Russian special military operation in Ukraine #33

Nope, Z puppet was known as Vladimir until the western press started the war whoring late last year. Kiev has only been Kyiv since approximately 2013 in the New York Times.

On the subject of western weapons, they serve only two purposes:

1. Fraud, the Pentagon has failed its past five audits and it doesn't often get audited because to do so is political suicide. Oh sure, research and development can get expensive especially for say the B-2, B-1b, M1A1/2, but since at least World War Two (when Harry Truman made a name for himself by having the nose to sniff out a good scam [getting into the senate with the help of a Kansas City political/crime boss really helped him know a good con when he saw one] and to his credit he at least tried to stop the con game in regards to war profiteering), America's elected and appointed officials have seen war as a cash cow and a lucrative racket instead of a necessary evil. Now to be fair, sometimes we still have politicians that say holy hell that's a scam, to his credit the late John McCain [no don't block me, his and Lindsey Graham's vitriol against Russia has always been disgusting] called out the F-35 program as a scam. Sadly, the F-35 is only one of multiple scams going on, the Osprey, the all wheel fighting vehicle Rumsfeld wanted, and the protection rackets such as NATO . Yeah, quite sadly weapons development and "defense" is so expensive in the west because in addition to the oligarchs pocketing the profits at the expense of peace and their soldiers' lives, the politicians and generals get theirs. I do love when I read reports of corruption in the Russian defense industry in American newspapers, websites, and television networks owned by the same companies that are heavily invested in the US MIC. Damn, there sure is a hell of a lot of projection in those reports.

2. Sometimes these weapons are actually used by the US or its proxies in combat. In these wars if they are to be used by a client state its to make the MIC and the political and military hierarchy money. If they are used by the United States or say NATO in combat? Well American weapons are meant for low intensity wars against developing nations or industrial nations whose combat capabilities have been degraded for years by sanctions, bombing and destruction of infrastructure and military installations, or in the case of Iraq a decade of devestating and ineffective war vs Iran. In other words, they are to help US troops do whatever the hell the pentagon planners call our version of combined arms warfare that the Russians and Soviets called deep battle. I used to know, maybe its a good excuse to read Glantz again, actually it is. Its always good reason to read Glantz. ANyways, US weaponry is for short wars where to borrow from Borrell's racist behind the gardener states invade the jungle. So they were very effective in the invasion and combat stage of Iraq (both times), to some success in Vietnam (the US could hold the field of battle) but in both cases and in Afghanistan (where again the US beat the Taliban in the field but could not occupy the country) they could not win long term slogs. The US always hopes for short wars of instant gratification where they control the skies, where they control space, where the enemy's C3 (command and control, communication, and coordination) is gone, where airpower can destroy any remaining enemy armor and mechanized forces quickly. The reason "stormin" Norman Schwarzkopf causes US warhawks to cream themselves is because he did the perfect ground war as far as the US is concerned. In and out in less than a week. In Iraq II we all saw that while the US could take the whole of Iraq in less than a month, it could not win the occupation and in fact as the war and occupation dragged on endlessly the casualties and losses of equipment that used to be wonderwaffle status including the Abrams mounted.

So yes, if America fights the type of war it wants to fight, very swift war of destruction and often in complete and utter disregard of international law, against vastly inferior opponents then its weapons are very good. However, as we have seen time and again from Korea, to Vietnam, to the Occupation of Iraq, to Afhganistan, to Syria, and Ukraine its weapons are not meant for long attritional slogs and if you take away the American way of war, air supremacy, destroyed enemy armor, destroyed C3, etc then its weapons are very expensive paperweights and as Ukraine is increasingly finding out, quite useless except for minor attacks on airbases and mass terror bombings of cities and civilians.

Didn´t know this: wrote:

But this is probably old T62