This is a good summary but makes sense tó mirror it on China and Russian - as the conflict gives time for Russian industry and army to adopt based on lessons learned and China to learn and apply the learnings ín large scale - there is also a question of reputation damage (both sides - Russian side - capabilites US, West - Credible Threat) I think it is more complex 'equation' - although all your points I can concur...
There is also point 17. Elon Musk claims that: "A significant percentage of the money “sent to Ukraine” actually ended up benefiting US politicians, the DNC and some Republicans. That’s why Zelensky says he only received half the money".
The more likely scenario is that the money was never allocated administratively. Zelensky's point is that the money got to Ukraine. Not that it was hijacked on the way.
A peace solution could be. To have a USA peacekeeping force in Russia to stop anyone attacking Russia. This will stop Ukraine starting another war and to stop Ukraine from attacking Russia. We can put the USA army into Russia on the Russian side of the Russian/Ukrainian border. That will stop the killing. The Russian army can leave Ukraine and Crimea, then the Ukrainians cannot attack Russia. Gazprom can give oil/gas to USA to pay for peacekeeping. Putin & Trump priority is peace and to stop all those small countries with reduced military budgets attacking Russia.
The U.S. has learned nothing, sorry. Not to say you're not right. Not to say there are those in the U.S. who recognize the benefits you listed. But politically, the U.S. hasn't made use of those benefits. It would do worse against China today than 2022 because it hasn't learned the main lesson from Ukraine--logistics and basic fire--lot's of it--matters. Has the U.S. built a fleet of ships to carry arms, or built the factories to make them in a significant way? No. The U.S. remains top heavy with show-pony weapons.
China on the other hand is cleaning up its military. It is stockpiling food and other materials to weather sanctions. All little fact 99% of Americans are clueless about. I don't want to go to war with China. And I hope China can restrain itself. But China is the one with the big lesson learned, and acted on, from Ukraine. When you go in, go in big as you can. Go for the heart with all your might. Build the Navy you need.
China has no interest in any thing else in Asia. As long as it can get back to (if it ever left) tribute system. Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, as long as its over quickly will they won't risk their lives no more than the U.S. did for Ukraine.
Ukraine is stronger than the U.S. When the U.S. must fight you might be safer in Ukraine where the people KNOW how to stay alive. Rant over ;)
Great point. I've seen interviews where it is obvious that the lower command level understands the lessons of Ukraine. I've also seen Pentagon level officials try to weasel out of direct questions on procurement and slow interation as compared to Ukraine. The Pentagon loves its small handful of exquisite weapons. All of which will be used with no back ups in the first month of a war with China.
On that subject (not sure why Tom hasn't written much about it lately, Tom?) what happened to creating a "no-fly" zone with our exquisite weapons? The reason given was we didn't want nuclear war which didn't seem to me, at the time, as a real reason. Now who can argue it is anymore? So why not a no-fly zone today as far as needed to stop Russia from attacking?
I say the U.S. doesn't have the capability to fly close to Russia's border, let alone over it! I say it also doesn't have the capability to come even within eyesight of China!
I'm not saying the air force is useless, only that it will suffer the same attrition issues as everything else. Hopefully Tom will read this and be like "WTF, I know everything about this! What's going on is...."
Didn't know. I believe that will happen. Politically, Europeans won't send soldiers if not for the problem of who will command them. If they read Tom and Don I don't think they'll choose Ukraine haha!
Air power is the only place where Poland or France or Germany etc., can maintain command and dial in how much force projections they want. They could also use the Navy. What do you think?
Here is a link to my "broad" prediction and greatest hope. But it's a long shot.
Also, Poland isn't going to do anything until the rest of NATO gets to 3%. It's not going to be left without a chair when the music stops.
Once Germany, UK, France are at 3% we will see Poland take a more active role.
In terms of air superiority over Ukraine, the first question that has to be answered is what are the rules of engagement? When, not if, Russia shoots at a "Coalition" aircraft what is the response?
It needs to be swift and catastrophic for Russia to pay attention. But who is going to back that up?
We are a long way away from any nations offering their air assets to protect Ukraine.
The first 6 months of a shooting war with China will be ugly, with perhaps limited gains by each side. As you say, replacing losses will not be easy for the US, one could say it's impossible to do so. If Tom has seen or knows about the war games between US and PRC, I would like to know his opinion on what's likely to happen.
Yes, and very concerning because the States no longer have the shipyards to replace losses to the fleet while China now builds most of the world's tonnage. In a protracted war we will be in the position Japan was in: a powerful navy with a powerful punch, but with very limited means to replace ships. And another reason why I don't see trump fighting the PRC.
I salute you for your confidence in the US! This is a thing many in the country lack, myself in particular, unless another Pearl Harbor type attack happens. Flexibility and innovation will be key if the carriers are sunk. For instance, the USAF has a plan to launch cruise missiles from the cargo bay of C-130's.
An interesting summary. Have you been able to calculate the amount of American arms purchases intended for Ukraine, whether by the USA, Ukraine or European states. The money spent by the USA is mainly for the American arms industry. Since 2022 the profits of the military-industrial complex must have exploded, do you have any figures?
Those numbers are probably available. But just not in one neat place.
As for profits of the MIC... when one company starts to make half the money of Apple or Amazon... then I will worry about profits. We need to expand our military industries. 10x. Or more. Our magazine depth is too low. The US is supposed to be able to fight a two front LSCO war at the same time.
1. Modern Warfare Lessons--the American "excursions" to Iraq [Gulf War 2] and Afghanistan actually have hurt U.S. military readiness, specifically the U.S. Army, in warfighting. Now it is time to re-configure the American military to fight a land war on European soil. Then there is the South Pacific area. I perceive that the U.S. Navy will be the big player. Nobody in his right mind would put a field army on mainland Chinese soil, but in a potential war with China over Taiwan and the South China sea, the USN will have to dominate the action by being called to eliminate Chinese surface forces--i.e., eliminate Chinese power projection--and engage in commerce raiding. Imagine China trying to trade internationally without its merchant marine fleet?
The U.S. possesses about 50 fast attack nuclear submarines (SSN). I have read that the USN requires 66 SSNs to meet its comments. If so, then16 boats do not get built and crewed overnight! And I do not know if 66 is an adequate number. China is working on a better and bigger navy as time proceeds. The West, particularly the U.S., has lots of work to do. Naval and military readiness is much more than the size of an attack submarine fleet. Logistics, etc., will drive so many requirements. Meanwhile that idiot, Hesgeth, wants to reduce considerably defense spending over the next few years. Of course the transactional President will save us all from destruction by wielding his "art of the big deal" with Russia and China while making himself a boatload--a naval fleet load--of money.
I just looked up the current active duty army populations of four major European nations: the UK (yes, not in the EU), France, and Germany, and Poland. Amounts to something on the order of 800,000+. Yes, the smaller EU nations also contribute to this number a bit, but I didn't count them for this first order estimate. I think that EU and NATO, in the absence of U.S. support, need Ukraine's military to boost the numbers significantly. I would expect a possible future conflict with Russia, assuming a conventional war only (despite nuclear saber rattling), will be a "come as you are" war for the most part.
I wasn't trying to ignore or marginalize the Baltic State militaries. I just don't know much about them. I do recall Finland (OK not a Baltic State) kicking Soviet ass in the Winter War of 1939, at least for awhile. Sounds a bit like the Ukraine War, or rather the Ukraine War like the Winter War, but now with the iL Duce Trumpino factor messing with everything.
China? I hear that those Han boys got a real beating whenever they conflicted with India's Mountain division(s) in 2020. A turnaround from Indo-Chinese border war of 1962. I am not sure who won the 1967 border war redux.
A major war involving a massive Russian assault on the 3 Baltic states (not including Finland) could isolate Baltic forces from larger Europe. I suppose this is where Sweden comes in now being a NATO signatory. Shut down the Baltic sea and be used to support, re-supply the three Baltic states from Sweden/Norway? I admit I don't know much about this; this is about the extent of my land warfare (non)expertise.
Yes, by isolate I was referring to logistics support, but also transporting troops across a relatively speaking small body of water from Sweden to the Baltics States. Again, I was guessing or speculating because I am unfamiliar with the area and not exactly a land warfare guru. NATO control of the Baltic Sea in a conflict could isolate Kaliningrad and Kronshtadt Russian naval facilities.
«Palantir is the number one US defense partner in this realm» – Palantir? The company of Peter Thiel, friend of Elon Musk, co-founder of PayPal? Hmm... very interesting.
Tom, explain one point to me, because I don't understand the logic of the events. How can these idiot Trump's trade wars and Musk's attacks on Canada, Denmark, Germany and other European countries contribute to common security and common security agendas? On the contrary, Trump and his administration are doing everything possible to break friendships and break economic chains. The US refuses to pay for world leadership and withdraws troops from everywhere. China, on the other hand, is ready to pay for its leadership. On the contrary, everyone sees the inadequacy of the US decisions and focuses even more strictly on China.
No, it doesn’t negate the other points. But it means Donald doesn’t get a point all by himself.
Also Lessons in Courage. (And that's what Orange Head and similar hate most.)
This is a good summary but makes sense tó mirror it on China and Russian - as the conflict gives time for Russian industry and army to adopt based on lessons learned and China to learn and apply the learnings ín large scale - there is also a question of reputation damage (both sides - Russian side - capabilites US, West - Credible Threat) I think it is more complex 'equation' - although all your points I can concur...
One of the things we have seen is how fast Russia learns lessons through all of the corruption.
The US is by far the biggest winner in this conflict, followed by Russia, China, India.
Ukraine and the EU are now finally starting to realize the risks of being vassal states of the US.
"Fuck the EU" said Nuland in 2014. This was under Obama, not Trump.
Which is now answered in somewhat more polite tones here.
Thanks Ben.
There is also point 17. Elon Musk claims that: "A significant percentage of the money “sent to Ukraine” actually ended up benefiting US politicians, the DNC and some Republicans. That’s why Zelensky says he only received half the money".
I don't think anyone will try to refute it.
Did Elon said that himself? I'm positively surprised.
The more likely scenario is that the money was never allocated administratively. Zelensky's point is that the money got to Ukraine. Not that it was hijacked on the way.
A peace solution could be. To have a USA peacekeeping force in Russia to stop anyone attacking Russia. This will stop Ukraine starting another war and to stop Ukraine from attacking Russia. We can put the USA army into Russia on the Russian side of the Russian/Ukrainian border. That will stop the killing. The Russian army can leave Ukraine and Crimea, then the Ukrainians cannot attack Russia. Gazprom can give oil/gas to USA to pay for peacekeeping. Putin & Trump priority is peace and to stop all those small countries with reduced military budgets attacking Russia.
Never going to happen.
It's sarcasm.
BRAVO!
The U.S. has learned nothing, sorry. Not to say you're not right. Not to say there are those in the U.S. who recognize the benefits you listed. But politically, the U.S. hasn't made use of those benefits. It would do worse against China today than 2022 because it hasn't learned the main lesson from Ukraine--logistics and basic fire--lot's of it--matters. Has the U.S. built a fleet of ships to carry arms, or built the factories to make them in a significant way? No. The U.S. remains top heavy with show-pony weapons.
China on the other hand is cleaning up its military. It is stockpiling food and other materials to weather sanctions. All little fact 99% of Americans are clueless about. I don't want to go to war with China. And I hope China can restrain itself. But China is the one with the big lesson learned, and acted on, from Ukraine. When you go in, go in big as you can. Go for the heart with all your might. Build the Navy you need.
China has no interest in any thing else in Asia. As long as it can get back to (if it ever left) tribute system. Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, as long as its over quickly will they won't risk their lives no more than the U.S. did for Ukraine.
Ukraine is stronger than the U.S. When the U.S. must fight you might be safer in Ukraine where the people KNOW how to stay alive. Rant over ;)
Great point. I've seen interviews where it is obvious that the lower command level understands the lessons of Ukraine. I've also seen Pentagon level officials try to weasel out of direct questions on procurement and slow interation as compared to Ukraine. The Pentagon loves its small handful of exquisite weapons. All of which will be used with no back ups in the first month of a war with China.
On that subject (not sure why Tom hasn't written much about it lately, Tom?) what happened to creating a "no-fly" zone with our exquisite weapons? The reason given was we didn't want nuclear war which didn't seem to me, at the time, as a real reason. Now who can argue it is anymore? So why not a no-fly zone today as far as needed to stop Russia from attacking?
I say the U.S. doesn't have the capability to fly close to Russia's border, let alone over it! I say it also doesn't have the capability to come even within eyesight of China!
I'm not saying the air force is useless, only that it will suffer the same attrition issues as everything else. Hopefully Tom will read this and be like "WTF, I know everything about this! What's going on is...."
Interesting that the Donald Tusk (Poland) mentioned this recently. Installing a no fly zone over Ukraine.
Didn't know. I believe that will happen. Politically, Europeans won't send soldiers if not for the problem of who will command them. If they read Tom and Don I don't think they'll choose Ukraine haha!
Air power is the only place where Poland or France or Germany etc., can maintain command and dial in how much force projections they want. They could also use the Navy. What do you think?
Here is a link to my "broad" prediction and greatest hope. But it's a long shot.
Also, Poland isn't going to do anything until the rest of NATO gets to 3%. It's not going to be left without a chair when the music stops.
Once Germany, UK, France are at 3% we will see Poland take a more active role.
In terms of air superiority over Ukraine, the first question that has to be answered is what are the rules of engagement? When, not if, Russia shoots at a "Coalition" aircraft what is the response?
It needs to be swift and catastrophic for Russia to pay attention. But who is going to back that up?
We are a long way away from any nations offering their air assets to protect Ukraine.
https://researchingukraine.substack.com/p/first-a-leader-then-3
Our military taking a more active role is really optimistic scenario ;)
The first 6 months of a shooting war with China will be ugly, with perhaps limited gains by each side. As you say, replacing losses will not be easy for the US, one could say it's impossible to do so. If Tom has seen or knows about the war games between US and PRC, I would like to know his opinion on what's likely to happen.
Yes, and very concerning because the States no longer have the shipyards to replace losses to the fleet while China now builds most of the world's tonnage. In a protracted war we will be in the position Japan was in: a powerful navy with a powerful punch, but with very limited means to replace ships. And another reason why I don't see trump fighting the PRC.
I salute you for your confidence in the US! This is a thing many in the country lack, myself in particular, unless another Pearl Harbor type attack happens. Flexibility and innovation will be key if the carriers are sunk. For instance, the USAF has a plan to launch cruise missiles from the cargo bay of C-130's.
An interesting summary. Have you been able to calculate the amount of American arms purchases intended for Ukraine, whether by the USA, Ukraine or European states. The money spent by the USA is mainly for the American arms industry. Since 2022 the profits of the military-industrial complex must have exploded, do you have any figures?
Those numbers are probably available. But just not in one neat place.
As for profits of the MIC... when one company starts to make half the money of Apple or Amazon... then I will worry about profits. We need to expand our military industries. 10x. Or more. Our magazine depth is too low. The US is supposed to be able to fight a two front LSCO war at the same time.
It is nice to finally have adults in the White House.
Send this to Meidas Touch on youtube
1. Modern Warfare Lessons--the American "excursions" to Iraq [Gulf War 2] and Afghanistan actually have hurt U.S. military readiness, specifically the U.S. Army, in warfighting. Now it is time to re-configure the American military to fight a land war on European soil. Then there is the South Pacific area. I perceive that the U.S. Navy will be the big player. Nobody in his right mind would put a field army on mainland Chinese soil, but in a potential war with China over Taiwan and the South China sea, the USN will have to dominate the action by being called to eliminate Chinese surface forces--i.e., eliminate Chinese power projection--and engage in commerce raiding. Imagine China trying to trade internationally without its merchant marine fleet?
The U.S. possesses about 50 fast attack nuclear submarines (SSN). I have read that the USN requires 66 SSNs to meet its comments. If so, then16 boats do not get built and crewed overnight! And I do not know if 66 is an adequate number. China is working on a better and bigger navy as time proceeds. The West, particularly the U.S., has lots of work to do. Naval and military readiness is much more than the size of an attack submarine fleet. Logistics, etc., will drive so many requirements. Meanwhile that idiot, Hesgeth, wants to reduce considerably defense spending over the next few years. Of course the transactional President will save us all from destruction by wielding his "art of the big deal" with Russia and China while making himself a boatload--a naval fleet load--of money.
RE: the talk about a EU military (army).
I just looked up the current active duty army populations of four major European nations: the UK (yes, not in the EU), France, and Germany, and Poland. Amounts to something on the order of 800,000+. Yes, the smaller EU nations also contribute to this number a bit, but I didn't count them for this first order estimate. I think that EU and NATO, in the absence of U.S. support, need Ukraine's military to boost the numbers significantly. I would expect a possible future conflict with Russia, assuming a conventional war only (despite nuclear saber rattling), will be a "come as you are" war for the most part.
I wasn't trying to ignore or marginalize the Baltic State militaries. I just don't know much about them. I do recall Finland (OK not a Baltic State) kicking Soviet ass in the Winter War of 1939, at least for awhile. Sounds a bit like the Ukraine War, or rather the Ukraine War like the Winter War, but now with the iL Duce Trumpino factor messing with everything.
China? I hear that those Han boys got a real beating whenever they conflicted with India's Mountain division(s) in 2020. A turnaround from Indo-Chinese border war of 1962. I am not sure who won the 1967 border war redux.
A major war involving a massive Russian assault on the 3 Baltic states (not including Finland) could isolate Baltic forces from larger Europe. I suppose this is where Sweden comes in now being a NATO signatory. Shut down the Baltic sea and be used to support, re-supply the three Baltic states from Sweden/Norway? I admit I don't know much about this; this is about the extent of my land warfare (non)expertise.
Yes, by isolate I was referring to logistics support, but also transporting troops across a relatively speaking small body of water from Sweden to the Baltics States. Again, I was guessing or speculating because I am unfamiliar with the area and not exactly a land warfare guru. NATO control of the Baltic Sea in a conflict could isolate Kaliningrad and Kronshtadt Russian naval facilities.
I think wars always are «come as you are»?
Mr cooper.
A.cuote for you, from sir Ian Hamilton.
Galipoly Diary.
“…I cant do that; a bad tempered cable is useless; i have no eapon at my disposal but a very mild sarcasm”
Thank you for this list. Probably more could be added, but the point is well made. Though I doubt the US will be able to really learn.
«Palantir is the number one US defense partner in this realm» – Palantir? The company of Peter Thiel, friend of Elon Musk, co-founder of PayPal? Hmm... very interesting.
Tom, explain one point to me, because I don't understand the logic of the events. How can these idiot Trump's trade wars and Musk's attacks on Canada, Denmark, Germany and other European countries contribute to common security and common security agendas? On the contrary, Trump and his administration are doing everything possible to break friendships and break economic chains. The US refuses to pay for world leadership and withdraws troops from everywhere. China, on the other hand, is ready to pay for its leadership. On the contrary, everyone sees the inadequacy of the US decisions and focuses even more strictly on China.