Jump to content

Josh

Members
  • Posts

    16,981
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Josh

  • Birthday 01/16/1976

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New York City

Recent Profile Visitors

2,117 profile views

Josh's Achievements

Hierophant Lord

Hierophant Lord (3/3)

0

Reputation

  1. China is about capitalism too; it just does it far better than Russia.
  2. China has no interest in Russia being strong. It has interests in the U.S. being weak. Lots of countries want the IS and the dollar to stop being the way the wood run. They disagree on the next step, for obvious reasons. China could always let its capital and currency freely float, if it wants the Yuan to be the next big thing. It will never do so while Xi is alive, and likely long after he’s dead. Which is why BRICS is meaningless: as Russia is finding out, no one wants you shirt currency.
  3. I doubt Russia has a shortage of barrels given its inventory pre war. this would be more true if accuracy is not a major concern for specific types of fire/units.
  4. I doubt anything I’ve stated precluded the possibility of a company sized group of troops parading in Europe for PR reasons, but feel free to quote me if I said otherwise. conflating a company exercise with a reinforced division in hard combat is classic Glenn extrapolation. “If you liked the movie ‘Twister’, you’ll LOVE ‘Gone With The Wind’!” if that is you extrapolation, then the US can put 10,000 troop in several countries in Africa, Central America, the PI, and a couple of south Central Asian countries. How likely do you think those prospects are, even given the superior air and sea lift of the U.S.? That I will agree on; deploying a company of troops to Belarus was a clever way of supporting Russia without doing anything effectual that changes US or EU economic policy.
  5. Nothing I’ve read yet indicates troop strength. The UK can send a carrier to the Pacific, but it would be as meaningless as China sending troops to Europe. EDIT: apparently from your post reinforced company strength.
  6. Not 10,000 hypersonic missiles paying for it. There’s a number of hypersonic weapons that might impede NATO, there’s a number that China can make, there’s a number that China would part with, and there’s a number that Russia could pay for in cash or commodities. Those are all different numbers. It’s worth noting Iran has never bothered selling BMs to Russia, despite your implicit assertion Russia is interested in foreign ballistics and hypersonics. I suspect that comes down to Iran wanting its own weapons for its wars. I suspect China is not much different, outside the fact it is not already on anyone’s sanction list on top. China will protect Belarus with its troops when it refuses to sell ammunition to Russia? That is your take away? It’s worth asking exactly how large this PLA unit is: company? Battalion? It certainly is not a brigade if it was air delivered. Perhaps as small as a platoon and support forces? Do you think that “sends a message to Warsaw” as it buys hundreds of MBTs, MLRS, and dozens of F-35s?
  7. That is a weird statement. The USA has never held a gun to Israel's head, preventing Russia from taking Ukraine has almost nothing to do with China, and the IDF is predominantly reserve forces.
  8. I understand the equipment is in storage. I've no doubt that either transfer/sale would involve US concessions on new equipment; I just question how timely the US could respond to immediate requests were things to go sideways. I would think it is a bad time for Israel to get rid of working equipment, even if its dated. But that is for Israel to decide. I would be delighted if all that equipment made it to Ukraine.
  9. I’ll believe it when we actually see such equipment in Ukraine. I have a hard time believing Israel will part with any reserve equipment at this time. That is not a criticism, just an observation.
  10. I am curious as to exactly what message you think is being sent to Warsaw?
  11. I am aware, which is why I did not get into a more detailed post concerning the idea. We’ve argued the point ad nauseam.
  12. This assumes, as you always do, that China has any interest in supplying Russia with free weapons (or that Russia is willing to adopt major weapon systems from foreign powers at the expense of it’s own). China just wants Russia to occupy US resources as much as possible without wasting any of their own or doing any further damage to their economy. If China wants a fight, it will pick it’s own time and places, and belatedly tell Russia so they act as a sideshow if they are so willing.
  13. Ah yes, the fabled Trilateral Alliance/“limitless friendship”, I forgot. Outside of Belarus, which is effectively Russian territory anyway, I cannot imagine why any of those countries would want to host Russian weapons and troops, or how any of them would defend said missiles and troops were they attacked.
  14. Russia seems largely incapable of achieving any of those goals at this time. I am particularly puzzled by the idea of foreign hosting - where did you have in mind?
  15. Hard to tell given the way the video was cut. Certainly some things seemed to be burning. I never noticed that the missile body hits the ground before the sub munitions before.
×
×
  • Create New...