Politics

I have trouble reconciling your two points in the first paragraph. Biden was always incompetent and Democrats chose him because he would win?

No one will claim that Biden was a uniquely talented senator, but he did have experience. Obama chose him to win over moderates who were uncomfortable with an inexperienced liberal presidential candidate. Democrats chose Biden in 2020 for a similar reason. Or at least that is how I saw it.

Biden does not naturally inhabit the role of leader as well as he does that of a consensus builder. This can be an asset when surrounded with the best advisors, but also a detriment as we have seen when Biden has been left to his own devices.

Where I have lost faith in the Biden administration is with his advisors and appointees. His attempts at building bridges with the left flank of the party saw an influx of young “idealistic” staffers. It is also no secret that Obama’s former advisors think very poorly of Biden’s people, and yet he is sticking with them.

Perhaps most damning is that I have heard multiple accounts of WH and campaign staffers speaking off the record about Biden’s abysmal polling. Instead of privately being concerned, everyone is totally convinced that the polls are dead wrong and that if they stay the course they will sail to reelection.

I think it was conservative writer David Brooks who once said that choosing between republicans and democrats is choosing between political maleficence and political malpractice. I find this sentiment to be especially true when the candidates are Trump and Biden.

With the current direction of the Democratic Party, I find it increasingly unlikely that I will be voting for many Democrats. The party is simply moving too far to the left for me. However, that does not mean I am going to start voting MAGA. Republicans need to field sensible moderate candidates. As I have said before, whichever party pivots toward the center first will win in a landslide.
Saul i appreciate most of your comments. I will however have to say if you see Biden as a better concensus builder than a leader.... that is saying a lot as to just how bad he is! I would have fully agreed with your final comment a couple months ago, however Trump seems to really be well ahead and on his game right now.

Back to a comment I made some time back that you questioned me on.... That Biden and these Democrats/Liberals in charge right now, are evil...

I was traveling but caught parts of how this Administration apparently told the FBI to use "deadly force" during the raid on Mar-a-Lago! And instructed Agents to NOT wear identification jackets or vests. But rather go in wearing polo shirts.

To raid the home of a former president with guards and Secret Service Agents present under those orders could only be to attempt to create a shooting situation in the hopes people and even the former president might be killed!

If that is not rooted in a deep evil, I don't know how else you could explain it.
 
Saul i appreciate most of your comments. I will however have to say if you see Biden as a better concensus builder than a leader.... that is saying a lot as to just how bad he is! I would have fully agreed with your final comment a couple months ago, however Trump seems to really be well ahead and on his game right now.

Back to a comment I made some time back that you questioned me on.... That Biden and these Democrats/Liberals in charge right now, are evil...

I was traveling but caught parts of how this Administration apparently told the FBI to use "deadly force" during the raid on Mar-a-Lago! And instructed Agents to NOT wear identification jackets or vests. But rather go in wearing polo shirts.

To raid the home of a former president with guards and Secret Service Agents present under those orders could only be to attempt to create a shooting situation in the hopes people and even the former president might be killed!

If that is not rooted in a deep evil, I don't know how else you could explain it.
Exactly.
 
I understand and share your concerns, except for Sears... I think the writing was on the wall for department stores years ago with the widespread adoption of online shopping. In my opinion one of the major reasons for the sale that can't be overlooked is that VSTO is a publicly traded company, so they have to worry about shareholders. With the constant threat of litigation against firearms (and potentially ammo companies) by the anti-gun lobby any time there is a shooting, you can see how they would want to get out of the business.
If I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure the Czech Republic has some of the most gun friendly laws in the EU. So it makes sense that they would be interested in acquiring the company, to both support recreational shooting and hunting as well as potentially cash in on production for European NATO members anticipated increase in ammo demands.

The list of vulnerabilities we have in regards to Chinese control over manufacturing is much longer than Vista being sold to a Czech company. Many people are perfectly fine with doing business with China, even if it directly funds and supports weapons development for the PLA. Ammo production is one area I'm confident the US could turn on pretty quickly should the need arise. Electronics at scale? Aluminum production? Heavy manufacturing? Mass production of FPV drones? Optical quality glass on a large scale? Those are areas I'm not so sure.

In the meantime... there are two US ammo companies that come to mind that seem to be very 2A focused that are probably worth supporting...

Fenix Ammunition
https://fenixammo.com/

Advanced Armament Company (Palmetto State Armory's new ammo branch)
https://palmettostatearmory.com/brands/advanced-armament/ammo-reloading/ammo.html

They aren't really putting out hunting ammunition right now, but I imagine with more support they would likely venture into that market.
Maybe you’re right and I overreacted. Time will telll I guess?
 
Army's new rifle is designed by Sig Sauer which is owned by a foreign company. Also, it is not like we would be importing the ammo and components from overseas. The manufacturing plants are here in the USA.

In regard to "corporate greed", the company has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, not sell assets on the cheap to US based companies.

Same type of arguments is being made regarding the sale of US Steel to Nippon Steel (as an aside my daughter facilitated the deal on the US Steel side), the US based competitor which had offered significantly less money started waving the flag as they wanted to buy the company on the cheap.
Maybe you’re right and I overreacted. I do have a problem with “shareholders” deciding the direction and outcomes of any corporation for profit that involves the manufacturing of hardware or technology that MAY now or in the future compromise our National Security. I guess I’m just cynical that way.
 
Maybe you’re right and I overreacted. Time will telll I guess?
For sure. I totally get where you're coming from though man, it sucks to see things go away or get worse. Coleman and Cabela's used to be quality stuff, iconic even, not the case anymore. The "Wal-Martification" of everything is kind of tragic.
 
Is that still the case? I thought SIG USA split off from their German mother company ?

Edit: so both the German and US company are owned by L&O holdings. But the US company is standing on its own feet.
Interesting.
 
Maybe you’re right and I overreacted. I do have a problem with “shareholders” deciding the direction and outcomes of any corporation for profit that involves the manufacturing of hardware or technology that MAY now or in the future compromise our National Security. I guess I’m just cynical that way.
Well, without the shareholders infusing capital you would not have the hardware or the technology, so I'd say they get a say in the direction of the company. :unsure:

IMHO, supply chain is more crucial than who owns a company based here in the USA. We saw that with the chip shortage and a variety of other items during Covid.
 
My former neighbor writes on substack.

Both parties hate each other. Here's where it began.
Guess who was in the middle of it.

RENÉ MARROU
MAY 24, 2024



Joe Biden depicted in a 1987 editorial cartoon as a Native American looking for scalps. Hey, it was another era.
We live in an era of bad feeling in the United States. The nation is evenly split between liberal and conservative, and a glance at any social media site or even the nightly news will show you that neither side has any interest in compromise.

In case you’re wondering, it’s all the Democrats’ fault.

Thanks for reading MARROU ON MEDIA ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.


Subscribe
Oh, both sides say that about the other, but I can prove it. It all started September 15, 1987, when federal judge Robert Bork appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing on his nomination to the Supreme Court. Until then, such hearings had been collegial affairs: senators who were lawyers talking to highly-placed judges who were also lawyers.

In the summer of 1986 the entire Senate had voted to approve Antonin Scalia as a Supreme Court Justice by a vote of 98-0, and everyone knew he was conservative. But when Ronald Reagan, hated by the media and other Democrats, appointed Bork the next year something changed. What changed was Democrats thinking Bork might help reverse Roe versus Wade, that abortion-for-all decision made 14 years earlier with absolutely no connection to the Constitution. You might remember what Teddy Kennedy said about Bork in the Senate:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids…” and so on. None of it was true and Kennedy knew it, but Democrats needed an excuse to turn against a perfectly respectable judge when they’d unanimously approved his near-twin just a few months earlier.


Robert Bork. Chewed up and spit out.
Kennedy’s feigned shock over Bork’s supposed radicalism were pretty strong words for a guy who’d committed manslaughter 18 years earlier. He left a young woman, Mary Jo Kopechne (Ko-PECK-knee), in a sinking car—-his car, which he’d driven off a bridge into water near Martha’s Vineyard. Kennedy fought hard against an autopsy in the case, which made many observers think the pretty young blonde had been pregnant with his child and Kennedy had decided to take the easy way out. Further speculation was that the 28-year-old Kopechne, an observant Catholic, had refused an abortion. Kennedy, wearing a neck support to seem less guilty, needed his much-cheated-on wife to accompany him to Kopechne’s funeral to help polish his tarnished reputation.


The Kennedys were royalty in Massachusetts; his only punishment was pleading guilty to leaving the scene of an accident when murder charges might have been more appropriate.

You might know the young senator who presided over those Bork hearings—Joe Biden. Even then Biden was desperate to be president—he’d announced his candidacy for the 1988 election only to be swiftly brought down when reporters found he’d stolen part of a speech from a British politician named Neil Kinnock. Biden used the Bork hearings as an excuse to drop out of the presidential race rather than be embarrassed further. Even before the hearings began, Biden announced he opposed Bork, hardly appropriate for someone who headed a committee with members from both parties.

So the suspected killer and proven liar led their cabal of Democrats on a two-week smear campaign of the proposed Supreme Court justice, a highly intelligent jurist whose biggest failing was that he sported an odd beard that made him look like an Amish farmer dressed for a weekend visit to town. Their co-conspirators included Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who’d had to resign from the Senate Intelligence Committee after leaking classified documents to the press, and Ohio’s Howard Metzenbaum, who’d had to return a $250,000 bribe—oops, consulting fee—for helping arrange a hotel deal in Washington.

The committee voted 7-5 to not recommend Bork to the entire senate, thinking Bork would resign. He didn’t, and the entire Senate voted against him 58-42 three weeks later. His replacement was a much younger judge named Douglas Ginsburg, who shared judicial beliefs with Bork. This time Democrats found he’d smoked pot in college, and out he went. Finally Reagan named Anthony Kennedy, a suitably squishy type who would uphold Roe v. Wade. He was approved.

The Bork episode started the vicious interparty attacks we know today, mostly because Republicans didn’t respond quickly and strongly enough to the Bork episode. They still don’t, many of them hoping the Democrats, including the media, will someday start to like them. Donald Trump knows better. He counterpunches every time, which is why he’s now facing felony charges for completely made-up crimes.

During the height of the Bork storm, a columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch who opposed Bork wrote “Americans expect the Supreme Court to protect minorities, the powerless, those with unpopular views.” If they do, they’re fools who didn’t pay attention in civics class. The Supreme Court exists to protect the Constitution and to make sure federal laws abide by it. Its members are not supposed to decide what laws they like and hand them out. Anybody who thinks it should be some combination grandmother and affirmative action officer is missing the point completely..

At its best in the postwar period, the Democratic Party was almost acceptable, realizing that private enterprise and freedom were what made this country great. Perhaps it was because they didn’t want to be labeled communists. It was a tough time for commies.

The people running the Democratic Party today are dedicated only to seizing power in any way possible. Don’t think there aren’t more dirty tricks to come before November, and even after if they don’t like the election results.
 
My former neighbor writes on substack.

Both parties hate each other. Here's where it began.
Guess who was in the middle of it.

RENÉ MARROU
MAY 24, 2024



Joe Biden depicted in a 1987 editorial cartoon as a Native American looking for scalps. Hey, it was another era.
We live in an era of bad feeling in the United States. The nation is evenly split between liberal and conservative, and a glance at any social media site or even the nightly news will show you that neither side has any interest in compromise.

In case you’re wondering, it’s all the Democrats’ fault.

Thanks for reading MARROU ON MEDIA ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.


Subscribe
Oh, both sides say that about the other, but I can prove it. It all started September 15, 1987, when federal judge Robert Bork appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing on his nomination to the Supreme Court. Until then, such hearings had been collegial affairs: senators who were lawyers talking to highly-placed judges who were also lawyers.

In the summer of 1986 the entire Senate had voted to approve Antonin Scalia as a Supreme Court Justice by a vote of 98-0, and everyone knew he was conservative. But when Ronald Reagan, hated by the media and other Democrats, appointed Bork the next year something changed. What changed was Democrats thinking Bork might help reverse Roe versus Wade, that abortion-for-all decision made 14 years earlier with absolutely no connection to the Constitution. You might remember what Teddy Kennedy said about Bork in the Senate:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids…” and so on. None of it was true and Kennedy knew it, but Democrats needed an excuse to turn against a perfectly respectable judge when they’d unanimously approved his near-twin just a few months earlier.


Robert Bork. Chewed up and spit out.
Kennedy’s feigned shock over Bork’s supposed radicalism were pretty strong words for a guy who’d committed manslaughter 18 years earlier. He left a young woman, Mary Jo Kopechne (Ko-PECK-knee), in a sinking car—-his car, which he’d driven off a bridge into water near Martha’s Vineyard. Kennedy fought hard against an autopsy in the case, which made many observers think the pretty young blonde had been pregnant with his child and Kennedy had decided to take the easy way out. Further speculation was that the 28-year-old Kopechne, an observant Catholic, had refused an abortion. Kennedy, wearing a neck support to seem less guilty, needed his much-cheated-on wife to accompany him to Kopechne’s funeral to help polish his tarnished reputation.


The Kennedys were royalty in Massachusetts; his only punishment was pleading guilty to leaving the scene of an accident when murder charges might have been more appropriate.

You might know the young senator who presided over those Bork hearings—Joe Biden. Even then Biden was desperate to be president—he’d announced his candidacy for the 1988 election only to be swiftly brought down when reporters found he’d stolen part of a speech from a British politician named Neil Kinnock. Biden used the Bork hearings as an excuse to drop out of the presidential race rather than be embarrassed further. Even before the hearings began, Biden announced he opposed Bork, hardly appropriate for someone who headed a committee with members from both parties.

So the suspected killer and proven liar led their cabal of Democrats on a two-week smear campaign of the proposed Supreme Court justice, a highly intelligent jurist whose biggest failing was that he sported an odd beard that made him look like an Amish farmer dressed for a weekend visit to town. Their co-conspirators included Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who’d had to resign from the Senate Intelligence Committee after leaking classified documents to the press, and Ohio’s Howard Metzenbaum, who’d had to return a $250,000 bribe—oops, consulting fee—for helping arrange a hotel deal in Washington.

The committee voted 7-5 to not recommend Bork to the entire senate, thinking Bork would resign. He didn’t, and the entire Senate voted against him 58-42 three weeks later. His replacement was a much younger judge named Douglas Ginsburg, who shared judicial beliefs with Bork. This time Democrats found he’d smoked pot in college, and out he went. Finally Reagan named Anthony Kennedy, a suitably squishy type who would uphold Roe v. Wade. He was approved.

The Bork episode started the vicious interparty attacks we know today, mostly because Republicans didn’t respond quickly and strongly enough to the Bork episode. They still don’t, many of them hoping the Democrats, including the media, will someday start to like them. Donald Trump knows better. He counterpunches every time, which is why he’s now facing felony charges for completely made-up crimes.

During the height of the Bork storm, a columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch who opposed Bork wrote “Americans expect the Supreme Court to protect minorities, the powerless, those with unpopular views.” If they do, they’re fools who didn’t pay attention in civics class. The Supreme Court exists to protect the Constitution and to make sure federal laws abide by it. Its members are not supposed to decide what laws they like and hand them out. Anybody who thinks it should be some combination grandmother and affirmative action officer is missing the point completely..

At its best in the postwar period, the Democratic Party was almost acceptable, realizing that private enterprise and freedom were what made this country great. Perhaps it was because they didn’t want to be labeled communists. It was a tough time for commies.

The people running the Democratic Party today are dedicated only to seizing power in any way possible. Don’t think there aren’t more dirty tricks to come before November, and even after if they don’t like the election results.
I'd say it started long before that. During the war in Vietnam, and the anti war riots, the News media went near full tilt left. Then with the Watergate hearings the knives came out for Richard Nixon, and they've been out for every Republican, or non left politician since.

With an almost total left bent in the legacy media, Democrats feel they have a green light to attack their opponents, knowing the left media will fly high cover for them.

For a undeniable proof of this, you only need look at how the multi year Russia Collusion and Muller investigation unfolded.
 
Well, without the shareholders infusing capital you would not have the hardware or the technology, so I'd say they get a say in the direction of the company. :unsure:

IMHO, supply chain is more crucial than who owns a company based here in the USA. We saw that with the chip shortage and a variety of other items during Covid.

I agree, as partial owners of the company, shareholders absolutely should have some say in the direction of a company. The question is how much?

In my opinion we have far too many CEOs of American corporations that acquiesce far too much to the short term demands of the shareholders. They make decisions that are motivated by short term gain with very little if any thought given to a strategy for the longer term.

And from my experience the corporations suffer from lax longer term growth, if not worse. Nor do those short term myopic strategies work out even in the short term.

Your supply chain observation is an example of what I'm talking about.
 
I agree, as partial owners of the company, shareholders absolutely should have some say in the direction of a company. The question is how much?

In my opinion we have far too many CEOs of American corporations that acquiesce far too much to the short term demands of the shareholders. They make decisions that are motivated by short term gain with very little if any thought given to a strategy for the longer term.

And from my experience the corporations suffer from lax longer term growth, if not worse. Nor do those short term myopic strategies work out even in the short term.

Your supply chain observation is an example of what I'm talking about.

Agreed!.... It seems like all American executives focus on is the next quarters profit so that share holders/board members can approve their next bonus.
 
Agreed!.... It seems like all American executives focus on is the next quarters profit so that share holders/board members can approve their next bonus.
The socialists like AOC and Sanders believe that, but in my experience it is absolutely false. Those executives have to insure as solid a quarter as possible within their long term strategy so their stock holders, often major investment institutions, don’t abandon them for an alternative. Collapsing stock value will destroy the value and capability of a company as quickly as poor products or program performance. Obviously, in the real world, they are firmly intertwined. Also, firmly tying executive compensation to corporate performance would seem the wisest way to insure shareholders are protected from bad leadership.
 
Last edited:
@PHOENIX PHIL and @deewayne2003

I get your point, but what alternative mechanism could there potentially be? Either shareholders have a say in how the company is run (or rather, in order that shareholders keep their money in the company and do not withdraw, they must be appeased with good financial results, also on the short run) and therefore CEO's will try to accomodate and respond to that shareholder request for performance.

Or no one will ever dare to put money in a company because, it would be locked up and they would not have a say in it. Would not promise good things for investment either.
 
its really a matter of perspective and vantage point...

I'd say most American executives are focused on the next quarters performance (which isnt always profit.. sometimes the focus is top line revenue growth.. sometimes its bottom line margins.. sometimes its "positioning" for a merge/acquisition/procurement, etc)... so that the shareholders/board members dont come looking to put their head on a pike...

senior leaders in major companies job is to satisfy the shareholders.. whatever that means.. if they dont do that.. they get put out to pasture..

the fact that the shareholders/c-suite/board put incentive plans in place that includes big bonus payouts is something very different (might be why they took the job.. or incentive to stay there.. etc.. but its not typically the focus... its just what happens, and is the result that occurs when they do what they are told to focus on...)

Corporate greed is rarely causal for a SVP's actions.. if he isnt a major shareholder, then there isnt a whole lot of incentive tied to his comp plan that is directly related to bottom line profits..

performance, that leads to profits is often rewarded though.. because thats what the shareholders want..
 
Apparently, the KGB veteran in the Kremlin is offering a ceasefire along the current line of contact. Nothing like waking up to the actual state of the war through a failed winter/spring offensive, nearly 20% reduction in oil exports due to Ukrainian strategic drone strikes, half a million casualties, and the destruction of one’s modernized armor force to concentrate the mind and decide to clean house in the MOD.

Zelensky and the West would be fools to take this deal. It would give the Russian military breathing/ recovery space which Russia could draw out indefinitely. The counter would be a ceasefire along pre-war lines. That would be unacceptable now, but might look very different to the Kremlin following the summer fall campaign season.
 
Agreed!.... It seems like all American executives focus on is the next quarters profit so that share holders/board members can approve their next bonus.

This is actually not the case. It is a balance of current performance and long term strategy execution. As a former senior exec in a Fortune 500 company, I can tell you with absolute certainty that senior execs are far more incentivized by long term value creation than short term cash generation. Typical incentive packages are:

Salary: table stakes, likely 25% of total comp

Annual bonus: incentive for current year performance, likely 20-25% of total comp

Performance Share Units: shadow stock performance over 1 to 3 years, only of value if stock goes up, likely 10% of total comp

Stock Options: best over 3 to 5 years, only of value if stock goes up, 45-55% of total comp.

These are ranges for Divisional President/non CEO c-Suite execs. CEO’s are more heavily weighted to long term stock performance.

As you can see, it is a total fallacy to think that senior execs are incentivized only for quarterly results. I also think it is wrong to think that investors look only at quarterly results. I invest in companies whose leadership team and long term strategy I believe in.
 
This is actually not the case. It is a balance of current performance and long term strategy execution. As a former senior exec in a Fortune 500 company, I can tell you with absolute certainty that senior execs are far more incentivized by long term value creation than short term cash generation. Typical incentive packages are:

Salary: table stakes, likely 25% of total comp

Annual bonus: incentive for current year performance, likely 20-25% of total comp

Performance Share Units: shadow stock performance over 1 to 3 years, only of value if stock goes up, likely 10% of total comp

Stock Options: best over 3 to 5 years, only of value if stock goes up, 45-55% of total comp.

These are ranges for Divisional President/non CEO c-Suite execs. CEO’s are more heavily weighted to long term stock performance.

As you can see, it is a total fallacy to think that senior execs are incentivized only for quarterly results. I also think it is wrong to think that investors look only at quarterly results. I invest in companies whose leadership team and long term strategy I believe in.

This is spot on. I worked for a US major oil company for 39 years and the compensation structure was designed to balance short term and long term success.

I would also add that shareholders get to vote every year on directors and other certain issues. However, shareholders really have a limited exposure and say in the company. They can vote with their feet and simply leave at any time. Employees are much more "all in" than shareholders. I always liked and was impressed with the Johnson and Johnson Credo, which is usually covered and discussed in graduate school. J&J founder issued the Credo in the early 1940s. Notice the pecking order and rationale. Customers and suppliers, then employees and communities where they are located and then finally shareholders.

Johnson & Johnson Credo

We believe our first responsibility is to the patients, doctors and nurses, to mothers and fathers and all others who use our products and services. In meeting their needs everything we do must be of high quality. We must constantly strive to provide value, reduce our costs and maintain reasonable prices. Customers’ orders must be serviced promptly and accurately. Our business partners must have an opportunity to make a fair profit.

We are responsible to our employees who work with us throughout the world. We must provide an inclusive work environment where each person must be considered as an individual. We must respect their diversity and dignity and recognize their merit. They must have a sense of security, fulfillment and purpose in their jobs. Compensation must be fair and adequate and working conditions clean, orderly and safe. We must support the health and well-being of our employees and help them fulfill their family and other personal responsibilities. Employees must feel free to make suggestions and complaints. There must be equal opportunity for employment, development and advancement for those qualified. We must provide highly capable leaders and their actions must be just and ethical.

We are responsible to the communities in which we live and work and to the world community as well. We must help people be healthier by supporting better access and care in more places around the world. We must be good citizens — support good works and charities, better health and education, and bear our fair share of taxes. We must maintain in good order the property we are privileged to use, protecting the environment and natural resources.

Our final responsibility is to our stockholders. Business must make a sound profit. We must experiment with new ideas. Research must be carried on, innovative programs developed, investments made for the future and mistakes paid for. New equipment must be purchased, new facilities provided and new products launched. Reserves must be created to provide for adverse times. When we operate according to these principles, the stockholders should realize a fair return.
 
Another of these fascinating short clips from the war. In this case we are looking from a UA recon drone at a Russian S400 air defense missile battery. The attacking weapons are US Army ATAACMS missiles fired from a HIMARS launcher. Judging by the submunition bursts, this is the extended range version carrying 300 M74 bomblets. Because we have voluntarily decided to no longer use cluster munitions, we have a lot of inventory that will have to be demilled. Letting Ukraine do it by taking out Russia's most advanced (and expensive) air defense weapon is even better.

Notice the air defense battery is firing prior to destruction. The target was almost certainly the inbound ATAACMS missiles. I think we can safely conclude that the S400's ability to intercept ballistic missiles was perhaps overstated, and that the GPS jamming capability the Russians were touting a few months ago may not be quite as effective as the Russians claimed (imagine that).

 
Wow, total destruction!
 
Another of these fascinating short clips from the war. In this case we are looking from a UA recon drone at a Russian S400 air defense missile battery. The attacking weapons are US Army ATAACMS missiles fired from a HIMARS launcher. Judging by the submunition bursts, this is the extended range version carrying 300 M74 bomblets. Because we have voluntarily decided to no longer use cluster munitions, we have a lot of inventory that will have to be demilled. Letting Ukraine do it by taking out Russia's most advanced (and expensive) air defense weapon is even better.

Notice the air defense battery is firing prior to destruction. The target was almost certainly the inbound ATAACMS missiles. I think we can safely conclude that the S400's ability to intercept ballistic missiles was perhaps overstated, and that the GPS jamming capability the Russians were touting a few months ago may not be quite as effective as the Russians claimed (imagine that).

Do you know whether the vehicles that we seen leaving are other components of the system? Or some other troop transport?

Quite a firework display!
 

Forum statistics

Threads
55,777
Messages
1,187,718
Members
97,339
Latest member
AdellBradf
 

 

 
 
Top