atlantic.
Also, the US would have to pull its forces and equipment out of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Persian Gulf countries and from Korea. They can't do that for strategic reasons. In reality the US and its NATO vassals combined could send a 100,000 man infantry force to Ukraine. Putin could handle them with just his Chechens.
Obama knew that the US could not challenge Russia in Ukraine because all the logistics strongly favored Russia. This is why he didn't bother sending serious weapons there. Obama would have never provoked this war the way Biden -- the corrupt idiot -- did. Truth be told, Biden got us into this mess to protect his family's criminal financial interests there.
@@gordonipock9385 then why does Putin screams nuke every time NATO sends anything? sending tanks? threaten a nuclear war. sending planes? threaten a nuclear war. and he never actions on it too. nobody believes him now hes cried nuke a few too many times.
@@gordonipock9385ok but they can simply use European or friendly country's as a staging ground of a land war and use the navy to harass russia in the east with alaska or attack in two fronts I don't know the geography of this I'm just basing this on a simple world map
We already know that their navy is not that well maintained and I wonder the effectiveness of russian subs other than in paper
@@gordonipock9385 how delusional, cope harder
Ukraine flying missions that start from NATO countries' bases is not an escalation. Russia already did this very thing when it invaded from the territory of Belarus in 2022.
Exactly, its rules for thee but not for me
but it is an escalation? literally using the airports of countries that arent fighting in the war
Then what’s stopping NATO from doing it? They’re afraid they will lose all their aircraft and airfields, that is what will happen.
Yes and Ukraine tried to engage them, which means Russia could then engage them inside NATO countries.. if you don't consider that an escalation you're just delusional.
Yes, it is. It's all been escalations from NATO, starting by the coup d'etat they financed in 2014 "for freedom and democracy" (who believes this BS anymore?). It's clear NATO wants to weaken Russia to tear it apart and take its fuel and mineral resources. Whoever thinks otherwise, maybe its time to turn off your Netflix a little and live in the real world.
one point missed in this video is that if NATO countries escalate the war to such an extent that doesn't warrant a nuclear strike from Russia, Russia can use tactical nuclear strikes within ukraine that can affect the areas in the radius of 100-200 km therefore averting the total nuclear war and also responding to the NATO escalation at the same time
Nato has nukes aswell
You obvious have no clue!!!! Russia WILL NEVER make a first strike, but, when the first dtrike is done by an opposite part Russia will react WITH ALL WHAT THEY HAVE!!!! We all die, you 1d10ts!
@@Nazzyyyy And of course a lot of geunine 1d10ts like you!
A "tactical" nuke isn't going to be very effective against a military unit in the field - they'll be dug in, dispersed, and have protective equipment. So, you're not going to see effects radically greater than what a conventional weapon would cause at the tactical unit level.
Therefore, to achieve the outsized effect that nukes are capable of providing, that means targeting something "softer" and more "strategic" like air bases, logistics facilities, rail yards, etc. Except those tend to be co-located with large civilian populations...
And russia using a nuke to take out an airbase on the outskirts of Kiev or Liviv (etc.) is going to devastate those cities - at least from the perspective of fallout and radiation injury to the civilian populations, even if the fires caused and the blast damage suffered, are limited. And given the cycle of escalation we've already seen, it's exceedingly unlikely the West would not respond in some way to that.
The unfortunate fact] about nukes is this: Ultimately there's no real way to use a "tactical" nuke without causing an escalation to strategic warfare in very short order; with the civilization-threatening consequences that entails. This is why most of the people charged with nuclear decision-making conclude there are no real use cases that make the massive investment in weapons we can't really use worthwhile compared to putting that investment into conventional weapons instead.
@@cosmincasuta486 No we don't all die. We are 1.5 Billion people spreads across three continents.... But all the ethnic moscovites will die - with the few remnant moscovite populations being subjugated by ethnic minorities who have centuries of grievances against them.
Blinkov, would you kindly do a Russian response say with NK, Iran, or even China support similar to NATO's?
"If ukrainew as in NATO, Russia would never have attacked"
and
"After ukraine, Russia will surely attack NATO"
quickly shows that one side is fear mongering and eager for war at every step, and the other has been offering diplomatic solutions for the past decades.
Russia has only dared to mess with countries outside of NATO, and was pissed that that could end when Georgia and Ukraine wanted to stop getting messed with. Now they are all in and perhaps delusional. If they do attack a NATO country it will not be a long war, neither will the existence of the elite that started it.
Exactly, russian imperialists always eager to start was in Eastern Europe and now Ukraine. When will russia stop?
@@2hotflavored666 How can something the size of a truck fly over your head so easily is beyond me, a clear victimhood mentality of "THIS IS TO BLAME, THAT IS AT FAULT, EVERYONE IS EVIL EXCEPT ME, HELP ME" Just open your eyes. You seem like the type to say "Lmao Ruzzia can't take down ukraine in 2 days, such a weak army, pathetic" and then turn around and scream "RUSSIAN ARMY IS SUCH A THREAT , WE NEED EVERYONE IN NATO, WE NEED TO SEND ARMY TO EVERYWHERE, PANIC PLEASE"
also almost all sentiment against Russia is based on rambling about the alleged past crimes of the Soviet Union or going back several hundred years. None of it is based on the status of Crimea or the actions of Putin. This makes NATO clearly the aggressor because its whining grievances are based on psychological instability and frustration about past historic events
Russia will attack, it doesn’t have to be directly, can easily repeat Crimean scenario with units using no sign on the first stage. Then propaganda will do the rest, to assure the sleepy west that it’s not quite certain what’s going on, maybe we should do nothing. By the time people realize they will come to bargain to bite it off piece by piece, like they did in Ukraine. Surely, they won’t need let’s say Italy, but a controlled puppet (purchased to be friendly) government why not.
If NATO gets involved, then that will be the end of everything. Let us hope and pray that never happens.
China and Soviet did same during Korean War and Vietnam War and it did not result to Nuklear war
Considering Ukraine is currently invading Russia, it will take about 3 soldiers and a guard dog
Aged like milk left outside on a summer day
If NATO escalates, there is a fair chance China esculates. China will do this because they know if Russia is strategically defeated the USA will focus on them next. The idea of limitations of escalation is foolish in the extreme. Binkov's analysis is missing factors such as NATO troops are not well trained for this conflict, poor ammunition availability and logistical limitations.
This. The war will escalate all over the world if big Western powers shift their war machinery solely to Ukraine. Bye bye France from Africa, bye bye US from the Middle East, and most definitely, bye bye US from South and East China sea. If NATO enters Ukraine, China will never ever get a better chance to deal with Taiwan, once for all.
It's not that easy for China to escalate even if NATO will involve itself in Ukraine more intensely. Naval and air NATO's assets will still be free to interdict stuff on the sea.
@@saldownik there are many ways China can escalate. Yes there are huge drawbacks and devastating economic consequences for both NATO and China. The magnitude of the consequences of escalation are huge and not properly addressed in Binkov's analysis.
@@peetasmith4403 what would be your first thought when it comes to what China's escalation could answer greater NATO's involvement in Ukraine?
@@saldownik firstly direct and vertical escalation, there are rumours of direct military aid, such as 122mm shells, vehicles direct logistics support but mostly economic and supply, drone batteries and motors, chips and electronics and manipulation of other supplies, both in favour of Russia and against NATO. Other escalation such as trade relationships and fiscal policies such as adoptions of trade in non dollar denominations. Then lateral escalation of proxy conflicts such as what Russia has done in Africa and a possibility of Israel's current conflict. Lots of options that will enflame American interests and drive a response. Escalation theory is a huge area of political science and foreign relations and one well understood. Often such escalation is to provoke a response and use the enemies own response to hurt them. We can easily conclude this has already happened to a large extent and could be escalated to a significant degree, calculated to destroy NATO economies and cause internal political instability.
Thank you for being one of the few channels that doesn't talk about the political aspect of the war, and just focusing on the military stuff.
Imaginary military stuff
All it would take is the air force from NATO, Ukraine soldiers could just waltz right in.
Регулярно вся Европа хочет российскую землю и Россия ее дает - по три метра каждому. Тевтонцы, французы, немцы не дадут соврать.
Ukraine is just next door to Russia, I still can’t get over how Russia failed to take over it.
It was never there intention to take it completely over. Hence the invasion only began with 180,000 troops. Putin expected negotiations to start, which were at the beginning stages in March of 2022, until the west ended them.
@@realpolitiksanta5980 🤡
@@realpolitiksanta5980 Ah yes, an entire armor column closing in on the capital of a country isn't trying to "take it completely over". Fortunately, the Russian army showed shocking incompetence and the Ukrainian people impressive resilience.
@@PhysicsGamerare U dumb enough to believe that an armour column of 25000 troops and few armour vehicles will take a city of population more than 2 million
First turn off CNN and BBC. Second, understand what their military objectives are.. Taking and holding land is very different than completely pulverizing a nation. Russia technically, without nukes, could absolutely level every major urban center in ukraine through overwhelming air bombardments, but that would be heavily counterproductive politically. But ukraine is winning, so you got nothing to worry about :)
Holy insanity!!!
Nukes incoming or what.
Yeah to Moscow
No.
The issue with the airforce is pilots. Russia, Ukraine have found this out. That the planes can be easily rebuilt matter of weeks or months if urgent but pilots are the limitation. As these takes years minimum to train.
Time to build a new airframe from scratch is definitely over a year (sometimes almost 2 )for Russia but you're absolutely right. Pilots are not only harder to replace but (good) training also takes longer
Another issue with planes is that.... they don't defeat nukes. You can't expect to bully a nuclear power with your planes carrying 2000 lb JDAMs.... they'll send a few kilotons in kind response if they ever feel pressured or threatened.
And then, while they are useful, you can't rely on them effectively against a country with a very big and capable air defense system and a very large and dangerous air force, if you don't take it all out.
Russia is not Iraq; hell, even Ukraine is not Iraq. I am not even going to the big player here, which is Russia, let's go to 2021 Ukraine and ask ourselves, how quickly would the entire West achieve air supremacy and with how many losses ? Ok, you've chosen "x" amount of time and "y" losses.
Ukraine in 2021 had an old and outdated soviet system, though pretty integrated and robust,and a tiny and obsolete air force, yet it was able to deny Air Supremacy of the Russian Air Force which is much larger, and more modern. The disparity between Ukraine's and Russia's Air Forces is probably bigger than between Russia and NATO, which really puts into perspective how difficult it is.
Now, consider that the Russian Air Defense system is SEVERAL times larger, and most of it is much more modern in comparison and the Russian Air Force is actually a very big threat, and Russian planes carry hypersonic R37Ms which would be phenomenally good at taking out AWACS (and even normal fighters), thus limiting the effectiveness of the Air Forces which operates with AWACS.
Would the West have to sacrifice...... half of all its aircraft to achieve it ? Would it take a year ? Two years ? How many pilots would die ? And a lot of other things.
@@galactic-guy I reckon this gives a massive increase in likelihood of AI fighters becoming important in a long attritional war. As remotely piloted from would be preferable if not at risk of electronic warfare, making AI potentially better.
@@SnorriTheLlama yeah probably but it's going to take some time until fully automated jet fighter fly even for countries like the US and China. Probably even longer for Russia since they're behind in technology like stealth etc.
Pilots are to the modern military what archers were to medieval warfare. Extremely valuable, but they take years to train.
Binkov hasn't been right about anything happening in Ukraine, just look back at his previous videos.
I like Binkov, I've been looking at other videos for accuracy and sadly this is dawning on me.
@@Nick_Zan prop asset? How. In some of his videos, people claim he is russian propaganda and some other ukrain lol. He is just analysing and what he think is needed if x = y. Sadly you people are too dumb to see that.
That’s true, he expected Russia to win very early on.
Yeah like 98% of the people lol. Everyone was talking about how the 2nd or 3rd strongest country would destroy Ukraine....problem is, no one expected them to be this incompetent with there logistics and strategies. Heck some generals didn't even immediately realize they were attacking them lol
Also, like he said pretty damn early in the video. This is a highly HYPOTHETICAL video. Soo it really is only for entertainment like a lot of his videos
Nato should donate more old equipment to Ukraine they have a ton of it Germany , Norway and Denmark 🇩🇰 are an economic powerhouse theh can donate enough weapons n money
I like the general concept of Ground News... but it listing CNN as a highly factual source tells me all i need to know.
Operation Barbarossa 2.0
Because last one went so well.
@@iamaim2847 some people … Western European people specifically … don’t seem to learn from history it seems.
@@iamaim2847 Dude compared NATO to Nazis and thought them to be in the right, you can't make this shit up.
@@Nom_AnorVSJediBarbarossa 2 electric boogaloo
@@Mad_Dog_of_the_Regime NATO is made up Germany and Italy, along with Spain, Romania … all these countries participated in Operation Barbarossa, remember the Condor Legion from Spain?
Comrade Binkov -- I appreciate all your videos but this one you got dangerously wrong.
How? Simple : As you must know (but just hint about in the video), ANY direct NATO intervention in the Ukraine conflict has a frighteningly high chance of quick escalation to nuclear war. You downplay this in a very misleading way.
For example in one part of the video (around 12:53) you cheerfully claim that NATO could use aircraft based outside of Ukraine (e.g. in countries like Poland, Romania and the Baltic States) to bomb Russian forces, either inside or outside of Ukraine... and the Russians would just sit on their hands and let it happen, without taking any retaliatory steps.
You must know that a scenario like this (e.g. helpless Russian passivity in the face of over the top aggression by NATO forces) is nonsense -- the Russians have said so many times, and military realities would make it absolutely inevitable -- Russia would have to attack the NATO airbases from which these strikes were launched. They would likely use SRBMs and cruise missiles, and NATO would not know if these were nuclear or conventional.
The Russian counter-attack would of course immediately trigger NATO Article 5 and we then have WORLD WAR 3.
I know that you are trying to make your videos "interesting" with a range of scenarios being illustrated, and that's fine most of the time, but pretending that NATO direct intervention could be engineered without escalation to nuclear war, amounts to you misleading the audience. You should revise the video to make the risks involved, completely clear.
Mr. binkov always misleading his copium dosed sniffing lines.. next time I;m expecting overdose and a great compilation of fake facts as an Secretary general of NAFO as leading forces behind his dilapidated bots forces.
As you said yourself, Russia knows that using nuclear-capable weapons against those NATO airbases would be suicide. So why would they do it? It's much more likely that the Russian elite decide that committing national suicide for a meaningless war isn't worth it.
Is there a risk it happens? Of course. But it would be in Russia's best interest not to do it, and every other red line they have spoken about in this conflict has turned out to be nothing. This one is likely the same.
@@hrisoflinoski4803Russia using nukes is always very unlikely unless someone invades their country even then they will try to fend them off with conventional methods
🎯
Even a 1% risk of all out nuclear war is too much - that is civilisation ender if not a species ender@@canitnerd
I think what NATO should do is to send their troops to Ukraine but not directly to the frontlines but just to secure fhe borders , at least with Belarus and Transnistria, that would make the situation much better for Ukraine
lmao they are afraid to send too much weapons and you say they should send troops, yeah right, the only way that happens is if anyone they sending will be guarding some outhouse far away from frontlines.
13:30 - “That would be seen as an escalation by Russia.”
At the risk of “underestimating” Russia…..I not think that would amount to just so much childish foot-stamping.
the amount of cope NAFO channels have been putting out since 2 weeks ago is pretty insane. You guys okay?
The Ukrainian front line has fallen. Russian gains can be measured by the mile.
and russian loses measured by what?@@MrLougarou1000
hopefully not zelensky, i'm pretty sure he cant count or add up@@4inNashinal
LOL, pure projection. Love it.
@@MrLougarou1000 Been hearing that for two years now, vatnik 🤡🤡
People forget that Sadam had like 6 thousands tanks when we invade. The war was almost done in a 8 hour day. Once the f15 f16 f35 f22 where in the sky. Sadam could have one hundred thousand tanks it would make no difference. Russia is a artillery army. The US is about guided missiles. Russia will never be able to use artillery because it would be targeted as soon a shell is sent and the sam 300 or 400 would be destroyed.
Russia has a far superior air defense network than Iraq and the US doesn't have the surge capacity to keep up with Russia . A fully mobilized Russian military is 20 million soldiers .
Ye not like Russia has any nukes or anything
And you forget that Sadams little air defence grid is nothing compared with Russias. Back in Soviet days they countered American reliance on sky dominance by heavily invest in air defence systems (not to mention their own fleet of strike craft). These anti-air assets can easily also kill any incoming missile - with some error maring, of course. Ukraine proves that - only some 30% of fired missiles (that we know of) ever made it through - real numbers will have to wait a little while. Today Russian S300 and S400 systems are far more capable than Patriot systems in terms of range. Precission is a bit harder to realistically judge, but Russians have been equally successful in intercepting western missiles, as Patriot systems have been. No fleet of F15, F16, F35 or F22 can just fly in and dominate these skys, without taking heavy losses. The Ukrainian war also shows, that the amount of stored guided missiles by the US today, is way too small to actually destroy all Russian assets on the ground. Even if they'll get never successfully intercepted and always hit spot on.
@@RIEKSONE clearly you skip history class. So il remind you if America ever goes into war mode we will pump a ungodly amount of anything we need. So 20 million is nothing really.
@@Koz4concern Nukes like America doesn't have any or it can't produce anymore.
The amount of bots in the comments may be an indication of Russia being scared. Having to fight fair is the last thing on their mind.
Maybe lovers of the West are afraid, calling everyone bots whose opinion differs from theirs?
@@silaslong-js8ps I would be if an authoritarian nation armed with nuclear weapons invaded my home. It's not a fair fight, that's my point.
@@fredbyoutubing what is a fair fight? War is never fair. It isn't a UFC match where one can only fight thier weight class
I see only orc bots here.
And yes, writing this kind of comments, as well as creating THOUSANDS of fake/propaganda videos (and absolutely stupid ones) is a reliable sign of horror (and stupidity, of course).
A fair fight is something the West has NEVER DONE.
By the way, the orcs are so funny when they think that Russia can be defeated with bullshit on the Internet..)))
@@dragonemperorsy2515 So, in other words, you agree 🤷
What's the use of NATO when it is reluctant if not refusing to help, indecisiveness will bring it to its downful.
Good.
NATO needs to start supplying Ukraine with NATO designed shovels.
Ample??? You might want to do more research.
TL;DR: Not going to happen. Beautiful fantasies, though. ;)
Why click the video then lmao
@@donpedro00769 To find out what it's about?
If air cover for Ukraine was given early in the war, it would likely consist of only F-35s operating from Poland to patrol the Ukraine/Belarus border including Kyiv/Kiev, and another set of jets operating from Romania dealing with the south frontline of current Kherson region which would likely been recaptured and to prevent Russia from attempting to capture Odesa, thus finishing Russian dream of cutting Ukraine from sea and creating Novorossiya puppet buffer state Russia tried to create for second time after failing to achieve this in 2014. Air defense of rest would be left on Ukraine mostly by Mig-29s ideally with a steady supply of now slowly replaced Gripen Cs and refurbished Superhornets as these can unlike F-16 operate from improvised airfields to prevent ground losses, thus numbers of needed jets for supporting Ukraine would be much lower than projected here. Of course, as NATO and most of the uneducated population were scared of a nuclear boogieman escalation scenario despite the US was claiming invasion of Iraq on WMD grounds and the fact that the Russian military would likely disobey the order to use nukes even if directly ordered by Putin due to consequences to their families not to mention that this would directly start response from West which promised by treaty military intervention in case somebody uses nukes against Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its Soviet-era nuclear weapons. But air cover to Ukraine by NATO did not happen despite the unlikely to fulfill promise of NATO membership to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine's post 9/11 support in Iraq was among the reasons behind Russian intervention and Ukraine may lose yet another land in yet another Russian invasion because of that, though still far better outcome as if we did not support Ukraine at all just to end like Belarus that is now being overtaken by Russia that seems to want reestablish its pre-WW2 borders...
The Russian regime already claims that it's "fighting nato". How could they suddenly claim that a nato country is "escalating"? :D :D
We don't. you can send your LGBTQ armies and we will call you with wrong pronouns and win.
Basically Russia have just contradicted it's own propaganda against the reality! 😏
If I teach you how to make a pizza am I cooking the pizza?
Ever heard of proxy wars? The US is also fighting Iran through it's militias. Same for US and Ukraine
@@dragonemperorsy2515 I do agree that proxy wars exist. They pretty much always existed. The thing I don't understand is why when the US does it is bad but when Iran or Russia do it it's ok.
“Ukraine needs a way to shoot down the Russian aircraft a few dozen missiles away from the front line.”
Isn’t this exactly what Ukraine has been doing for at least a week now?
They have, atleast 4 confirmed kills from multiple sources. I know 1 was definitely a su-34
@@babyboijeremy Doesn't matter how many they shoot down, Russia has the worlds strongest nuclear weapons.
@@randydrew66 which are unusable in any realistic scenario
@@korvmaster229 How are nuclear weapons unusable? If they were why would they keep them ready for use?
No, they are making shit up.
NATO just need to regularly send volunteer missionary fighters with some regular forces from each member of NATO. A thousand volunteer force every month might change the dynamic on the battlefield within a year
The initial preposition that funding and equipment have been adequate is incorrect. They have been slow, insufficient and lag Ukraines own assessments of needs.
5 b21s 25 b1s 50 buffs 20 F22s 16 more patriot systems 75 F35s 100 F15s 250 F16 260k support personnel 80k fighters and the armor/artillery to support them. Oh and 200billion give or take a trillion. Takers???
russia may be short on equipment for its soldiers but not on trolls and bots thats for sure
russia is short for equipment since 2022 if we hear nato troll. you are the stereotype of a nato troll with you're foolish very vague affirmation.
natoid nincompoop
Just remember, anyone who disagrees with me must be a troll 😂
@@Ismaelak Well considering we've seen a distinct decrease in APC and IFVs in the northern front I'd say they are definitely running out of equipment.
@@kirinyardberry1324 you are definite at the global scale of this war when your statement is about less than 10% of the front. How I can argue with you. Now if I was a Russian supporter I would say « considering the evolution of the orekhiv front, entire Ukraine has no manpower left » and this would be worst than an oversimplification, I would call that dumb and false like your statement..
LOL Russian in comments still going "Ruskie army strong" and think they can take on NATO while they can't even deal with Ukraine.
its funny to see how Ukrainian meat is literally fighting with US+Nato toys and 100 B budget and still barely holds the line and loses actually to current "sanctioned" Russia
А какой смысл снимать ролики, про то, что вы сильны? Придите и возьмите.
Read about the Wolfowitz doctrine. It can quite possible change you're perspective on the current events happening in my country of birth (Ukraine)
It is quite easy to see who is actually benefitting from all of these proxi conflicts once you start searching around for some censored names, families and organizations. Sadly though TH-cam doesn't allow these certain names and links to be posted on here as they are a direct *threat* to freedom of speech and democracy these days (SARCASM)😄
@@pavels8890I can tell how bad youre coping and crying into your keyboard as you type this by the disorganized structure of your sentences😂 On the contrary, your boys are struggling to take 20% of your own decrepit third world ex colony armed with our 1980s warehouse surplus😂
They are going to OD on copium still thinking they can take on NATO when Ukraine alone is taking 2+ years now. 😂
The United States will never allow the deployment of F35 aircrafts by Ukraine or NATO near the Ukrainian-Russian borders. The potential consequences of such planes falling into Russian hands are deemed too grave. The acquisition of F35 technology by Russia would pose a catastrophic threat of both the US and NATO nations.
It probably would if they could afford to make anything similar
There is a huge difference between having tech to look at compared to being able to reverse engineer or manufacture it
Nah
Rememebr the invisible stealth bomber in Kosovo the yanks said was impossible to shoot down as it was invisible.
The invisible plane was then shot down by an obsolete 30 year old russian SAM battery.
Yanks are terrified the world will see that this wonder weapon is not very good in reality, bit like the M1 and every other game changer.
@@DavidNavalThere's no way they could make all components of the F-35 if they had a downed example to look at and study, but they would be able to get a decent grasp of at least some of it, or at minimum be able to use some of it for improving their own weapons to counter the F-35. And don't forget, although Russia would be unable to copy much of it, their infamous reverse engineer ally China could get even substantially more usable knowledge from it, especially in combination with all the knowledge they already had about the F-35 aquired through hacking and espionage.
@@pieterveenders9793西方所谓的工业革命文艺复兴实际上几乎所有知识都来自于唯一的古文明中国，只不过西方最近200年大量修改世界历史谎称是自己发明的
0:40 i dont want to die in a nuclear holocaust. Does anyone else feel like this?
It appears the people in the west are suicidal fools
I should start building my Basement bunker for Nuclear Winter.
@@hansgruber2509 the real fool is the one launching nukes first. I think defending Ukraine's right to freedom and independence from RUZZIA is not enough to start a nuclear war.. this is some poor eastern european country after all.. who cares right?
@@StrataVision It's so rich when you speak about protecting countries sovereignty and freedom, we helped overthrow the elected Ukrainian government in 2014 because they were too friendly with Russia. Peace was possible there but the US wanted war.
We invaded Iraq under fake WMD claims leading to the death of 100's of thousands of civilians. Tried to overthrow Syria and destroyed Libya. Its a long list. Yeah we are the good guys LOL.
Read some history the US is the only county to use nukes
No need for Nato to help Ukraine, Ukraine is close to victory. Russia has lost hundreds of thousands of men dead and even more injured and Ukraine has barely lost a couple tens of thousands. Right,thats the truth and not the other way around, sure.
lol sure bud. EU estimates put Ukraine well over 100 thousand dead.
@@pyromcr He's being sarcastic dude. Everyone knows the AFU KIA is well over 550,000
Honestly, I don't see that happening. We have a lot of sympathy for Ukraine but the risk-reward doesn't work.
What's the biggest reward you can win here? Retaking Crimea. That's it.
What's the biggest risk you take?
Entering into a shooting war with Russia. Not Nuclear, but it would destroy the entire European continent
I would not count on Russia to stay as calm as they are once NATO gets involved even deeper.
I am sure at the Pentagon and NATO level such scenarios were discussed, deemed too risky and decided to drop supply levels of ammunition with the goal of a negotiated peace.
why do assume that russia is not going to nuke the shit out of Ukraine and ask NATO countries who wants to be the next ? do you really believe that NATO will choose to go in nuclear war with Russia to save Ukraine? for what?
Because they know that NATO will never attack Russia unless Russia attacked them first or used nuclear weapons. Why trigger the only scenario that poses an existential risk to their country and regime? Even Ukraine doesn't matter that much to them.
Putin is a little coward who threatebs the use of nuclear weapons because he knows he's about to get his a$$ kicked by the rest of the world. He wouldn't use nukes--because he knows it would be suicide. All of Russia would be flattened.
@@VIDS2013 Russia flattened by who? by your country? or by whichever country other than your country?
@@VIDS2013rest of the world?! You know that more of the world supports Russia than the West?
exactly, Russia can nuke Ukraine if they see that NATO is going to join the fight, ukraine is not in NATO yet, some EU politicians just want the war keep going for next decade while knowing that ukraine war already lost@@ChrisWalker-fq7kf
The amount of Russian bots in these comments is insane tbh
The amount of Ukrainian bots in these comments is insane tbh
You have no idea how many of them there are in the Russian segment. In words, 87% support, in fact, all the appearance of support for the chief is bots and zombies.
The mobilization included mainly the rural part of the population, who were washed by propaganda long before everything and who are ready to kill everyone and everyone in their path for the sake of money and the chief.
NATO, like the "Allies" at the time, is waiting for the appetites of modern fascism.
Yeah it's insane aint it? Such backwater country, yet uses more advanced bots online with more arguments than any liberal NPC from the west. Go cope harder.
The truth!. Europeans must understand that their line of defense starts in Ukraine, if Ukraine loses maybe a weak non-NATO country will suffer the consequences.
lol shhhhh
@@barbosaguzman6101go back to ural russian trol
3 million 152mm sheels are provided by North Korea , how can anyone fight with that amount of shells , they can fire 30k shells for 100 days continously
The fact two thirds are duds is a good help though
that's the scale of the war, problem is people are living in their toyish echo chamber thinking this war is about a bunch of tanks destroyed and a couple of drone videos shot every now and then
You need to have precision ammunition and destroy guns
Made from north Korean slave Labor
How many barrels did they provide?
The policy of the Collective West:
Scholz: we will supply
Scholz: we will not supply
Scholz: we will supply
Scholz: we will not supply
Scholz: we will supply
Scholz: we will not supply
Scholz: we will supply
Scholz: we will not supply
Scholz: we will supply
Scholz: we will not supply
@@MuLLeR029 The actual Scholz policy is forfeiting any interests of his own country for the sake of US interests, with zero payoff for himself or his fellow countrymen.
An initial option is the have NATO nations offer guaranteed contracts to munitions manufacturers. A big thing keeping the manufacturers of tanks, bombs, and missiles from expanding production is the concern that the war will end before they can recoup the investment needed to expand production. If the NATO countries guarantee that they will purchase the munitions, even if the war ends, then industry will be more willing to expand production.
@@jameschalkwig787 that was a lot of words to say nothing.
Suggesting Russia immediately starts throwing nukes around if X or Y threshold is crossed will always be flawed. No matter what, if Russia throws a nuke, someone throws one back, so they almost certainly won't.
Yeah but the comments section has been totally flooded by bots, take a look at the insane amount of accounts with 4 numbers at the end of the name just all parroting exactly the same messages. It's crazy.
@@PluvioZA didn't even notice that all pro-russia comments have 4 numbers at the end, that's kinda funny
@@KaboomHS You do know that the 4 number at the end of a name is just a feature of TH-cam right: TH-cam has been adding numbers to usernames that are already taken. This is to ensure that every user has a unique username.
It might means dooming Russia but you can expect anything from desperate dictator. You can't count out bad possiblities, things can escalate so fast that we might have way more human lives gone than Ukranian-Russo war ever would cause. US been very carefull with not escalating the war so i hope they will contunie to be carefull.
>someone throws one back
No, someone starts talking, there are none of the nuclear states that see this issue as existential except russia.
Keep dreaming dude, it’s free!
The problem with NATO is they don’t even have enough soldiers for all their weapons
That's not right. They can simply name Russians with the wrong pronouns and win easily.
aren't european weapon stockpiles are depleted and none of nato solders has been lost?
@@palar4195no. There is just no surplus of old stock around anymore
@@palar4195there are not depleted, they just have many customers for their weapons
@@fischersfritz468 are you just saying nato is neglecting its promises to help oinkraine by sending only surpluse of old stock?
Thank you for this update.
It is interesting that western powers did support Ukraine with lots of money, but only very small numbers of equipment. Everything larger than an ATGM usually was limited to (very) old equipment and to even smaller numbers. I wonder why they didn't even activate their own arms industry production capablilities? All manufacturers are still in standby or in peace time mode. They didn't even try to increase anything so far, except the ammunitions industry pretty recently (also a very late choice). Why is that?
Incompetence
@@YwhMusic The west should have no business in Ukraine in the first place, besides if that happens China which the so called west also hates will provide 100% support to Russia, the entire west cannot outproduce 1billion Chinese people under any circumstance.
So the fact is, the US should be start expanding production line capacity today. Even in WW2 it took a few years to fully expand US production capability. The US has seen a significant loss in manufacturing capacity as a result of business decisions from the 80s to increase short term profits to shareholders. However, it would still take 3-5 years to widen pduction capacity.
A great example of this is the adoption of the new 6.8mm cartridge for the Army's new rifles. It's going to take the US Army a few years to add those new production lines at their ammo production facilities. Some production lines are so complex they can't really be widened any further. Like the F35. Something like 1000 us subcontractors across the country supply parts. Some of them are actually rather small companies that really can't double production.
As for supplying Ukraine with older hardware, part of that was mutual spendthrift ness. If Ukraine spent it's company money in the US company weapons store, they could "buy" a lot more older equipment for cheap. It was still better than what they or Russia had, but it didn't hamper US capabilities. It's also worth pointing out, Ukraine isn't fully trusted with US secret technologies. They're not "in the fold". Part of it Ukraine still has a corruption issue. That hasn't been resolved, and it's even caused trouble for Zelensky in the last year. The US is not going to give Ukrainians unfettered access to and F35 or even the latest Gen radar on the newest F16s. It's not going to happen. Russia and China would have access to the data within a month.
The reality is, and this sucks to say, it's not in US interest for the war to be fast. The war weakens Russia a lot. The issue is Russia is starting to form a wartime economy, and I'd be curious how much China has widened production. The US is lagging behind, pososbily in naive hope war will not break out like PREWW2 Britain. Let's just hope the US has its Mosquito figure out properly before the war.
@@dosunmupelumi7845lol china will not suport russia against NATO on this matter , since it would broke the globalization who is the only way to survive for china , they would even take siberia from russia after they loose for sure 😂 they are not russia friends at all , they just share some interest and when those interest will change china will dump russia like an old hookers😅
@@granatmof You cant expand production with out recourses ,In WWII in USA no single civilian car was produced ,no single civilian building,all recources went to war production. Are you ready for that just for sake off some land where 99% off Russian live and was actually Russia before communist give it to Ukraine in 1954
what might it look like? like a WW 3, with nukes and total civilization colapse
protecting Ukraine is definitely worth it, right?
Western Anime loving gamers won't last a second on the front. That's why they need Ukrainian men to fight this war.
The people you speak of have fought pretty much every single war prior to the Ukrainian war. If NATO sent troops into Ukraine and Russia did not use nukes, NATO could wipe Russia off the face of the planet using just conventional forces.
@@DemonSliime Lmao anime profile pic.
They are confused with their own gender and too busy painting their nails
@@DemonSliime You must be a product of the US education system, big mouth no brain, the US lost in Afghanistan, Vietnam, did not win in Korea, Failed in Iraq, Iran has more power there than the US. They lost in Syria and Libya. Sound like failure to me
@@Cradleling LOL no they also know how to use the correct pronouns and color coordinate their pink hair and combat boots.
Quite the extensive overview (as always) of hard to predict potentialities. Thank you very much!
NATO troops could secure Ukraines nortgern, western and southwestern borders, freeing up Ukrainian manpower.
Basically any territory outside the four Ukrainian oblasts which russia has announced it wants to conquer, could be secured by NATO troops without much risk for escalation. If russia were to attack those, they would be escalating.
This would free up lots of Ukrainian troops for the eastern and southern fronts.
That was my idea too. Just holding grounds and shielding infrastructures themselves with anti air batteries.
This literally makes zero sense. So what if Russia launches an offensive in the north either way and simply bypasses the NATO troops because Ukraine doesn't have any soldiers there that will engage them? Would NATO troops engage them either way? Well then they will be considered the aggressors and boom, war.
All we need is...checks list...pretty much everything we have.
The main thing is just move NATO forces into Ukraine with the simple
mission "defend yourself from attack".
Genious plan, i'm sure nothing will go wrong.
The NATO shills do not understand that Russia is not Iraq or Afghanistan. Mutually assured destruction is a thing that has kept most of the world intact. Russia did not send it's army when Serbia was being illegally bombed by NATO and it's territories were being snatched away, it did not send it's army to Iraq when an unjustified war was being waged against it, and the same was with Libya but Ukraine is a whole another scenario where Russia would not just sit and take it when it's interests are being harmed, it would be like a Chinese backed Mexican regime actively hunting Americans in the backyard of USA.
Ukraine is a NATO border area, that is very different. NATO cannot allow Russia to defeat Ukraine at all costs.
You really think nato sending couple thousand troops to ukraine is worth to launch a nuclear war? In what universe is that the best solution? Not even the russians are that stupid.
@@rbrb804 Why not? NATO seems very keen to share borders with Russia.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755NATO already shares quite long border woth Russia. I assume you don't have maps in Russia.
@@rbrb804 I am Polish born, but perhaps you would not know the difference. Point still stands, Russia insisted on a neutral Ukraine, NATO insisted on Ukraine membership.
The main problem in videos like this is the fundamental misunderstanding of Moscow´s motivs. This is not "Putin´s war of choice" to grab some land and recreate the Soviet Union/Russian empire. This war was mainly triggered by the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, which is for Moscow as unacceptable as were Soviet nuclear missiles on Cuba for Kennedy.
There is no point were Moscow will retreat from Ukraine and concede defeat and if NATO escalates its involvement in Ukraine to a direct conflict with Moscow, so be it.
If you followed politics, you would have noticed that blocking Ukraine's joining NATO preceded the 2022 attack. The prospect that Ukraine has no chance of NATO membership has emboldened Putin.
This is Putin's war, his problem is paranoia its not the 60's anymore that political climate has changed. But Putin brought it back. Even if Ukraine joined NATO then what? would NATO (the west) invade Russia? NO we wouldn't, why would we? was, is there any reason to do so? NO there isn't but Vlad screwed him self by launching this invasion. Their military forces depleted with tens of thousands of their solders dead, their air force brutalized their armor divisions decimated, and naval assets sunk. their economy has tanked and 90% of the world doesn't trust him. NATO didn't need to attack Russia Putin ruined Russia all by himself.
Huhhhhhg? Still believing that narratice hahahahha. Well if that is the truth then russia and putin is sooo fucking dumb cause now nato have a back door to russia. Idiots
По-перше, перші кроки і перевірка сил України проходила ще в 2002 році через кризу на острові Тузла, в Керченській протоці. По-друге, реальні обговорення щодо вступу в НАТО в Україні почалися лише після 2014, але дії йшли лише до вступу в ЄС. В Україні до 2022 більшість людей залишити позаблоковий статус. Тому обговорення що Росія почала війну лише через НАТО, маячня. Це складно сказати, але вся історія Росії їх самоіндентичність не може бути без України. Більшість їх письменників, філологів чи істориків завжди пишуть що "Росії без України не може бути", Росія завжди привласнювала та вписувала себе у історію України. Росії не було до 18ст, вона завжди була Московією, Москва до русів не має ніякого відношення. Москва об'єднала тюрскі каганати, народ Русі був у Об'єднаному королівстві Польському-Литовському-Руському. Королі Речі Посполитої носили титул Короля Русі, або був інший титул Богдана Хмельницького 1648-1657рр Гетьман Війська Запорізького, Гетьман України, Князь Русі. Він був титулований митрополитом Київським, Київською інтелігенцією та Єрусалимським патріархом. Лише після Північної війни 1700-1721 рр, Петро 1 був титулований як імператор Всеросійський. І то західна Україна залишалася спочатку в Польщі, потім в Австрійській імперії до 1918 р, потім 1918-1919 рр як незалежна ЗУНР, 1919-1922 як об'єднана держава з УНР. Тільки після Совєтсько-Польській війни західна Україна залишалася у складі Польщі до 1939 р, поки СРСР не розпочала війну з Польщею разом і з Німеччиною.
That makes no sense at all. Putin didnt mention nato in his interview with tucker. Finland just joined nato and what did putler do? Not a damn thing.
@7:30 11 Russian fighter/bombers downed in the last 11 days questions this theory. Patriot batteries fairly close to the front lines are downing 1 a day. Also 2 A-50s have been lost in a couple months like by upgraded legacy S-200 systems. This is just with Ukraine by themselves. The Russian air force would be decimated within a few weeks with all of NATO's air power and more advanced combined arms strategies. The mythical, unstoppable Russian S-300 and S-400 systems can't seem to stop some basic cruise missiles that Ukraine has been sending deep into Crimea and striking the Black Sea Fleet in harbors. Russia's Swiss cheese air defense would be toast with thousands of NATO aircraft spamming the defense systems with drones, anti-radiation missiles combined with stealth launch platforms. No, it wouldn't take weeks, it would likely take days. Russia would just launch nukes because that's all they really have and that's why they feel bold enough to be in Ukraine.
You believe any shite these propagandist tossers tell you despite decades of being proven liars.
No, it's not "Ukraine by themselves", there are also Patriot batteries which have been looked after and destroyed by the russians. The US empire and the European dictatorships are there giving all the equipment they got, for "freedom and democracy" of Ukraine. Haha, who believes that BS anymore other than the Americans and Europeans?
So they claim.
@@Johnnycdrums Oh stop. There are endless pictures of burned out and sunk ships and even a sub. They are even seen in non-military commercial satellite photos.
@@flipadavis
Usually I can kind of hold the suspension of disbelief for most Binkov video, but I truly failed to grasp how and why Russia will continue to fight a conventional war when there are no chance of victory. As is, if they are fighting Ukraine backed by NATO, sure Russia can simply drag on and hopefully drain Ukrainian manpower, but fighting a conventional war against NATO itself?
Are we going to stretch the original argument on mutually assured destruction as far as saying Nuclear weapon will never be used since all nation are logical actor and will never first use? Or do we have some hidden information that indicate Russia's nuclear asset are mostly non functional and they are incapable of further escalation?
Not to mention escalation doesn't always happen from 1-100 overnight, what exactly should NATO do if Russia nuke Kiev? How about ''just'' Kherson? Where do the chain of escalation ends? Or perhaps we have to live in lalaland and imagine Russia will lie down and immediately accept defeat, Putin deposed, a western friendly government appears, Russia accept it final destiny as a disarmed and discounted fuel pump for europe?
Ok, if you still have difficulty imagine Russia not being defeated easily, perhaps try to imagine a US liberation of Iran or DPRK instead? What do you think will happen? And is the situation between Russia and these pariah countries any different?
If there's no chance of victory, then why Russia is winning?
Who said there wining or losing arm chair general are ya little sausage boy
@@izoiva Winning? You're funny dude. Did you see the loses for Bakhmut and Avdiivka for the russians?
King Phyrros the first from Epirus wants to have a word with you about your definition of "winning".
@@mephisto8101and yet ukraine is calling a another mobilization of around 500k men and the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is 43 to 45
@@jackjames7283 ukraine is mobilizing more troops after russia mobilized more troops? no way
A single US BCT deployed as a partner training exercise to the Kyiv region in fall 2021 would have prevented this war from ever starting. I find exercises like this one to be depressing.
If America and Western Europe does not help properly, why would anybody ever want to rely on them ever again?
They can pay the low price voluntarily of helping now, or pay a much greater price in many more lives and treasure of their own countries involuntarily later.
false promise it not new
Because Ukraine is not in NATO
The comments in this section aren’t deserving of this channel.
This channel hurts russian feelings xD
So if we include nato pilots with Ukrainian pilots, we're basically gonna do what russia did in the korean war. They sent their pilots over to help fight the US. What comes around goes around, I guess lmao.
"Lightning Alley" really does have a good ring to it, doesn't it?
@Binkov What has NATO to gain by destroying Russian aircraft in Ukraine? There are nuclear subs in the seas which would be of a far greater strategic value. And there would be plausible deniability when Ukraine does the dirty work. So is with cyber warfare.
How where the deliveries "ample"? Ammunitiois running out alongside other important supplies.
Because they cannot keep production up
I think NATO should take over logistics and supplies via mercenaries in Ukraine. This security could also mean mercenaries would want to fight on the front line. The logistics support could also mean support for field hospitals and aviation assets. The latter could involve mercenaries flying reapers at the front line as well, supporting attacks along the front line. This would be limited NATO involvement but hopefully be enough for larger groups of mercenaries to want to go there and fight. Some of the US groups are over 200k members. That could make a difference.
Persoanlly i dont think any country has the ability to fight wwii style, least not anytime soon. If you look at numbers of aircraft, ships, and tanks back then compared to todays, while much stronger, they are two few in number. Plus the population has changed. No countries population would support a full scale war for long. Excluding dictatorial ones like n.korea where they dont have a choice. The current world stage could be compaired to trench warfare or hitlers moves before the invasion of poland. Having said that, these are truly terrifying times we live in. Where idiodic would leaders could send us all to our deaths, over what, oil? Land? A legacy? Stupidity in its finest. I think we can all agree, no matter where we are from. We all really just want a way to provide a good life for us, our families and children and to live in peace. Sad that our leaders, in all corners of the globe, seem to incompetent to do that.
Putin started the war in Ukraine so how are all world leaders incompetent?
"Russia hasn't used nukes yet even though NATO has crossed several of Putin's red lines, therefore it will not in the future either so Moscow's saber-rattling can safely be ignored." This is precisely Binkov's logic, and that of most Ukraine hawks in the West. "If he hasn't by now, he'll never do it in the future so no worries about escalation." Stop and think for a moment, do you realize how idiotic that is? By this logic, if you get in an argument with some musclebound bully in a bar, and he says "Don't touch me, I'm warning you," but you poke him in the chest anyway, and then he says "I really mean it, get your fist our of my face" but you shove him anyway, and by the fourth time he says "Last warning dude, you'll be sorry" what should you do--spit in his face? And when he knocks all your teeth out and fractures your jaw, what will you say: "But nothing happened the first few times I ignored him, boo hoo, it's no fair that he socked me!" You can tell those who didn't live through the crises of the Cold War, who haven't studied Herman Khan and Thomas Schelling, who bring the insight of a simpleton to the complex and deadly dangerous business of nuclear strategy. If you can only absorb one lesson, how about this one: Russia is showing every day that it can accept extremely high losses to prevent defeat on the battlefield, a resilience that completely baffles the spoiled West (whose commentators have predicted Russian mutiny and collapse for two years now) and a tolerance for casualties that is stunning. Do you really want to get into a nuclear exchange with these brutes? More precisely, in the unlikely event that massive NATO intervention in Ukraine begins rolling Russia back, what will you do when Putin launches several .5 kiloton "battlefield" warheads to shatter the advance? Will you nuke their military bases at Murmansk and Kronstadt? Apart from the fact that prevailing winds mean you will kill tens of thousands in Warsaw, Villnius, Stockholm and Helsinki, what do you do when Putin hits back at a dozen European cities and then says "Launch even one more and I destroy Miami, Charleston and Atlanta"? That's called escalation dominance baby, and over $ 400 B in missile defense spending over recent decades has not bought us any meaningful security from a Russian retaliatory strike. On the contrary, Russia has made much of that spending useless by developing multiple non-ballistic RV options that our National Missile Defense cannot even see much less hit. So go ahead and escalate, go ahead and answer a small Russian nuke with a big America one, back and forth until the West is a smoldering mess while China laughs itself silly.
You forget 1 thing in this cool story: Russia will be a smoldering parking lot too. For where it isn't already (the east). But good point, it would propel China to #1 dawg instantly.
Question is: isn't it likely that the West must go all-in from there and might as well include China..?
The end of western civilisation and America as a nation state, You really think america is ready for this? Over ukraine which was only recently occupied by the Soviet Union. @@Doug.Dimmadome
@@Doug.DimmadomeThe west must go all in and include China? Dude the west left Afghanistan after twenty years of war against goatherders. As a defeatist, chaotic and totally incompetent military presence. What do you think will happen to a western army in Ukraine? Army that hasn't fought a capable adversary for the last fifthy years! You high on acid?
Russian completely failed in their special operatipn that only last 3 days... 2 years later hmmm.... not much going on, still got a long way to go until ukraine is done.
You clearly can't even look whats in front of you.
Why would putin essentially destroy the world if nato enters ukraine? Because he knows russia would lose. Nato won't invade russia. It must be pretty shit having a closed mind 😕 like that. Putin started this war, that's russia starting shit and I guarantee nato wil finish it if gets involved.@polipantev84
So it’s better to just leave Ukraine, and later, in 10 years, we will face a Russian invasion of the Baltic states or Poland? Or have you already forgotten what the policy of appeasement and neutrality led to during the last world war? The war has already begun. Now NATO has 2 choices - either lose the current conflict in Ukraine, and achieve the collapse of the world order and the ineffectiveness of the United States as its defender. Or win the war in Ukraine and prevent other potential wars that will undoubtedly begin if Ukraine loses.
NATO air power is insane.
insane alright, insanely stupid.
COnsidering the lack of Ammo it isn't that insane.
Aside from Turkey and America. There is nothing insane about Nato's airpower.
Yes England and France have high end planes. But they don't have the logistics to keep them flying, no enough pilots and barely any ammunition.
🤡@@williamdavis9562
@@williamdavis9562 almost as serious as Russian air defense.
@@MrLougarou1000 Still doesn't change the fact that outside of Turkey and the USA the rest of the Nato nations are so inept they won't even be able to test those bad Russian air defenses will they?
I don't even know why we say Nato vs XYZ. We should just say America vs XYZ.
God the vatnik bots on these videos are crazy 😂
Didnt ukro shills say Ukraine was gonna win? What happened to that?
@@jacktaylor0465LOL, what about "take Kiev in 3 days"?
@@evFPV
2022
>Ukraine is gonna win
>Russia is gonna Collapse
>2024
>Ukraine doesnt win
>Russia still in Ukraine
>uh uh muh 3 days!!11!!
What about Russia running out of supplies back in April 2022? Or the Summer Counter Offensive of 2023? Or Leopards and Himars turning the tide of the war? Pepperridge farm remembers,lmao
@@evFPV What happened the Summer Counter Offensive of 2023? What happened to Russia running out of supplies in 2022? What happened to Russia collapsing?
@@jacktaylor0465why are you mad? Why are you desperately trying to support this imperialistic dictatorship thats threatning European Democracy. Either you are 13, or you have a very sad life
напоминаю, самое большое венгерское кладбище - под Воронежем
The idea that all of Russia’s aircraft you just lifted are in good condition is laughable
Bro, check the percentage of combat-ready aircraft in different NATO countries, you will be fucking amazed 😂😂😂
From Russia using shovel to Ukraine needing NATO intervention 😂😂😂
From taking Kiev in 3 days to 2 years later, nowhere near Kiev and losing 11 jets in 11 days 😂😂😂
@@ethanpoulton5780 Are you mocking Western propaganda? Because they were the ones that claimed that 🤣🤣🤣 how sad
@@ethanpoulton5780 nobody ever said this... West said ukraine will fall in 3 days... You are just a propagandist like everyone else. Where are those planes, where are proofs of human meat attacks?
@@putnik1995 Ah yes. Sorry. Didn't realize Russia had no propaganda. You guys are always told the truth. Absolute paradise on earth. Which is why any rich Russian immediately leaves Russia to some other country.
March 2022: russia occupied 26.4% of Ukraine.
March 2024: russia occupies 18.5% of Ukraine.
How are the comments still a battlefield here lol
Nafo seething that
A) the war is lost
B) normal westerners have no appetite for escalation
Russian web brigades seething that
A) people are scared and coping with what happens next so the best way is to be rude to everyone else
B) normal easterners don't like human rights and freedom of expression and just about everything else like democracy
Dude get down it's not safe here
@@boom350ph, LOL
All the paid trolls are out at full force.
8.30 ‘a few hundred F16s wouldn’t be enough?’ You’re talking 100s of F16s and F35 is nuts!
A lot of Ruzzians have got their day pass on here…
@user-ok2mn4bw7u Germany WWI
@user-ok2mn4bw7uyou Russians defeat yourselves every 100 years, lmao.
Why bother at all when you’ll all be at each others throats
Despicable culture and people
no youre not lol@user-ok2mn4bw7u
@user-ok2mn4bw7u WW1. Russia lost the war due to internal problems and as a result huge chunks of land were freed. Poland, the Baltic States, Ukraine, Finland and Belarus were all freed from the Russian empire.
Even in WW2 when Hitler invaded, Russia survived thanks to the help from the US and even with US help it was a very close fight.
whats the MINIMUM involvement required for NATO to help ukraine liberate its territory?
MINIMUM? and your answer is 500-1000 airplanes + awacs and reapers, tens of thousands of missiles and bombs, 1000+ artillery systems and ammo...
obviously the is NOT the minimum required? unless you mean, the minimum required to complete the mission in 1-2 months.
Россия не будет ждать когда произойдёт, разбомбит США и Европу и всё!
What's the minimum amount of political upheaval needed to liberate my tax dollars?
based
The one aspect missing here is the realistic Russian response. NATO has been holding back overwhelming force as a threat to control Russian options. If NATO plays those cards, they no longer restrain that Russian option.
For example, if Russia uses tactical nukes, the USA has suggested they would wipe out every Russian position and vehicle inside Ukraine.
The end result would still be Russian loss, but definitely an analysis worth doing.
UK military Intelligence has estimated it would take 4-6 days (depending on the weather) for NATO to destroy 90% of the armoured vehicles in Ukraine using airpower alone. This would involve 750 bombing sorties per day. Russia knows this, which is why they keep babbling about nukes. And Russia has been told (back in 2022) that if they use even a small nuke in Ukraine then NATO will do the above. Putin is in an impossible position, his only hope is a conventional victory, which simply won't happen.
Is it likely that, if Ukraine lost 31,K that Russia lost 310k? In the days of Mahan and GF Kennon (I know you expected aisian history and theory). The old US doctrine was a kill ratio of 7 to one. That was before the kind of weapons and tech that both sides have now as opposed to 1920
You are hilarious.
People seem to conflate total casualties and KIA.
Both sides have realistically estimated killed and wounded in lower-mid hundreds of thousands.
Ukraine needs to mobilise another half a million troops to, and I quote Zelensky: "To replenish the ranks of our armed forces". The 31k number is complete and utter nonsense.
Of course it is likely, since Russia have a bad record of heavy losses in all major wars!
@@privatebandana 31k is in big likelihood an underestimate, but I think you've got the wrong idea.
Even with just 31k killed, given the ratio with wounded, casualties could very well be in the 100-200k range.
Additionally given Russia's huge and ongoing increase in personnel count, intensity and multitude of offensives amidst Ukrainian ammo shortages, could alone incentivise them to need an extra 500k, even if Zelensky's numbers were true.
Video is already out of date considering the amount of Ukrainian air intercepts of A50, Su34, and Su35 the past few days.
Yeah with no confirmation
@@zayedbinimran957 does you questioning oinkraine reports? r u a putin's orc-bot?
They have literally not provided any footage of what they claim LOL and we know very well the Ukrainians publish every single thing they do on the internet, I prefer to not believe in the words of compulsive liars LOL
@@zayedbinimran957 except for footage and reputable Russian Telegram channels like Fighter Bomber confirming it, yeah, no evidence whatsoever
@@palar4195 ??????
Что за чушь я посмотрел?
влажные мечты....ну или прогрев общественного мнения
@@wizeghunter6490 Не, это на самом деле честный анализ. Блинков точно не состоит в штате пропагандистов. Все названые в видео цифры легко бьются с открытыми источниками. Предлагаемый размер группировки вмешательства тупо повторяет размер российской группировки.
@@heyhoe168 Открытое вмешательство НАТО приведет к третьей мировой войне.
Копиум
@fadaos Вы правы, это бред, но он основан на гипотетическом видео.
Where will NATO get fuel for its machines if goes to war with Russia?
You’re joking right? US has double the oil production of Russia not even including other NATO countries 😂
@@deytowthat’s why USA buys oil from the Middle East fool? Because they have so much 🤦🏻♂️🤣 what’s your IQ 70 max?
@@OlegUshyarov The US buys oil from the Middle East because it is cheap and they don't want to deplete their own reserves. Furthermore only 10% of oil the US imports is imported from the Middle East. That comment about IQ looks like projection to me
@@hresvelgr7193 let me educate you ok! USA uses more oil than they produce, thus they have to import/buy more to make up for the deficit. 🤦🏻♂️🤣
@@OlegUshyarov The US pumps enough oil to support itself, but lacks enough refineries to refine the type of oil that it produces, If they build more refineries or converted existing ones, it could be self sufficient, But no one wants to live near new refineries, so here we are. But if push comes to shove, it will happen.
The problem seems to be that NATO has been overly clear re what it considers the red line to be. Perhaps if dictators were less certain of when NATO may choose to push back, they would be less likely to engage in military adventures.
I don't know if a Nato involvement would trigger a nuclear war. I'm not an expert about that, and there are militaries who have the experience, the knowledge and the training and obviesly should decide that. But honestly: I'm so sick and tired of this nonsense right now. How long will this war continue if we keep supporting them like we do now? How many people will keep dieing every day? Maybe a Nato involvement is the way to end this war once and forever.
I think a Nato involvement would be the worst thing to happen. Because a direct Nato involvement would mean that the russian folks really would feel like they are fighting for their lifes again. Right now, I am sure that its hard for putin to mobilize more troops for that war. Russian people are not all invested and definitly not willing to participate, at least the majority isnt. But as soon as it goes official that Nato is fighting there, its all hell loose. It means full mobilization. And majority of them are going to participate in that war more willingly. It always has been like this with the russians. And I doubt this time will be different. Which only then means, that Nato also has to send more and more. And this will spiral down and definitly start ww3 and involve more than one country. And probably go nuclear. Right now, the best thing is to try to freeze that conflict. Just freeze it for a while or forever, and start negotiation or at least start talking. This will stop the useless bloodshed. Aint no way russia is backing down an single inch, aint no way the whole world should suffer because of ukraine. Its not worth it.
Elensky said Ukraine's lost 31000 people. Why to send troops if they have merely no losses at all?
Fr xd
Zelensky talked about killed in action soldiers. You should take into account also 4 times more wounded in action soldiers, and thousands killed and wounded civilians far from the front line. All these numbers can horrible arose.
@@Aski2 500 thousands kia, 1,5 million casualties these are the realistic losses of ukranian army of nato
That’s not true. They do have losses. It’s just better to have a bigger army and liberate land as soon as possible.
@@francisle1933 no, that is Russian propaganda bs
Im not going to die for this ''western society''
Luckily for you western society will not force you to, unlike in Russia.
Binkie boy and his handlers seem to think you will, LOL!!