Pretty bold. Lot of bloviating with little actual technical analysis. I made a note to return to this in 4 months. I strongly suspect you will be proven incorrect.
"The US has almost 7,000 Bradley fighting vehicles sitting in storage. It spends money maintaining them and plans to scrap them eventually. Bradleys can kill anything on the battlefield pretty easily and ferry a squad of infantry around while doing it, protecting them from artillery shrapnel. When the Biden administration slaps a price tag on them, ships them to Ukraine, and lets them kill Russians without Americans dying, it’s not actually spending any money. We could give a thousand Bradleys to Ukraine and not notice they were gone."
Such a low IQ take on multiple levels.
1. It's complete broken window economics nonsense. Destroying goods to justify creating new goods still entails new costs.
2. The Bradley was officially phased-out decades ago but there's no large-scale production replacement that has actually been rolled out yet. If anything at best this is just an excuse to give bidding defense contractors even bigger checks when we inevitably decide that our nation's armored vehicle supply is too low.
3. When the Chadley does finally roll into American bases, it too will collect dust and require regular maintenance like the Bradley (maybe more!). How is that not obvious to you?
4. It is blatant and dishonest cherry-picking to only highlight that one specific aspect of the program while ignoring the many other costs, which have collectively cost nearly $100 billion by the figures I'm seeing. Insulting America Firsters is not a rebuttal to their arguments.
5. You still fail to explain the actual material benefit of our involvement in the war. Invading Mexico and paying them for half of their land had an obvious material benefit. Maintaining a monopoly over the Americas by destroying an insurrection government had an obvious material benefit. Destroying the Spanish Empire and stealing their colonial possessions had an obvious material benefit. Winning WW2, creating a duo-polar world in which the wealthier half was dependent on American goods and dollars had an obvious material benefit. The first Gulf War, to protect a trade ally and our access to their oil (which they substantially repaid) had an obvious material benefit. What's the end-goal of this war and how does it benefit us?
Have to wonder if all the war-specific minutiae is as inaccurate and fallacious as that one passage (I don't have confidential military information and am not arrogant enough as a spectator to take any specific stories regarding the war at face value).
FTFY: " 'The largest money laundering operation for a President and the MIC in the history of the world.” Why has the windup been so long? The answer is pretty simple: Ukraine is waiting for more cash." If you are so confident in this counteroffensive, head to the front lines and help them retake Bakhmut. This piece sounds like the regime promising that Kabul would not fall and the Taliban was not advancing in Summer 2021. Keep fighting until the last Ukrainian!
... but I will believe in the counteroffensive when I see it succeeding. I have little to no hope it will.
Senator Angus King recently called Ukraine’s preparation for its impending counteroffensive “the longest windup for a punch in the history of the world.” Why has the windup been so long?
Wasn't it supposed to ba spring offensive? And now spring is almost over? I am not holding my breath. It feels like a promise that will never materialize Maybe it will be a summer offenseive now. But I think it will be a nothingburger.
A bold prediction, somehow against the current tide... If you will be shown right, chapeau! But, if wrong, I guess this substack will have to fold, or at least rename to "Center for the Promotion of NATO Partisanship and Ideology"
This guy believes the claims of a Kinzhal shootdown based on photos of a sewer pipe. I guess this article is what happens when someone with no military or technical knowledge also doesn’t understand how wartime propaganda works (to be fair, he might not have been around for the Iraq shitshow) and believes everything the MSM and US Government tell him.
I half-expected a paragraph about the strategic implications of Sam Hyde AKA The Ghost of Kiev being trained on F-16s. On the positive side, he’a not a bad writer, just badly out of his depth here.
"Some fear the war may bog down into indefinite static trench warfare that accomplishes nothing but draining resources and lives on all sides — a view I’m sympathetic to, though I don’t think we’re at that stage yet" Fuck off and go back to MSM ghoul. Good men, women and children are *DYING* on all sides and you, a supposed PhD of Philosophy, is "sympathetic".
“We have Patriots reliably shooting down hypersonic missiles, which no one predicted...” That’s one way to describe it. Technically in November 1963, JFK intercepted a bullet with his skull.
'But the weather has gradually warmed over the last month, the rains are becoming less frequent in Luhansk, Ukraine is launching probing counterattacks along the front line, its strikes on Russian supply lines are picking up, and the ground is beginning to dry.'
'But maybe not: as I write,...'
'Since Ukraine is likely to make a major move within the next month or so'
What
<Reads words. Gets to the end.>
'Maybe Ukraine will do something completely different. Probably it will.'
What
Anyway, great article. Looking forward to the coming shock and awe of the Ukrainian cake walk!
Bakhmut was a meat grinder for the Ukrainians not the Russians. You have the kill rations backwards.
Russia is holding back so much. Focusing on kill ratios and not territory.
In a week, Russia could take out every bridge over the Dnieper, and every highway and railway coming into Ukraine. As well as all power production and petroleum hubs.
NATO is also much sparser on equipment and ammunition that you portray. Yes, they could supply some, but they already have meager supplies themselves, so no really enough to spare.
Completely misses the fact that Russia could go on the attack and make gains while the AFU's main force gets bogged down. Ukraine to have any success needs to put all its eggs in one basket. That's why the suicidal lunge in the South is most likely. Also missing in this analysis is that the 300k reservists haven't been noticeably deployed and there are probably another 100k volunteer reservists on top of that and ~30k in Belarus. They've had plenty of time for refresher training. So any fast maneuvers by the AFU need to be backed by infantry and they just don't have the numbers, especially moving into new territory like Lugansk without fortifications and without air support. Running around fast in IFV's might initially look exciting but it isn't a long-term strategy for securing and holding new territory.
Thank you, Chris; very informative. But can you elaborate how America is getting a "good deal" by sending its Bradleys to Ukraine? So we don't have to pick up the cost of scraping them?
Do you really think that if you keep repeating nonsense it will become a reality or you just selling narrative like all the “news” outlets about how actually good things are for the Ukraine in this bloody conflict?
That’s the problem nowadays some are gaslighting for the profit some is just plain stupid.
Pretty bold. Lot of bloviating with little actual technical analysis. I made a note to return to this in 4 months. I strongly suspect you will be proven incorrect.
the longer this absurd conflict goes on the greater the chance of direct US/NATO involvement, which would be a catastrophe.
"The US has almost 7,000 Bradley fighting vehicles sitting in storage. It spends money maintaining them and plans to scrap them eventually. Bradleys can kill anything on the battlefield pretty easily and ferry a squad of infantry around while doing it, protecting them from artillery shrapnel. When the Biden administration slaps a price tag on them, ships them to Ukraine, and lets them kill Russians without Americans dying, it’s not actually spending any money. We could give a thousand Bradleys to Ukraine and not notice they were gone."
Such a low IQ take on multiple levels.
1. It's complete broken window economics nonsense. Destroying goods to justify creating new goods still entails new costs.
2. The Bradley was officially phased-out decades ago but there's no large-scale production replacement that has actually been rolled out yet. If anything at best this is just an excuse to give bidding defense contractors even bigger checks when we inevitably decide that our nation's armored vehicle supply is too low.
3. When the Chadley does finally roll into American bases, it too will collect dust and require regular maintenance like the Bradley (maybe more!). How is that not obvious to you?
4. It is blatant and dishonest cherry-picking to only highlight that one specific aspect of the program while ignoring the many other costs, which have collectively cost nearly $100 billion by the figures I'm seeing. Insulting America Firsters is not a rebuttal to their arguments.
5. You still fail to explain the actual material benefit of our involvement in the war. Invading Mexico and paying them for half of their land had an obvious material benefit. Maintaining a monopoly over the Americas by destroying an insurrection government had an obvious material benefit. Destroying the Spanish Empire and stealing their colonial possessions had an obvious material benefit. Winning WW2, creating a duo-polar world in which the wealthier half was dependent on American goods and dollars had an obvious material benefit. The first Gulf War, to protect a trade ally and our access to their oil (which they substantially repaid) had an obvious material benefit. What's the end-goal of this war and how does it benefit us?
Have to wonder if all the war-specific minutiae is as inaccurate and fallacious as that one passage (I don't have confidential military information and am not arrogant enough as a spectator to take any specific stories regarding the war at face value).
This article is a fantastic text that could be used to study Partisanship and Ideology. A great example of how ideology clouds judgement.
FTFY: " 'The largest money laundering operation for a President and the MIC in the history of the world.” Why has the windup been so long? The answer is pretty simple: Ukraine is waiting for more cash." If you are so confident in this counteroffensive, head to the front lines and help them retake Bakhmut. This piece sounds like the regime promising that Kabul would not fall and the Taliban was not advancing in Summer 2021. Keep fighting until the last Ukrainian!
great, well-written article
... but I will believe in the counteroffensive when I see it succeeding. I have little to no hope it will.
Senator Angus King recently called Ukraine’s preparation for its impending counteroffensive “the longest windup for a punch in the history of the world.” Why has the windup been so long?
Wasn't it supposed to ba spring offensive? And now spring is almost over? I am not holding my breath. It feels like a promise that will never materialize Maybe it will be a summer offenseive now. But I think it will be a nothingburger.
A bold prediction, somehow against the current tide... If you will be shown right, chapeau! But, if wrong, I guess this substack will have to fold, or at least rename to "Center for the Promotion of NATO Partisanship and Ideology"
This guy believes the claims of a Kinzhal shootdown based on photos of a sewer pipe. I guess this article is what happens when someone with no military or technical knowledge also doesn’t understand how wartime propaganda works (to be fair, he might not have been around for the Iraq shitshow) and believes everything the MSM and US Government tell him.
I half-expected a paragraph about the strategic implications of Sam Hyde AKA The Ghost of Kiev being trained on F-16s. On the positive side, he’a not a bad writer, just badly out of his depth here.
Is this supposed to be satire, if not it still made me laugh.
"Some fear the war may bog down into indefinite static trench warfare that accomplishes nothing but draining resources and lives on all sides — a view I’m sympathetic to, though I don’t think we’re at that stage yet" Fuck off and go back to MSM ghoul. Good men, women and children are *DYING* on all sides and you, a supposed PhD of Philosophy, is "sympathetic".
“We have Patriots reliably shooting down hypersonic missiles, which no one predicted...” That’s one way to describe it. Technically in November 1963, JFK intercepted a bullet with his skull.
Three consecutive paragraphs:
'But the weather has gradually warmed over the last month, the rains are becoming less frequent in Luhansk, Ukraine is launching probing counterattacks along the front line, its strikes on Russian supply lines are picking up, and the ground is beginning to dry.'
'But maybe not: as I write,...'
'Since Ukraine is likely to make a major move within the next month or so'
What
<Reads words. Gets to the end.>
'Maybe Ukraine will do something completely different. Probably it will.'
What
Anyway, great article. Looking forward to the coming shock and awe of the Ukrainian cake walk!
Bakhmut was a meat grinder for the Ukrainians not the Russians. You have the kill rations backwards.
Russia is holding back so much. Focusing on kill ratios and not territory.
In a week, Russia could take out every bridge over the Dnieper, and every highway and railway coming into Ukraine. As well as all power production and petroleum hubs.
NATO is also much sparser on equipment and ammunition that you portray. Yes, they could supply some, but they already have meager supplies themselves, so no really enough to spare.
Completely misses the fact that Russia could go on the attack and make gains while the AFU's main force gets bogged down. Ukraine to have any success needs to put all its eggs in one basket. That's why the suicidal lunge in the South is most likely. Also missing in this analysis is that the 300k reservists haven't been noticeably deployed and there are probably another 100k volunteer reservists on top of that and ~30k in Belarus. They've had plenty of time for refresher training. So any fast maneuvers by the AFU need to be backed by infantry and they just don't have the numbers, especially moving into new territory like Lugansk without fortifications and without air support. Running around fast in IFV's might initially look exciting but it isn't a long-term strategy for securing and holding new territory.
Thank you, Chris; very informative. But can you elaborate how America is getting a "good deal" by sending its Bradleys to Ukraine? So we don't have to pick up the cost of scraping them?
Do you really think that if you keep repeating nonsense it will become a reality or you just selling narrative like all the “news” outlets about how actually good things are for the Ukraine in this bloody conflict?
That’s the problem nowadays some are gaslighting for the profit some is just plain stupid.