to run a strengthening get taken on the ties with baghdad, despite us sanctions as exposed to a wrong car projected to surpass 10000000000 dollars this year. as, according to iran, iraq's main purchases from iran include electricity and natural gas, which bank that was required to get away before by washington in order to receive an exchange, the u. s. e. his grip, contra wrongs economy by allowing the nation to import essential medicines and good wrong and still remain for the most sanctioned sanctions countries in the world, especially by america which is imposed various restrictions since 979. in the meantime, washington is taking a different approach when it comes to bag data from an invading force. in the past, the u. s. now proclaims its interest in the country future as he cannot make developments of according to the us secretary of state who during a recent visit by a rocks foreign minister to washington state at the back. that should be energy independence and the washington would offer its support to achieve that goal.

according to say, at our look, a li, be an independent politician from politician from baghdad. washington, he's using a rock as a staging point for attacking iran. there is a large trade between iraq and iran, partially divided between the private sector and the government sector. the americans are not happy with that because wishes that iraq stop importing gas from iran. but then the gas turbines produce a tricity and iraq will, will cease to function as there is no alternative for the radian gas pi that leads into iraq. the americans did not assist iraq and producing electricity in the 1015 years that they were present in iraq. and that had great influence on them this year for extra city and other departments are fair rock. so we don't

see that the americans are serious in helping iraq in the energy sector. unfortunately, the united states are using the iraq, you soil, or iraq, a sovereign country, as a staging point for attacking your on when you, thanks for joining us. hey, on our t international, as always you can find all the latest news updates on our website on t dot com or the back in 30 minutes. 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. the me, b, u. s. congress constantly bouncing back and forth between democratic 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 began, small is international relations and security analyst marks la bota. you can find

more of marx analysis at the real politic with marx loda 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 a version abrams even get there. okay, so 1st of all, you know, the question 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 the t sta and jane's as having 2596 tanks. we also know that since then, the west has already sent you crane another 400 to 500 tanks. these are 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? thanks. 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. you know, 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, by then broke that deadlock over in europe on sending tanks to key of 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 poles said they would send some. what can you tell us about these lepper 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 really 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 ukrainian 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 care regime forces they will be fighting against an opponent that has complete air dominance of the battle field and a very substantial 9 to one 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 tanks. and we have seen in syria turkey deployed leopard tanks are more modern variant in syria. and they were just 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 very interesting number is 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. mountain barring the ghost of can, of course we saw precision strikes that initially took out military targets airfield, 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. lensky is already asking the 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, i'm much like with the decision to send some abrams some day some time. i think it is extremely likely that 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 care version and the same with the a longer range, missiles the ground, large small diameter bombs, a jury rigged 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. the 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 givers officials are already always going on about russia has some $700.00 combat aircraft lurking around ukraine 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 to fit the 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 of party to the conflict without any shadow of a doubt remaining. but there will be high political pressure to send the f sixteens . will they actually be able to make use of them? of course they not. they don't have the technicians, 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 cavern james forest 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 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 of territories. yes, yes, the move, so take off a summer, but he lowered it supposed to be going as an issue all in tears from clean arctic travel to heis island home to the biggest pony station on the french joseph land archipelago. here he asked me, but i lost my bosom more yet as it should. so him is if anybody who aimlessly nasa manuel enough, but somebody with a some a stay on the or stuff looks 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. death. my choice of sir william madeline is pretty yet because she systems escalade to plenty of scope of continuity and could have deal

to of issue 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, i do not believe that my crohn will supply friends jets in, in it anywhere you know, in the near future meeting next couple of years to the get resume. 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,

micron would have no way of enforcing what targets, what parts of russia russia proper or what the west doesn't considered 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 of 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 fi irregulars firing a soviet era. anti tank guided missiles at them and had to request more abrams. so i don't think it's a care regime a 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's foreign minister and lena bear bach. she's openly advocating for more war, more equipment and saying, we are at more 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 tanks. 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 whereas olaf shoals, germany is govern? current government is a very fragile coalition. government between the s p d, which all of shaw says the green party of which on a line of 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 bare bach driving german foreign policy i. i would say they're all, are 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 off. schultz, the german green parties are 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 e, 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. and 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, i, it doesn't seem that that thoughts in consequence or 2 of their box, you know,

strongest policies, but she is a pro imperialist pro u. s. lead global hegemony. 2 or sled western global hegemony proponent to, to the 90 degree. and she is now essentially dictating german, 4 and military policy. and that's a lot of thought that should probably scare anyone who's not on the oak, on, on either side of the atlantic. all right, mark followed. i got to leave it right there. thank you so much. and be sure to check out mark's 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 mm hm. ah ah ah ah ah, with

ah with ah, what they think i should do is, you know use his name and good jail. it's amazing to me that how they form i. seymour hersh, the american journalist behind an investigation into the us role in the north stream pipeline glass reveals the pressure he's facing from mainstream media to divulge his thoughts with k ever a strict pavilion and media access to the embattled city of austin law school. i be known as bach moods as russian forces advanced and i'm trying to for a new position. and india is a big is the aerospace show kicked off showcasing the country the latest military.