Ukrainian Lives, Got Wholesale

Amerika Gonif:

Megatron

@Megatron_ron

NEW:

The Warmonger Nuland on Ukraine:

"We have to remember that the bulk of this money is going right back into the U.S. to make those weapons."

Everything is about money laundering.

That money does not end up in the US, but goes from the US budget to the accounts of the shareholders in the weapons manufacturing factories.

Only about 10% go to factory workers.

http://t.me/megatron_ron

12:34 PM · Feb 24, 2024

Moving on …

The other day Simplicius put up a post with some nice bigger picture perspective on war making. I want to zero quickly on a particular aspect, but first I’ll quote from Brian Berletic’s summary to his most recent video. The video itself is about an hour:

Pentagon Admits Ukraine Aid Unsustainable + Why Neutrality is Ukraine's Only (Good) Option

As you’ll see, Brian’s theme plays right into Simplicius’ post. I will add, that making the big switch is much easier said than done, especially in a corrupt MIC system like ours:

- The US Department of Defense admits essential supporting elements for sustaining US weapon systems transferred to Ukraine were never provided, thus inhibiting the effective use of US arms by Ukrainians;

- A fighting force makes up a small percentage of an overall military service because of the large amount of support infantry require on the modern battlefield. Without these supporting elements, a fighting force cannot sustain combat especially against a better supported force;

- US military equipment is especially complex to sustain and maintain on the battlefield, a fact illustrated by US purchases of Russian helicopters for Afghan forces because US helicopters were too difficult to fly, maintain, and sustain;

- The end game for Ukraine is particularly bleak considering the attritional nature of the conflict, Russia’s ability to outproduce Ukraine and its allies, and the unrealistic objectives Ukraine and its Western sponsors are attempting to achieve;

- Attempts to focus on Russian military shortcomings while ignoring Ukrainian military shortcomings produces a fatally flawed perception of the conflict disallowing both the means and objectives of the fighting to be realistically evaluated;

Pretty concise. Now add to that what Simplicius has to say—this is just a snip:

The Future of the SMO [Part 2]

US Turns Its Eyes on Future

The US and NATO allies are hard at work at re-envisioning their own battlefield priorities in light of the revolution being witnessed in the Ukrainian war. Think tanks are churning out piece after piece, with the latest offering from Substack’s own retired Major General Mick Ryan of the Australian Army and Lt. General S. Clinton Hinote of the US Air Force:

They start off with the one major admission necessitating this very paper—that the Western edge has not only been eroded, but rapidly so:

During the post-Cold War era, for example, several one-sided battlefield contests occurred where Allied militaries quickly dominated adversaries stuck in older paradigms.

Unfortunately, this advantage—what some have called “overmatch”—has eroded, and has done so rapidly. As the U.S. competition with China and Russia grows, we seek new ways of fighting.

They move directly into another powerful confirmation of something we’ve long discussed here apropos the differences between Western and Russian military systems. Couching it in self-serving terms of seeking ultimate ‘protection’ for troops, they admit that Western systems have gotten so expensive that their operators are afraid to even use them—defeating the whole point of warfighting equipment:

Western minds have taken a long time to come to conclusions drawn by Russia ages ago, and by us here in articles like the following, which expounded on precisely this disparity in the warfighting principles between Russia and the West:

Mick and co. clearly have Yemen and Iran in mind as well when they go on to write the following:

Our competitors know this; they have spent two decades developing sensors and weapons designed to find and destroy these costly assets. Relatively cheaper technologies that make exquisite modern weapons vulnerable have proliferated to our potential adversaries. This is the definition of cost imposition, and we have been on the wrong side for many years.

As a brief aside on this topic, it’s remarkable how much the narrative is shifting in this direction. Almost every thing the West once skewered Russia for, they are now fumbling to adapt into their own doctrines. Top military figures from both the UK and US have recently urged the re-establishment of national conscription, i.e. compulsory service, belatedly realizing that an “all volunteer force” is simply not feasible.

Some things are very hard to walk back. How do you sell conscription again, once it’s been abolished? Through the Russia Hoax? The Iran Hoax? Die to enable Israeli genocide? To enrich the MIC? To keep the money laundering spigot in Ukraine wide open, for the US politicians and their oligarchic benefactors who jet between and among Kiev, Tel Aviv, and Cyprus—in no particular order? That’s a hard see, IMO. But it’s where we are.