some 20 thinks bishops in the room. the reason the rebel bishop claim that the church is actually discriminating against the people of or on the, in that the language itself and the culture is not included in the church, therefore, is not as diverse or as broad as it can be. the church has subsequently excommunicated those bishops and refuses to recognize the while the government, on the other hand speaks about 2 groups coming together to find the way in the middle. and the churches saying that there are new to groups. this just the church and the bishops who have been excommunicated. part of the problem, of course, is how the government has handled some of the churches concerns if you will. the church wanted to have a peaceful demonstration on sunday yesterday to wife it's dismayed without government to handle this, but also how government continues to neglect some of the people there and not address the concerns of the church,

which is the fact that they feel they've been invalid treated by people who effectively work for the government, and they just masquerading as men and women of the clergy. now that has not really gotten down well with the government who quickly upon return from a we can visit in italy and france came back and someone didn't security a pilot test standards entirety and meant to figure out a way to get out from this protest without necessarily quoting any of this me, he said that it presents a home because the church has been infiltrated by enemies of ethiopia, while the church, on the other hand, if they have a right to the people protest and the government must remove it from its clergy. but that's it for me this hour, but don't worry, i'll be back in about $28.00 and a half minutes with another full and freshly new. stay with his arch international . ah,

ah, ah ah ah, hello, i'm manila chan. you are tuned into modus operandi. the numbers continue to climb the amount of money and arms being sent to ukraine. the u. s. is leading the way with total packages, well north of a $100000000000.00. this conflict is fast becoming the most expensive war in modern history. but is it worth the investment? we'll discuss it. all right, let's get into the ammo. ah,

u. s. congress constantly bouncing back and forth between democrat control or republican. the 2 party system rarely agrees on anything but the one thing that unites the 2 war. suddenly the grievances disappear and both parties support joe biden, providing carte blanche blank checks to ukraine. now here to break it all down for us, the money, the arms, big and small, is international relations and security analyst marks la boda. you can find more of marx analysis at the real politic with marx lota over on youtube. now mark with the recent announcement by president biden, that the u. s. would send 31 abrams tanks to ukraine. a couple of things here. one, is this a significant number of tanks to make any difference to why this

a lot in it? why not say an even 30 or even 40 and then bite and says they'll be making a special kiev version. i guess of the abrams that the u. s. won't be sending at stock inventory of abrams because they have proprietary equipment on them. so when exactly with these key aversion, abrams even get there. okay, so 1st of all, you know the question a why $3131.00 tanks is the size of a ukrainian tank per gate. how many tanks are in a tank brigade? and supposedly the original estimates for the european leper tanks would be 2 brigades worth or 62 tanks so that that may number may have since changed. and so the question will, will, this will $31.00 tanks will $62.00 tanks will a $120.00 tanks make

a significant difference on the ukranian battlefield? the aspect give portrait gene started this conflict in february of 2022 with according to western military estimates. and jane's as having 2596 tanks. we also know that since then, the west has already sent you crane another 402500 tanks. these are a soviet legacy tanks, mostly t 72, some t eighty's from the former east block countries, poland romania, croatia and some others. and so the question remains where, where are those tanks now that there is such a desperate need for the west to send their own main battle tanks?

the question is they are mostly destroyed. and if that many tanks have already been destroyed, because russia has air dominance over you grain and it has a 9 to one or greater heavy artillery mismatch besides all of the other factors on the battlefield, no, quite clearly not 30. why not $62.00, not $120.00, not even $300.00 tanks are going to make a significant enough outcome that they would change the outcome of the conflict. which of course leads to the question, when will they arrive? well, maybe never. that's. that's the truth of the matter. so, so this deal was struck out between biden and the german chancellor, olaf schultz, 2 pressure schultz into releasing the leopard, sending the leopards

a tank that the pentagon at least feels would be a more suitable match for ukraine. although it has to be said, not by much because of the heavy weight, the incredible, logistical and training burdens of the abrams and several other factors. the pentagon still doesn't believe that the abrams is actually a tanks if the ukrainians can really make effective use of in any way. certainly not to be wasted on the battlefield and where they can't fight normal combined arms warfare against the country that has air and artillery dominance. so this deal was struck that the leopards would be sent within a few months, but the abrams actually have to be built almost from scratch and they get

behind the queue of poland. 2 and taiwan, which have abrams on orders. so there's no definitive date of when they mail will arrive, yet it will be no sooner than the end of this year. and could be longer. it could be a year, according to the washington post or years. and they may never get there. so that move by biden broke that deadlock over in europe on sending tanks to various nations, were basically pointing at one another to say, now you go 1st, now you go for us. so eventually the germans agreed to send a few dozen leopards. the polls said they would send some. what can you tell us about these leper tanks? are they any match for the tanks that russia has? yeah. okay, so i mean, the leopard like the abrams is a good tank. right. and you know, it's equivalent the most modern russian tanks,

the t nineties. you know, they are all roughly on a par. i mean, if you put them up on specs, you can argue, oh that the t 90 m pro read has a slightly longer range shot. the abrams a slightly better armor, the lever to slightly more maneuverable. but you know, this is largely semantics because, you know, the truth of the matter is that actually in this conflict tank battles tanks, conducting duels against other tanks in the ukraine conflict are extremely rare. phenomenon that actually hasn't happened so much the tanks will operate as part of a combined arms maneuver war warfare where they'll be fighting with infantry along side of them, mechanized infantry providing cover. but in the case of ukrainian,

the care regime forces they will be fighting against an opponent that has complete air dominance of the battle field and a very substantial $9.00 to $1.00 or greater artillery and rocket system mismatch with very powerful electronic warfare. drones loitering, munitions such as the russian lands that have proven extremely effective and destroying ukrainian tanks. so it is very likely that the leopards will be destroyed by you know, will be facing and will be destroyed by many other things before they actually engage any of russia's tags. and we have seen in syria turkey deployed leopard tanks more modern variance in syria, and they were destroy void by both isis and the kurds. using a 19 seventies era soviet anti tank guided missile,

which cause no end of embarrassment. and this is highly written about in the western press. similarly, the abrams were destroyed in yemen by irregular who fees using the same type of $970.00 s anti tank guided missile and will be facing much more modern. anti tank guided missiles of by russian infantry in ukraine. so, you know, there are substantial tanks, but they won't really be fighting tank duels. no, the numbers, the exact numbers supplied by the different countries that are contributing 14, initially promised from germany 14 from poland. the united kingdom is sending 14 of their own challenger tanks because ukraine doesn't have enough logistical burdens already. they need 3 different types of main battle tanks for if france ever gets

around the sending some clerks to, to add to the hodge podge and the li, insane logistical burden on ukraine. interestingly enough of germany's initial batch of tanks is 14 tanks that they say they're going to send right away and they say that they will send up to $88.00 tax $1488.00. that's a very interesting number. it's usually used in the white area neo nazis as code for heil hitler on social media. interesting factory. so very early in the military operation, we saw what russian air superiority looked like. that barring the ghost of can of course we saw precision strikes that initially took out military targets, airfields rail, things like that. ukraine does not presently possess the air capabilities to take

on russian se 20 fives or the long awaited su, 57 felon, still fighter. but that doesn't mean they won't get some air power. millennium is zalinski is already asking us for some f sixteens. will he get them? and would that change the conflict from a ground war to then an air war? yes. much like with the decision to send some abrams some day, some time. i think it is extremely likely the that in the you know, the medium term at least probably by, by the end of the summer. no. later than that we will see western countries. so comb through a vicious cycle of pressure coming from each other, coming from the media, which is perhaps one of the biggest war hawk driving agendas and all of this. because once the tanks don't manage to win the conflict for the

coverage and the same with the a longer range, missiles the ground, large small diameter bombs, a jury rig combination that boeing as, as sold the u. s. government on providing for the character once they don't when will need a new wonder weapon that will change the course of the conflict. of course, the f. 16 will do nothing of the sort of regime isn't capable of flying. now they have started this conflict with several 100 combat aircraft. they have a handful left, and that is considering that they have also already received additional megs from in block countries of eastern europe that are now part of nato as well. so russia obviously has a big aviation mismatch. the kid regime officials are already always going on about

russia has some $700.00 combat aircraft lurking around you crying at all times. and you know, that's to say, nothing of russia's air defense, which is considered even by western military analysts as the best air defense in the world. and russian forces are very heavily covered by short range, medium range, long range, air defense systems, all the way from the pants or up to the s 400. no. the f sixteens would be slaughter. where would they fly out of? the government doesn't have any air fields that cannot be hit by russian precision strikes with calibers, with drones and the like they would have to fly out of poland or romania and that would automatically make those countries a party to the conflict without any shadow of a doubt remaining,

but there will be high political pressure to send the f sixteens will actually be able to make use of them. of course they not, they don't have the technicians and they don't have a pilots train to fly them. we've just heard from the british prime minister who informed the press about exactly how long is the minimum amount of time for an f. 16 pilot training, which is 35 months. normal trading is 5 years. so, you know, but you know, hey, with the pluck and we'll of the chevy. james force con scripts. i mean brave willing defenders of the coverage im, i'm sure they'll figure it out. yeah. you know in just a couple hours ah, coming up next. he's being coy, she's all in find out why francis emmanuel micron is uncomfortable with germany's

adelina bear box stance on ukraine. we'll discuss it with mark sl boda when we return sit tight, the ammo will be right back. ah ah . awe every spring and summer, the melting optic snow reveals abandoned machinery millions of rusty barrels and the detritus left by human expansion into this most inaccessible territories. yet on the move. so take off a summer, but a lot of it at the post begun is an issue on tennis from clean arctic travel to heis island home to the biggest pony station on the french joseph land dog capella

. go, daddy asked me, but i lost my bosom more yet as it should. so him is if anybody, yahoo, aimlessly nasa, mon, william, but somebody with a some a stay on the or stuff was similar. he feel like a marriage from a serial number 0 membership, one year of catherine dorm, cyril know, boys of premier latrice, chico me at that of the arctic pioneers main objective was to explore and conquer these harsh lands. they had no time to think about waste management now and legacy could remain for centuries. that's my choice to sir william madeline. it is pretty yet because she systems is going to plenty of cooper completing could have deal to issue with ah, welcome back to the m o. i'm manila chan. she wants to dive in head 1st,

but he's taking a more measured approach. germany is young, foreign minister, and alina bear, bach once the whole of the you to go all in. but emanuel micron is saying not so fast. now, international relations and security expert mark sla boda is back with us to discuss. mark, lee french have been very coy about where or not they would supply can't with any having machines like tanks or fighter jets a manual. my crime has said, and i'm of course paraphrasing here, that the idea is not off the table, but his rules would be that he'd give, can those things under the condition that the regime promised not to use them on russia proper territory. now could those promises be kept and how would you ensure that those promises were even enforced if you are a manual micron?

what would the consequences be if kids broke that promise and used french french just to i don't know, same bomb st. petersburg. of course this is purely theoretical because i do not believe that my crohn will supply friends jets in, in anywhere you know, in the near future meeting next couple of years to the givers im and if they did, they would never make it to st. petersburg considering the amount of heavy air defense between, you know, ukraine in st. petersburg and so forth. but let's assume for the article saying that they did of, of course, my micron would have no way of enforcing what targets, what parts of russia russia proper or what the west doesn't consider part of russia . and so, you know, that puts in a bit of a political dilemma there. generally, french has been about

a step behind the rest of nato. in the procurement of arms. they have provided what they call a light tank, which is it's an amex 10 are see. it's a 19 seventies eighties era. kind of a weird cross. it's a we old light tank somewhere between infantry fighting vehicle and a tank again hasn't been provided in numbers that would be substantial such as would overcome the logistical burden of it. and there are a whole host of, well, a very large number of rushing weapon systems that will make as short a work of that as they have done of everything else that the west has so far. so applied to the care regime on the battlefields. once again, no wonder weapon, the french were already retiring from service, but you know,

they have some laying around to give and i guess it's better than nothing. i do not believe that france will probably ever send aircraft. this will be a tighter political decision in france. they have historically been a step removed from the nato war hawks. they weren't even a part of the nato's military council until you know, the last couple of decades. so, i think micron will will show more sense. he has also said that another condition is that the key of regime would make be able to make good battlefield use of whatever is provided, which is a good argument against providing them with just about everything that they have been provided so far. a factor that increases as the technological complexity and logistical complexity of the military equipment increases and main

battle tanks and fighter jets certainly are beyond what they can make any type of realistic use of without having a, a number of years to integrate them to, to learn how to use them and to integrate them into their larger military systems. when the u. s. provided abrams tanks to iraq, the, the large training program to integrate them into the iraqi armed forces lasted 5 years. for saudi arabia. it was 7 and saudi arabia still lost. lots of abrams to a who feet irregular is firing a soviet era, anti tank guided missiles at them and had to request more abrams. so i don't think it's a curb regime will do any better and,

and almost certainly much worse. so one high ranking leader, not so shy, not so coy about her position on this war is germany is foreign minister and lena bear bock, she's openly advocating for more war, more equipment and saying we are at war with russia while speaking at an e, you meeting was the here and therefore i've sent already in the last days. yes, we have to do more to defend ukraine. yes, we have to do more also on things. but the most important in the crucial part is that we do it together and that we do not do the blame game in europe because we are fighting a war against russia and not against each other. thank you. why is bare bach leading the charge out of germany? mark, where is olaf shoals germany is govern. current government is a very fragile coalition. government between the s p d,

which all of shawl says the green party of which on atlanta bare bark is the number 2 and another smaller party. and with the green party demanding the position of foreign minister as part of this coalition government. that's how they have an elaine of bear. bach driving german foreign policy i. i would say they're all r schultz. primary political characteristics are political cowardice and feckless. and it's perfectly clear who, where's the big boy britches in the german government and it's not all law schultz, the german green party is a kind of a weird, a political phenomenon. considering that their policies have brought germany to burning coal and wood in place of natural gas,

they should probably rename themselves the german coal black party. but they are some of the biggest anti russia antique china, anti anyone war hawks in the broader spectrum of you politics. they are essentially european neo cons that would make john mccain blush and whatever, you know, lower realm of hell that he's found himself as they have been pushing to germany out of it's decades long pacifism into this, you know, direct confrontational, where once again, german main battle tanks will be sent and burning in the ukrainian steps against russia, which is, you know,

it's caused some other german politicians, you know, to really hesitate at this. there are 2 soviet t, 34 tanks outside of the one to stand up side of the german parliament. building and every morning the german representatives have to walk in past those 2 tanks. you would think that they would think a little bit more about what they're doing, but i hate it. it doesn't seem that that thoughts in consequence are 2 of of bear box. you know, strongest policies, but she is a pro imperialist pro u. s. a lead global hegemony or sled western global hegemony, a proponent to, to the 90 degree and, and she is now essentially dictating german, 4 and military policy. and that's

a law i thought that should probably scare anyone who's not on neo con, on either side of the atlantic remarks followed. i gotta leave it right there. thank you so much. and be sure to check out marks youtube channel called the real politic with mark sla moda. so as you can see over in europe where this conflict could have direct consequences, there is no unanimous agreement on how to move forward with ukraine. but here in washington, one thing is clear, you are not an american patriot. if you don't give all your support and your money to keep, that's going to do it for this week's episode of modus operandi the show that digs deep into foreign policy. i'm your host manila chan. thank you so much for tuning in. we'll see you again next week to figure out the ammo. ah

ah ah ah. at this hour, american and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from great who's with

food and medicines in supplies and freedom with with it's amazing to me that how they, for my my colleague, the new york times that seymour hersh, the journalist, whose investigation revealed the u. s. is role in the north stream pipeline glass takes to the radio to discuss his story and the pressure and he is facing by mainstream media to reveal his sources. ukrainian, the city of your most widely known as bach mode has been restricting civilian and press access since monday. that's according to the russian military. as its troops advanced towards this strategic point and.