A few days ago russia beseeched China to supply it with weapons, ammunition, food and war materiel.
Even if China agrees - it would take a month or more to deliver these supplies and they won't change the war's outcome.
Let me explain:
1/9
It is 5,500 km from the railway crossing at Manzhouli in China to belgorod, where russia operates its main railway hub for the invasion of Ukraine.
russian trains will take a week to cover this distance, but it will take China even longer to get materiel to Manzhouli.
2/9
China's People's Liberation Army has almost no russian equipment in service. China's most modern equipment is all made in China and russia can't use it.
China could give russia older stuff and ammunition, like i.e. BM-21 Grad copies and/or the rockets for it.
3/9
If China decides to supply more complex systems to russia (tanks, IFVs, etc.), then China will have to take them out of its own units, remove classified Chinese tech (i.e. secure comms, targeting systems, etc.), load it onto trains and bring those trains to Manzhouli.
4/9
It will take the first trains 7-10 days to arrive at Manzhouli, where the trains have to be unloaded and then reloaded on russian trains as the Chinese railways uses a 1,435 mm gauge, while russia uses a 1,524 mm gauge.
5/9
After about 10+ days the first trains might cross into russia.
Then it's 7-8 days to Belgorod. Another 1-2 days to unload the trains and load the supplies on trucks.
Then those trucks have to enter Ukraine... and we all know what happens to russian supply trucks in Ukraine. 6/9
So even if China supplies ammo, food, and materiel it won't fix russia's logistic problems, as russian logistics suffer from a lack of trucks, drivers, spares, maintenance, and an astounding lack of convoy security.
And there is nothing China or russia can do to fix that.
7/9
And if China supplies more complex systems, then russia will have to re-install the tech China removed, and russia will have to give its troops at least a few days to acclimatize themselves with the new systems (where everything will be labeled in Mandarin).
8/9
And if China should fly in materiel: a transport plane can fly in 0.25% of what a train can transport.
In short: even if China should supply russia with materiel, it will be too little, it will be too late, and it won't change the fact that russia is losing the war.
9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
These are the 🇬🇧 UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.
First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps 1/9
to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.
But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9
down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and 3/9
🇬🇧 decline: Only one SSN is operational, three are no longer fit for service and got no crews. One carrier has no air wing and has been sent to rust away. The other carrier only has an air wing when the RAF cedes a third of its fighters. Only 1 destroyer is operational. The
1/5
frigates are falling apart. New Type 31 frigates won't get Mark 41 VLS or bow Sonar. The RAF took 48 of its Eurofighters apart, because it got no money for spares. The army has just 14 155mm howitzers. The Ajax vehicle is injuring the troops it carries. The Warrior IFVs are
2/5
outdated and falling apart. They amphibious ships are not deployable / crewed for lack of funds. The UK has not anti-ballistic missile system (e.g.Patriot). There is only money for 12 F-35A, the smallest F-35A order on the planet. The tank force is at its smallest since 1938.
3/5
International Law is worthless paper if you cannot and will not back it up with military power.
Dictators do not care for international law. But they fear the US Air Force. The moment the US signaled it would no longer back "international law" putin annexed Crimea and Assad
1/10
gassed his people. International Law is what defence laggards hide behind to not have to spend for their own security (hoping the US will save them from their irresponsibility) .
European politicians like to grandstand about "international law" but NO European nation has the
2/n
the means (nor the will) to the enforce it. European politicians grandstanding about international law always do so in the belief that the US will enforce their balderdash.
So European politicians lecturing the US about "international law" now are utter morons, because they
3/n
All this "NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war in Ukraine" is ridiculous, because:
• of course NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war IN (!) Ukraine,
• because that is not how a NATO-russia war will be fought. NATO, even just European NATO,
1/4
fields: 244 F-35, 403 Eurofighter, 183 Rafale, 177 modern F-16, 3 Gripen E, and 896 older fighter types.
A total of 1,906+ fighters (without the US Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force; and with more new fighters entering European service every week).
russia, when counting
2/4
generously can't even put half that fighter strength into the field, and the 1,010 modern European NATO fighters would devastate russia's fighter force.
With NATO air supremacy comes absolute dominance of the battlefield. Every russian moving near the front would get bombed
3/4
Gripen fans keep hyping the Gripen with fake claims & as long as they do, I will counter them:
Scandinavian Air Force officer about the Gripen E: It can either be fully fueled or fully armed or flown from short runways. Never can 2 of these things be done at the same time.
1/25
The Gripen fans keep claiming that the Gripen has a better range than the F-35 and can fly from short runways... then admit that its max. range can only be achieved with external fuel tanks, which weigh so much that the Gripen E can no longer fly from short runways.
2/n
External fuel tanks also mean: the Gripen becomes slower, the radar cross section increases (making detection more likely), the fuel consumption increases,... and even with all 3 external fuel tanks the Gripen E carries 1,340 kg less fuel than the F-35A carries internally.
3/n
Gripen fans continue to spam my mention with claims how fantastic Sweden's Bas 90 and Gripen combination is... and that it would work for Canada's North too...
Ok, let's quickly compare Canada's three northern territories (Yukon, Northwest, Nunavut) and Sweden... ... 1/6
Land area:
🇸🇪 450,295 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
🇨🇦 terr.: 3,593,589 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
The land area of just the three territories (without Canada's 10 provinces) is already 8 times bigger than all of Sweden...
(In total Canada's land area is 9,984,670 km2
2/6
(3,855,100 sq mi) or 22 times Sweden).
Population:
🇸🇪 10.61 million
🇨🇦 terr.: 0.13 million
Sweden's population is 81.6 times bigger than that of the three territories... and if you look at population density:
🇸🇪 23,6/km2
🇨🇦 terr.: 0,013/km2
3/6