how russia dies

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Although generally I don't make much of a habit of watching videos as I prefer to read instead, I watched and recommend this one based on who narrated it.

Peter Zeihan was an analyst for years with the excellent Stratfor geopolitics consultancy, and was said to be their "de facto chief economist" for a few years.

Additionally, he wrote Disunited Nations: The Scramble for Power in an Ungoverned World, which I consider one of the top ten books I read in 2020 or 2021.

.

score!!!! glad that CM liked this video even tho he doesn't watch videos, he made exception for Peter Zeihan's video.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

1:08 mark.

The rivers don't flow "in the right direction" in Russia.

What the fuck?

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I learned rivers can flow in the wrong direction.

believe hes talking about Russian politics.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

what???

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

believe hes talking about Russian politics.

what???

First, Peter Zeihan is talking about the climate and geography as he makes that statement. So he sounds like a dumbass.

Second, if you mean to question my gif when quoting the good Captain: I mean to give him props for a very good read.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

score!!!! glad that CM liked this video even tho he doesn't watch videos, he made exception for Peter Zeihan's video.

LOL! ... I always like to see people score (especially if it's with the lady of your dreams on your recent date!)

In any event ...

It isn't so much that I don't like to watch videos, but rather that I like to be sure they're narrated by someone I know of or have reason to believe that they have judgment or knowledge worthy of the time investment. Besides, I'm always looking for documentary videos to watch while on the elliptical.

(I'm into multitasking!)

.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

1:08 mark.

The rivers don't flow "in the right direction" in Russia.

What the fuck?

Zeihan zipped through a few points at a pretty rapid pace, so I can see why someone might consider the comment about rivers "going in the wrong direction" to be enigmatically bizarre. Perhaps the narrator should have paused for just a moment to explain what the fuck he was talking about.

Here it is:

Consider the fundamental differences between the predominant direction of river flows in the USA and in Russia.

Russia is virtually landlocked along almost all of its western and southern borders, and its rivers primarily flow to seas along its northern coastline -- at latitudes not far from the Arctic Circle.

By contrast, American rivers generally flow to the Gulf of Mexico.

Why is this relevant?

In three words: "Warm water ports!" (They are highly desirable not only for maintaining the ability to project naval power, but also to maximize the efficiency of international trade.)

Think back to all the wars that imperial Russia waged against the Ottoman Empire over a multi-century period. Although there was obviously more than one reason for these conflicts, access to the oceans through ports in the Black Sea was a primary concern to the Russians. This access depends on transit through the Dardanelles, as well as through the even narrower straits in the Istanbul area. (To describe this set of conditions as "suboptimal" would be quite an understatement!)

By contrast, the US has easy access to warm water ports in any number of locations.

Now look at the courses of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and their proximity to many millions of acres of some of the best farmland on the planet.

When American grain producers vastly cranked up their production of wheat and other crops in the immediate post-Civil War era, they were able to float ginormous quantities of grain down the "Mighty Mississip" to the New Orleans port and then to the world's markets. (And at much lower cost than if it had to be carried by rail or by any other means.)

Because of this efficiency, Russia could no longer compete globally with US agriculture. Inexpensive American grain played a large and growing role in feeding Europe's working class for decades, both in urban and rural areas.

This was possible largely because of our warm water ports -- and, yes, because our most important rivers "run the right way."

Advantage, America!

.

[Texas Contrarian]

Recently I saw an opinion piece on Russia's historical difficulties arising from its relatively unfortunate geographic situation, and it somehow reminded me of this excellent article from 2016:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmau...h=592eb1b023ec

The author tells the story with 10 maps and cogent narrative, melding geography, history, and economics.

After reading this, any American can better appreciate our relatively fortunate geographic setting.

(Of course, we can appreciate even more that we didn't have anything like the Bolshevik revolution a century ago, followed by 70 years of disastrous Communist totalitarianism!)

.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

...(Of course, we can appreciate even more that we didn't have anything like the Bolshevik revolution a century ago, followed by 70 years of disastrous Communist totalitarianism!)...

I expect you have read more than a few prospectus' along your way. The all have the same general disclaimer: The past performance does not guarantee future performance. Alls I'm saying is, I hope your statement still holds true in the future history books for us, but ATM it's looking more like our future history than not - regardless of our geography.

BTW: All our rivers do not flow to the Gulf. I believe it is more like 2/3rds-3/4ths, but we have two other oceans around us.Map Shows Every River That Flows to the Mighty Mississippi

[eccieuser9500]

Third like.

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Zeihan zipped through a few points at a pretty rapid pace, so I can see why someone might consider the comment about rivers "going in the wrong direction" to be enigmatically bizarre. Perhaps the narrator should have paused for just a moment to explain what the fuck he was talking about.

Here it is:

Consider the fundamental differences between the predominant direction of river flows in the USA and in Russia.

Russia is virtually landlocked along almost all of its western and southern borders, and its rivers primarily flow to seas along its northern coastline -- at latitudes not far from the Arctic Circle.

By contrast, American rivers generally flow to the Gulf of Mexico.

Why is this relevant?

In three words: "Warm water ports!" (They are highly desirable not only for maintaining the ability to project naval power, but also to maximize the efficiency of international trade.)

Think back to all the wars that imperial Russia waged against the Ottoman Empire over a multi-century period. Although there was obviously more than one reason for these conflicts, access to the oceans through ports in the Black Sea was a primary concern to the Russians. This access depends on transit through the Dardanelles, as well as through the even narrower straits in the Istanbul area. (To describe this set of conditions as "suboptimal" would be quite an understatement!)

By contrast, the US has easy access to warm water ports in any number of locations.

Now look at the courses of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and their proximity to many millions of acres of some of the best farmland on the planet.

When American grain producers vastly cranked up their production of wheat and other crops in the immediate post-Civil War era, they were able to float ginormous quantities of grain down the "Mighty Mississip" to the New Orleans port and then to the world's markets. (And at much lower cost than if it had to be carried by rail or by any other means.)

Because of this efficiency, Russia could no longer compete globally with US agriculture. Inexpensive American grain played a large and growing role in feeding Europe's working class for decades, both in urban and rural areas.

This was possible largely because of our warm water ports -- and, yes, because our most important rivers "run the right way."

Advantage, America!

.

Post response par excellence. Shit flows North in Russia.

Transportation and food.

What is logistics? A college history teacher, disabled Nam veteran (double amputy), and pretty cool guy from what I remember, once told the class "Beans. Bullets. Band-aids. That's logistics.

Russia needs Western Ukraine.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Russia's biggest issue in Ukraine is their armor is shit. the problem is they designed an auto-loader for the shells that was intended to remove manual loading of the main gun but left the turret more vulnerable to attack. their armored personnel vehicles also have this design flaw.


Ukraine is decapitating Russian tanks due to a 'jack-in-the-box' design flaw, reports say

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-d...090752778.html


Alia Shoaib
Sat, April 30, 2022, 4:07 AM




A destroyed Russian military tank with its turret blown off, pictured on April 21, 2022 in Dmytrivka, Ukraine.Alexey Furman/Getty Images

• Russian tanks have a design flaw making them susceptible to being decapitated in Ukrainian attacks, CNN reported.
• Unlike Western tanks, Russian ones carry multiple shells of ammunition in their turrets.
• The flaw means the Russian tank crews are sitting ducks, experts told CNN.

Images of destroyed Russian tanks with their turrets blown off have become common since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine.


Experts say that Russian tanks have a design flaw that makes them vulnerable to being decapitated by Ukrainian attacks, called a "jack-in-the-box effect," CNN reported.


The issue lies in the fact that Russian tanks carry their supply of up to 40 shells in their turrets, which means that even an indirect hit can cause the entire ammunition store to explode.


"What we are witnessing with Russian tanks is a design flaw," Sam Bendett, an adviser with the Russia Studies Program at CNA, told CNN.


"Any successful hit quickly ignites the ammo causing a massive explosion, and the turret is literally blown off."


One video posted on Twitter appeared to show a Russian tank turret that had landed on the fifth floor of an apartment building in Mariupol after an attack.


A similar video from Chernihiv showed a turret lodged on the second floor of a house.









The issue is particularly prevalent in Russian-made T-72 and T-80 tanks because they have autoloading mechanisms that typically store about 20 rounds when fully loaded, Steven Zaloga, an expert on Russian and Soviet armor, told military publication Task & Purpose.


He added that the internal volume of Russian tanks is much smaller than Western ones.


"If you get a penetration to the interior of the tank, there's a high probability you're going to hit something," Zaloga told the outlet.


it is not a new issue– many Russian-made T-72 tanks used by Iraq during the Gulf wars in 1991 and 2003 were similarly decapitated.


Nicholas Drummond, a defense industry analyst and former British Army officer, told CNN that Russia hadn't learned the lessons from Iraq, which is why many of its tanks in Ukraine feature similar design flaws.


The flaw means the Russian tank crews are sitting ducks, Drummond told the outlet.


"If you don't get out within the first second, you're toast," he said.


Despite the newer Russian T-80 and T-90 tanks having upgraded armor, they suffered from similar ammunition loading systems problems, making them vulnerable to the same fate.


The issue also affects other Russian vehicles deployed in Ukraine, such as the BMD-4 infantry fighting vehicle, operated by a crew of three and can carry another five soldiers.


Drummond told CNN that the vehicle was a "mobile coffin" that was "just obliterated" when hit by a rocket.



Russia's BMD-4M, a new generation amphibious infantry fighting vehicle, seen at a fair in Kubinka town in Moscow, Russia on June 25, 2019.Sefa Karacan/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)


Open-source intelligence monitoring website Oryx has documented at least 300 Russian tanks destroyed in Ukraine, and over 280 that have been damaged, abandoned, or captured, as of April 29.


The site only includes destroyed tanks of which photo or video evidence is available, so the true figure is likely to be much higher.


British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace on Monday estimated that Russia had lost as many as 580 tanks in Ukraine.
The latest statistics, published by the Ukrainian Land Forces, claim 873 Russian tanks have been destroyed, along with 2238 armored vehicles, per reports.


Read the original article on Business Insider

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Recently I saw an opinion piece on Russia's historical difficulties arising from its relatively unfortunate geographic situation, and it somehow reminded me of this excellent article from 2016:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmau...h=592eb1b023ec

The author tells the story with 10 maps and cogent narrative, melding geography, history, and economics.

After reading this, any American can better appreciate our relatively fortunate geographic setting.

(Of course, we can appreciate even more that we didn't have anything like the Bolshevik revolution a century ago, followed by 70 years of disastrous Communist totalitarianism!)

.

thanks for the interesting article. its as I thought regarding russia situation. the siberian region is sparsely population.


if americans had control of that part of russia, they would develop the hell out of it. the russian leaders were only interested in conquest; not development as they conquered eastern countries.

the maps bear that out.

[dilbert firestorm]

ukr lost alot of their russian made tanks. i believe they lost something like 90%.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Third like.




Post response par excellence. Shit flows North in Russia.

Transportation and food.

What is logistics? A college history teacher, disabled Nam veteran (double amputy), and pretty cool guy from what I remember, once told the class "Beans. Bullets. Band-aids. That's logistics.

Russia needs Western Ukraine.

Amputee

I thought I corrected it.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Russia's biggest issue in Ukraine is their armor is shit. the problem is they designed an auto-loader for the shells that was intended to remove manual loading of the main gun but left the turret more vulnerable to attack. their armored personnel vehicles also have this design flaw.




Read the original article on Business Insider

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

if americans had control of that part of russia, they would develop the hell out of it. the russian leaders were only interested in conquest; not development as they conquered eastern countries.

the maps bear that out.

Food! (Or lack there of) Not arms. Nor oil, is Russia's biggest issue in Ukraine.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

ukr lost alot of their russian made tanks. i believe they lost something like 90%.

because all their tanks were russian made tanks. bahahhaaaaa


in WWII the USSR kept several B-29 bombers that had to emergency land in Russia. and they copied them down the the last rivet. and with all the design flaws. the B-29 was rushed into service without the proper test time. of course by the end of WWII we had corrected these flaws. the jet age made the B-29 obsolete within a few years after WWII


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing...t_Tupolev_Tu-4

Soviet Tupolev Tu-4

Main article: Tupolev Tu-4

Tupolev Tu-4 at Monino museum


At the end of WWII, Soviet development of modern four-engined heavy bombers lagged behind the west. The Petlyakov Pe-8—the sole heavy bomber operated by the Soviet Air Forces—first flew in 1936. Intended to replace the obsolete Tupolev TB-3, only 93 Pe-8s were built by the end of WWII. During 1944 and 1945 four B-29s made emergency landings in Soviet territory after bombing raids on Japanese Manchuria and Japan. In accordance with Soviet neutrality in the Pacific War, the bombers were interned by the Soviets despite American requests for their return. Rather than return the aircraft, the Soviets reverse engineered the American B-29s and used them as a pattern for the Tupolev Tu-4.[71]