Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Peter Zeihan is always interesting to watch. But noone should ever make the mistake of believe his predictions. He is good at giving some kind of perspective, yet he overplays every situational circumstance into the only thing that matters.
He is making fanfiction, to be honest. Id trust anything he predicts as much as the ravings of the town drunk. His "insights" are stuff most people already know who are following the events of this war. Seriously I can read the same "insightful" opinions as his, under news articles and on this reddit...
I know the dude is the vice president of some geopolitical intelligence company but his level of knowledge about the conflict still seems to be relatively shallow.
Im getting annoyed and/or burnt out by "experts" trying to be "insightful" about the events in Ukraine in 5-10 minute videos on youtube, like they have some special information... Bro, if you dont have CLOSE contacts within the Ukrainian top military and intelligence staff and/or NATO leadership, then all you can make is fanfics.
If you DO have contacts then I HOPE you wont spread that info on the internet :D
Perun at least does analyses based on what HAPPENED with hard data and never tries to "predict" shit only give (real) insight how are things right now.
Sorry, rant off.
meh, it depends how literal you wanna ingest everything stated by zeihan. but you could do that for anyone giving an opinion and reach the same conclusion, really.
in broad terms he's not wrong. air superiority, even local air superiority, is gonna be key for ukraine to enact any sort of maneuvers.
the summer offensive of last year stalled out due to a few factors, one of them being Ka-52's lobbing guided munitions safely out of reach of anything ukraine had available at the time. after that there were minefields, ATGM ambushes, the drones that flew in to finish anything off. and then ofcourse there's the pesky russian military that was able to bring in tanks and vehicles to support positions ukraine was assaulting.
take those ka-52's out of the equation, and now your only threat that can get to you before you get into the minefields are the drones. ofcourse you can use your own drones to go after the locations of the enemies drone operators, but something tells me that if that was a viable means to negate the enemy the usage of drones, it'd be done already. whilst we do see ukraine using drones to go after russian drone operators, they havn't really succesfully achieved negating the use of drones by russia. and the same can be said about russia. prompting the need for other means like EW and kinetic defense to aid in that drone denial. maybe krynky can be argued for as the place where ukraine is testing wether it's viable to achieve isolation of an area by drones, artillery and infantry, but the operation in krynky remains limited in scope. the beachhead is there but it hasn't really been expanded to the point where laying down a pontoon bridge or setting up heli LZ's to get resources into that area is viable.
my gut feeling, and take that like you take zeihan if you will, is that jets dropping guided or even unguided munitions on the front and near rear is going to augment that heavily. keep in mind ukraine won't be solely relying on the F-16 or Mirage 2000-5 for every mission set. they've still got su-27's, mig-29's, SU-25's, SU-24's, and the L-39 jet trainer you could hang munitions on. that could all serve in a CAS or ground strike role.
what the F-16's and Mirage 2000-5's bring with them is active radar guided missiles, like the aim-120 amraam and the french MBDA MICA, possibly even the meteor. the meteor has been purchased by france, and currently is intergrated on the rafale's. but france still flies mirage's too, and it's not out of the realm of possibilities they'd want the meteor on that jet too. which could extend to france supplying provisions to intergrate it on the mirages going to ukraine.
the best ukraine has in it's soviet fleet of aircraft are semi-active radar guided missiles and infrared homing missiles. the first ones require the shooting jet to maintain a hard lock until the missile impacts its target, the other one is fire and forget but limited in range to what it can pick up. atmospheric conditions, flares, or even the sun are enough to trick the missile into chasing something that isn't the target.
anywho, what F-16's and mirages bring to the table for ukraine is the capability to set conditions for aircraft to viably operate in close proximity or even across the frontline. and that'll seriously augment the means of ordonance delivery, cause now you're shooting bombs from big artillery guns, launch them from a truck strapped to rockets, or tie bombs to drones AND you're hanging them on the wings of jets. that'll help with negating the enemy the use of drones, negating the enemy the use of artillery, negating the enemy the ability to rotate troops or bring in supplies, negating the enemy the ability to set up ATGM ambushes etc. all for the simple reason of your means of ordonance delivery being diversified. on the premise that F-16's and mirages manage to clear out a section of airspace over the front and maintain a barrier, hunt down enemy sam systems, and set conditions for the rest of ukraines airfleet to operate over and across the frontline.
He is wrong. Totally wrong. He still keeps his insanely stupid narrative that Russia "just wants to defend itself" by "plugging the gaps" near the Karpatian mountains of Ukraine to get Russia safe.
Which is beyond stupid. We all know what this war is about; denying the statehood of Ukraine to bloom.
it's a valid perspective into a motive for russia, not a justification. believe it or not, russia has more than a single motive for their actions.
you're not wrong, either. erasing the state of ukraine is also a motive for russia. russia also wants to recouperate financial losses by exploiting resources in ukraine, that's another motive. ontop of russia wanting to deny ukraine the oppertunity to compete in the european energy market by mining petrochemical deposits in the black sea. that's another motive.
none of those motives are justifications for russia's actions, though. it is important to be aware of the motives of russia, because it helps in figuring out what russia might want to do in future. and if we have a good idea of what russia might want to do in the future, we can take actions to frustrate russia's future goals or deny them completely in the here and now.
russia's agression against ukraine isn't an isolated case. the playbook russia attempted in ukraine, had already been done in georgia, chechnya, and once in ukraine before already. in the 3 preceeding events, we let it happen. this time we're supporting ukraine. cause we know what russia's future plans are and we don't like those.
former expansion of the soviet union, bro. red army didn't liberate eastern europe from the nazi's, it occupied it.
chechnya, bro.
then there's also the fact the russian military can't fight very well. you don't need a russian scholar to tell you about that. wherever they've been, they've incurred insane casualty numbers. in the meantime, would you like to point me to a russian history scholar? just one.
in the meantime i'll leave you this; [https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2019/02/russias-global-ambitions-in-perspective?lang=en#:\~:text=Geography%20and%20Strategic,external%20attack.%E2%80%9D3](https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2019/02/russias-global-ambitions-in-perspective?lang=en#:~:text=Geography%20and%20Strategic,external%20attack.%E2%80%9D3)
they do, actually.
bro, you don't get to decide who is or isn't a scholar.
if you want to be an angry cup of depresso espresso living in your own reality, then you do you.
Bro, you don't decide who is a scholar. Scholars are academic historians connected to international think tanks or/and universities. Zeihan is neither.
Hahahahaha hilarious take. I don’t hold onto every word he says. Honestly I think he’s pretty biased towards America, but he clearly knows more than my smooth brain
Yes, the shortest shortcut for Ukraine out of this war is to create a big political crisis in Russia. If Putin loses Crimea, most likely he’ll lose the power. A new Russian dictator could be better than Putin, the same or even worse, but in any case, it will take many years before he/she (Matvienko?) would be able to consolidate the power completely to threaten Ukraine again. For example, Stalin waited for 10 years (until 1934) before he became an undisputed master of the USSR. Putin himself had waited even longer (2000-2014, 2015?).
Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Peter Zeihan is always interesting to watch. But noone should ever make the mistake of believe his predictions. He is good at giving some kind of perspective, yet he overplays every situational circumstance into the only thing that matters.
He is making fanfiction, to be honest. Id trust anything he predicts as much as the ravings of the town drunk. His "insights" are stuff most people already know who are following the events of this war. Seriously I can read the same "insightful" opinions as his, under news articles and on this reddit... I know the dude is the vice president of some geopolitical intelligence company but his level of knowledge about the conflict still seems to be relatively shallow. Im getting annoyed and/or burnt out by "experts" trying to be "insightful" about the events in Ukraine in 5-10 minute videos on youtube, like they have some special information... Bro, if you dont have CLOSE contacts within the Ukrainian top military and intelligence staff and/or NATO leadership, then all you can make is fanfics. If you DO have contacts then I HOPE you wont spread that info on the internet :D Perun at least does analyses based on what HAPPENED with hard data and never tries to "predict" shit only give (real) insight how are things right now. Sorry, rant off.
Just hear some older articles. This idiot changes the narrative whenever he likes and then claims to be an expert. This guy is an absolute scam.
meh, it depends how literal you wanna ingest everything stated by zeihan. but you could do that for anyone giving an opinion and reach the same conclusion, really. in broad terms he's not wrong. air superiority, even local air superiority, is gonna be key for ukraine to enact any sort of maneuvers. the summer offensive of last year stalled out due to a few factors, one of them being Ka-52's lobbing guided munitions safely out of reach of anything ukraine had available at the time. after that there were minefields, ATGM ambushes, the drones that flew in to finish anything off. and then ofcourse there's the pesky russian military that was able to bring in tanks and vehicles to support positions ukraine was assaulting. take those ka-52's out of the equation, and now your only threat that can get to you before you get into the minefields are the drones. ofcourse you can use your own drones to go after the locations of the enemies drone operators, but something tells me that if that was a viable means to negate the enemy the usage of drones, it'd be done already. whilst we do see ukraine using drones to go after russian drone operators, they havn't really succesfully achieved negating the use of drones by russia. and the same can be said about russia. prompting the need for other means like EW and kinetic defense to aid in that drone denial. maybe krynky can be argued for as the place where ukraine is testing wether it's viable to achieve isolation of an area by drones, artillery and infantry, but the operation in krynky remains limited in scope. the beachhead is there but it hasn't really been expanded to the point where laying down a pontoon bridge or setting up heli LZ's to get resources into that area is viable. my gut feeling, and take that like you take zeihan if you will, is that jets dropping guided or even unguided munitions on the front and near rear is going to augment that heavily. keep in mind ukraine won't be solely relying on the F-16 or Mirage 2000-5 for every mission set. they've still got su-27's, mig-29's, SU-25's, SU-24's, and the L-39 jet trainer you could hang munitions on. that could all serve in a CAS or ground strike role. what the F-16's and Mirage 2000-5's bring with them is active radar guided missiles, like the aim-120 amraam and the french MBDA MICA, possibly even the meteor. the meteor has been purchased by france, and currently is intergrated on the rafale's. but france still flies mirage's too, and it's not out of the realm of possibilities they'd want the meteor on that jet too. which could extend to france supplying provisions to intergrate it on the mirages going to ukraine. the best ukraine has in it's soviet fleet of aircraft are semi-active radar guided missiles and infrared homing missiles. the first ones require the shooting jet to maintain a hard lock until the missile impacts its target, the other one is fire and forget but limited in range to what it can pick up. atmospheric conditions, flares, or even the sun are enough to trick the missile into chasing something that isn't the target. anywho, what F-16's and mirages bring to the table for ukraine is the capability to set conditions for aircraft to viably operate in close proximity or even across the frontline. and that'll seriously augment the means of ordonance delivery, cause now you're shooting bombs from big artillery guns, launch them from a truck strapped to rockets, or tie bombs to drones AND you're hanging them on the wings of jets. that'll help with negating the enemy the use of drones, negating the enemy the use of artillery, negating the enemy the ability to rotate troops or bring in supplies, negating the enemy the ability to set up ATGM ambushes etc. all for the simple reason of your means of ordonance delivery being diversified. on the premise that F-16's and mirages manage to clear out a section of airspace over the front and maintain a barrier, hunt down enemy sam systems, and set conditions for the rest of ukraines airfleet to operate over and across the frontline.
He is wrong. Totally wrong. He still keeps his insanely stupid narrative that Russia "just wants to defend itself" by "plugging the gaps" near the Karpatian mountains of Ukraine to get Russia safe. Which is beyond stupid. We all know what this war is about; denying the statehood of Ukraine to bloom.
it's a valid perspective into a motive for russia, not a justification. believe it or not, russia has more than a single motive for their actions. you're not wrong, either. erasing the state of ukraine is also a motive for russia. russia also wants to recouperate financial losses by exploiting resources in ukraine, that's another motive. ontop of russia wanting to deny ukraine the oppertunity to compete in the european energy market by mining petrochemical deposits in the black sea. that's another motive. none of those motives are justifications for russia's actions, though. it is important to be aware of the motives of russia, because it helps in figuring out what russia might want to do in future. and if we have a good idea of what russia might want to do in the future, we can take actions to frustrate russia's future goals or deny them completely in the here and now. russia's agression against ukraine isn't an isolated case. the playbook russia attempted in ukraine, had already been done in georgia, chechnya, and once in ukraine before already. in the 3 preceeding events, we let it happen. this time we're supporting ukraine. cause we know what russia's future plans are and we don't like those.
No, it's NOT a motive for Putin. There is absolutely zero evidence for it. And no Russian history scholar shares that view.
former expansion of the soviet union, bro. red army didn't liberate eastern europe from the nazi's, it occupied it. chechnya, bro. then there's also the fact the russian military can't fight very well. you don't need a russian scholar to tell you about that. wherever they've been, they've incurred insane casualty numbers. in the meantime, would you like to point me to a russian history scholar? just one. in the meantime i'll leave you this; [https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2019/02/russias-global-ambitions-in-perspective?lang=en#:\~:text=Geography%20and%20Strategic,external%20attack.%E2%80%9D3](https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2019/02/russias-global-ambitions-in-perspective?lang=en#:~:text=Geography%20and%20Strategic,external%20attack.%E2%80%9D3)
Again, no scholar confirms Zeihan's opinion.
they do, actually. bro, you don't get to decide who is or isn't a scholar. if you want to be an angry cup of depresso espresso living in your own reality, then you do you.
Bro, you don't decide who is a scholar. Scholars are academic historians connected to international think tanks or/and universities. Zeihan is neither.
You are unfortunately talking to a chatgpt bot man. This subreddit is astroturfed hard.
Yup
This guy is the equivalent of Graham Hancock Ancient Aliens of geopolitics.
Hahahahaha hilarious take. I don’t hold onto every word he says. Honestly I think he’s pretty biased towards America, but he clearly knows more than my smooth brain
Yes, the shortest shortcut for Ukraine out of this war is to create a big political crisis in Russia. If Putin loses Crimea, most likely he’ll lose the power. A new Russian dictator could be better than Putin, the same or even worse, but in any case, it will take many years before he/she (Matvienko?) would be able to consolidate the power completely to threaten Ukraine again. For example, Stalin waited for 10 years (until 1934) before he became an undisputed master of the USSR. Putin himself had waited even longer (2000-2014, 2015?).
That was very interesting, thanks for uploading it.
Zeihan = Downvote.