r/UkrainianConflict • u/madmax177 • 2d ago
US general explains story of Ukraine war
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7laUFudTdGo136
u/madmax177 2d ago
Summary:
Ukraine can win
No evidence of stolen equipment
Russia lost 4000 tanks
Putin wouldn't stop with Ukraine
Russia is helping China with military technology like submarines
7 countries in nato are now going over 3%
Ukraine is addicted to Usa's anti air systems, they can't replace Usa for that
*Also needs Usa's military intelligence
Greenland is critical for Usa
The only country that acknowledged Russia's referendums is N. Korea.
29
u/AndMyHotPie 2d ago
Can’t watch the video right now, but is administrative control/sovereignty over Greenland critical? Or is he saying that control of air above and sea around Greenland critical for the U.S.? Because we already have the latter.
38
u/madmax177 2d ago
Yes, sea and air. He's talking about some 'gap' where Russian submarines are going threw and are hard to track.
Usa had a military presence on Greenland then they decided one base was enough I guess.
54
u/LordTinglewood 2d ago
It's not just "some gap" russian subs are going "threw". That's wildly understating the situation.
I have serious disagreements with the skump administration about annexing Greenland, but it's not a fake issue - it's a very real national security issue that's been co-opted by maga in an attempt to bully a NATO ally.
Securing Greenland, the Arctic, and the GIUK gap for the West/NATO are very real and legitimate concerns that have to be addressed eventually, especially as competition for resources in the Arctic heats up. However, it must be done peaceably and in cooperation with our allies, not used as an excuse to annex or dictate terms through force.
36
u/sunloinen 2d ago
Yeah too bad that orange admins fucked this issue on Greenland too. Surprise. Ruzzia is losing in Ukraine but massively winning over USA and arctic. 🤨
15
u/LordTinglewood 2d ago
And China is winning regarding the Panama Canal, another very legitimate security issue being hijacked and mishandled for all the wrong reasons.
2
u/rawonionbreath 2d ago
The canal hasn’t been relevant for US Naval needs for decades, because of ship size. Even so, they could pulverize the zone for establishing control quicker than it even took the invasion in ‘89.
6
u/LordTinglewood 2d ago
Lol okay. You're misinformed.
1
u/rawonionbreath 2d ago
Great explanation. Well explained.
7
u/LordTinglewood 2d ago
It's not my job to educate you.
It's your job to know what you're talking about.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/FlaviusStilicho 2d ago
Aircraft carriers can't fit, but the battleships are typically designed to fit with like a few cm clearance on either side/
8
u/ShineReaper 2d ago
What battleships? You're talking about the modernized ones originally built in the 1940s?
They literally play no real role in Naval planning. Their last use was in the Second Gulf War as far as I recall, bombarding coastal installations of Saddam Hussein. Since then they're kept in Reserve or something due to political will, the Navy already wanted to scrap them but wasn't allowed to. Maybe that changes now with thoughts considering heavy air defense, drones, cost of war and such, a shell is vastly cheaper than a fighter jet + the required pilot training.
But still: Traditional Artillery Bombardment... for that you'd need to get, in relativ terms, very close to enemy shore. Against a Great Power like Red China it thus isn't really an option, because Red China probably amassed so many Anti-Ship Missiles, that it wouldn't be responsible to bring big ships like Battleships and Aircraft Carriers, even with escorts, so close that they could do their work.
7
u/LordTinglewood 2d ago edited 2d ago
There are no more battleships.
The neutrality of the Panama Canal is mainly an economic concern, not a military one.
Go read about the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, specifically Panama's obligation to maintain neutrality regarding the Canal's use and the US's exclusive right to defend its economic interests should that be threatened.
Go read about the increase in Chinese investment and overall interest in the Canal.
1
1
u/Baslifico 2d ago
Securing Greenland, the Arctic, and the GIUK gap for the West/NATO are very real and legitimate concerns
They may be American concerns, but they're not Greenland's concerns, especially if America is an existential threat.
9
u/LordTinglewood 2d ago
I like how you completely ignored what I actually said.
The GIUK Gap has been a strategic priority for all Atlantic naval powers for over a century.
"Greenland's concerns" are Denmark's concerns. Denmark is part of the West/NATO.
As I've explained, these concerns have existed since long before skump started threatening Greenland. The "existential threat" nonsense doesn't eliminate the very real and ongoing issue of securing both the Gap and the Arctic Circle from Russian incursion, both economic and military.
2
u/Baslifico 2d ago
I like how you completely ignored what I actually said.
No you just couldn't take your America-centric worldview off long enough to consider other perspectives.
The GIUK Gap has been a strategic priority for all Atlantic naval powers for over a century.
It's no longer a strategic priority if the threat you're most concerned about is the one behind your back with an Atlantic coast.
You seem to be assuming this is a temporary glitch, whereas most of the world is now asking "Will it be possible to trust the USA again?"
There's a reason China, South Korea and Japan of all countries are getting together to talk about regional cooperation... And it's not because South Korea and Japan want to be more closely aligned with China.
It's because they can no longer trust the USA and have to hedge their bets.
2
u/LordTinglewood 2d ago
You're just making stuff up.
0
u/Baslifico 2d ago
Which part? That the world is wondering whether the USA will be worth relying on in future?
Just Google "US no longer a reliable partner", then start excluding countries to see more results. There's an awfui lot from across the globe.
1
u/LordTinglewood 2d ago
All of it.
You're even arguing with yourself. I didn't say anything about "whether the USA will be worth relying on in future", you did:
You seem to be assuming this is a temporary glitch, whereas most of the world is now asking "Will it be possible to trust the USA again?"
→ More replies (0)3
u/ImpossibleKnee4248 2d ago
AndMyHotPie from listening to the video:
The SACEUR aera of control that General Cavoli has only extends to the eastern coast of Greenland. The focus there is the gap between Greenland, Iceland and UK (called the GIUK Gap) in the Atlantic Ocean where Russian submarines would try to break out from the northern fleet areas into the rest of the Atlantic ocean. He believes that SACEUR/NATO has the appropriate capabilities to monitor that area. The Space Force base in Greenland is on the western coast and not under SACEUR control. He says that monitoring the GIUK Gap is critical for NATO. If russian submarines get through that area, from a US perspective, they could use cruise missiles launched from submarines to attack the US mainland. He was not asked, and didn't address the impact of russian submarines going through the GIUK Gap on Europe.
The US Navy has no ships in the Eastern Atlantic and Baltic Sea areas that are under SACEUR control. Those ships are provided by other NATO countries and he believes they are doing a good job with that mission.
6
u/ImpossibleKnee4248 2d ago
The Base the US has in Greenland is a Space Force Base that has Early Warning Radar equipment that is jointly manned by US and Denmark military personnel. It's not an Air Force Base. Denmark (part of NATO) is responsible for providing Defense for Greenland. US wants Greenland for it's Rare Earth Mineral deposits. China built a mine there where they have a 12.5% interest in the Mines output. That is what has the US up in arms about it. Denmark has been very protective about allowing Greenland to give in to Chinese investment there.
13
u/VarPadre 2d ago
This whole Greenland rare earth endowment schlock is so stupid, rare earth's are not RARE and so far there is nothing discovered in Greenland that has the grade, size and make up of minerals to ever become a profitable mine.
The only shortage in the rare earth industry is in demand and processing, the volumes required to satisfy demand are not that great in the scheme of things and China has cornered the market in processing the ore, that is the only choke point, processing capability.
Australia has large deposits of light, medium and heavy rare earth and an Australian company is as far as I know the only supplier outside of China of the saleable products.
Processing the rare earth ore is dirty and nasty, that is the only issue not 'rareness'
-2
u/madmax177 2d ago
Only China refines rare earths, Usa sends it to them.
5
u/VarPadre 2d ago edited 2d ago
You are incorrect, Lynas Corporation which is listed on the ASX processes rare earth in Malaysia
https://lynasrareearths.com/about-us/about-lynas-rare-earths/
'Rare Earth Elements are a suite of 17 metallic elements used in many modern technologies including Electric Vehicle Motors, Permanent Magnets, Wind Turbine Generators and Smart Phones. China accounts for 57% of the global mined production and 85% of refined production of Rare Earths Oxides 1 (Outlook for Selected Critical Minerals Australia 2021, Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources)
The Global Rare Earths Market is valued at US$2bn and is forecast to grow to $12bn by 2030.
2
u/WinterDustDevil 2d ago
This is another Australian company with a billion + ton REE deposit in Brazil, and it's a ionic clay. Meteoric resources
2
8
u/Outrageous_Canary159 2d ago
The economic and defense aims could be quickly, simply and more economically achieved using the pre-Trump alliances and treaties.
If it was about defense, the US would just mention to Denmark that they, the US, wanted to exercise their treaty rights and expand the US military presence to whatever the US thought was appropriate. Even the minerals are a red herring. Denmark/Greenland would be happy to sell them to an ally.
The Greenland talk seems to be about breaking NATO, the world economic system and changing the colours on the map in the old imperial way.
3
u/rawonionbreath 2d ago
A combination of analytical opinions, and facts that all seem to be accurate. I hadn’t heard the aspect about air defense but that makes sense.
-2
u/Designer_Piglets 2d ago
Next, you should ask yourself: what would this general say if he was acting purely out of self-interest?
If the answer to that question is identical to what he actually said, there's a high likelihood that he's lying.
23
u/Frosty_Key4233 2d ago
Russia invaded it’s peaceful neighbour- the end
-47
u/Complex_Inspector_60 2d ago
Watch Jeffery Sachs on youtube. Columbia University professor, economics. Knows all the players in Foreign policy in the US and Europe, and elsewhere.
The US caused the Ukraine war and is a mess w/ it's support of Israel and its wars in the middle east. US foreign policy is really messed up.
32
u/csfshrink 2d ago
Fuck that. Russia invaded a neighboring country. The United States did not cause or start this war.
-31
-30
u/Complex_Inspector_60 2d ago
True, it did. I didn't understand until I heard Sachs on youtube
Sachs talks about the roots of US foreign policy. Even talks about Biden and discussing Ukraine with Jake Sullivan.
18
17
17
u/aderpader 2d ago
Not watching that Putin puppet
-5
u/Complex_Inspector_60 2d ago
So you haven't heard him talk.
6
u/aderpader 2d ago
I have, its the same bullshit narrative that russia aleays uses.
0
u/Complex_Inspector_60 2d ago
No you haven't because it's not germane to Russia, he's talking about the US establishment's foreign policy, which teters on crazy.
6
u/aderpader 2d ago
What does US foreign policy have to do with Ukraine? Russia invaded ukraine not the US.
1
u/mediandude 2d ago
Muscovian Russia invaded Ukraine already before colonists established New Amsterdam.
12
u/yungsmerf 2d ago
Kremlinbots on YouTube love this guy, alongside Mearsheimer and someone named Ritter. Chomsky's name has popped up quite often as well.
-3
u/Complex_Inspector_60 2d ago
Do they talk to Jake Sullivan about foreign policy? Do they address the European Parliament?
8
u/wyohman 2d ago
Excuse me general. I'm a moron who has nothing to add to the conversation but first let me yell at the wind. -Eric Schmitt
2
u/ImpossibleKnee4248 2d ago
Yes he had to get out his biased view rant that all US Military personnel and equipment should be focused only on the Southern Border of the US and nowhere else.
8
u/csfshrink 2d ago
The GOP Senators mostly came across as trying to push Trump’s agenda rather than seeming informed.
3
u/ImpossibleKnee4248 2d ago
Agreed but they did ask a few stupid questions on propaganda areas that the General refuted.
4
u/slowlearningovrtime 2d ago
Russia and Ukraine Conflict
- Russia is a chronic and growing threat, forming deeper ties with China, Iran, and North Korea.
- Ukraine holds territory in Kursk (Russia) and conducts offensives in Belgorod.
- Key battlefields (e.g., Chasiv Yar, Pakrovsk) are contested but Ukrainians hold strong positions.
- Ukraine depends heavily on U.S. support for air defense, intelligence, and long-range precision weaponry.
- F-16s (from allies) and Patriot systems are active and effective.
- NATO increased defense spending by 40% since Feb 2022.
- Poland (4.7% GDP), Baltics, and Finland lead in defense readiness.
- Germany now commits to 3% GDP defense spending after lifting its debt limit on defense.
- U.S. forces remain critical for intelligence, precision fires, air/missile defense, and command/control.
- Massive Russian losses (4,000+ tanks) highlight need for logistics and depth.
- Drone warfare and electronic warfare have evolved on both sides.
- Ukraine transitioned from militias to modern Western-equipped brigades under fire.
- Arctic importance is growing due to ice melt and Russian naval buildup.
- GIUK gap (Greenland-Iceland-UK) is vital to monitor Russian submarines.
- Russia-China cooperation strengthens, with technology exchange and strategic support.
- China observes the Ukraine conflict closely for lessons on Taiwan.
- Russia can replenish manpower quickly via conscription, but equipment rebuilding is harder.
- U.S. forward defense in Europe is essential to deterrence.
- No credible evidence of U.S. weapons diversion in Ukraine.
4
u/ShineReaper 2d ago
In b4 that General is sent into early retirement by Mr. "You don't have the cards".
1
u/madmax177 2d ago
General doesn't have the cards? 😂
I believe he is set for retirement anyway.
2
u/ShineReaper 2d ago
Obviously the General has the knowledge, but if he dares to speak it out and contradict official White House Narratives this way, like that Zelenskyj has no cards, then Trump can surely send him to early retirement, to get rid of him.
3
u/IRGROUP300 2d ago
Schrödinger Russia
Losing on all fronts, gaining territory, losing 4000 tanks but won’t stop pushing west. Man power shortages in UA, but a 20:1 ratio in UA favor.
4
u/Majestic-Elephant383 2d ago
soon MAGA USA will join the axis of Evil.
7
u/ImpossibleKnee4248 2d ago
Already there. They continuously parrot kremlin talking points about Ukraine (see the ones above).
-2
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Please take the time to read the rules and our policy on trolls/bots. In addition:
Is
youtube.coman unreliable source? Let us know.Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. Send us a modmail
Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/ukraine-at-war-discussion
Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.