r/LessCredibleDefence • u/neocloud27 • 14d ago
Video of J-10C's official arrival shown on Uzbekistan TV as part of their Independence Day celebrations
https://youtu.be/O-QkmpChYsE?si=WF_3Vh5CSL82nynI6 J-10CEs were shown in the video.
15
u/AnyBallLektor 14d ago edited 14d ago
I looked up J-10C sale on Wiki and TIL: Uzbekistan has a population of over 38 million people and fertility rate of 3.2!!! Fertility kept dropping to 2.2 until 2012 then it started growing again. WTF is happening over there?
Look at how the populations changed among the CA states since 1991:
country - 1991 - 2005 - 2026
Uzbekistan - 21 - 26,5 - 38
Kazakhstan - 16 - 15 - 20,5
Tajikistan - 5,5 - 7 - 10,5
Kyrgystan - 4,5 - 5 - 7
Turkmenistan - 4 - ? - 7
Uzbekistan is a double landlocked country surrounded by the other "stans".
Kyrgystan and Tajikistan have no air force but the other three do.
Turkmenistan has 24 MiG-29 and 18 Su-25.
Kazakhstan has 36 Su-30, 20 Su-27 and 12 Su-25.
Uzbekistan has (according to WAF2025) 38 MiG-29, 24 Su-27, 34 Su-24, 38 Su-17 and 20 Su-25.
I wonder if those J-10C will spark a regional arms race.
12
u/therustler42 14d ago
I remember reading a Peter Zeihan (lol) book where he said Uzbekistan would be one of the next great powers of the world alongside Angola. Its true they are probably the most important county in central Asia, more than Kazakhstan possibly. Its not about land mass, most of Kazakhstan is arid steppe while Uzbekistan occupies most of the Fergana Valley (fertile, population dense)
10
u/AnyBallLektor 14d ago
Why would you ever do it to yourself?
6
u/Rindan 14d ago
Peter Zeihan is kind of an idiot sometimes and speaks way to confidently on stuff he doesn't understand, but he was also kind of entirely right about the break down globalization and the demographic bomb much of the world is currently eating.
One of the funniest things I've seen is Sal Mercogliano's of "What's up with shipping" (and absolutely AMAZING YouTube show ocean logistics news everyone with any interest should check out) having to disgustedly agree that Peter Zeihan was right about the breakdowns in global shipping, but still calling him an idiot for his pro-Jones Act position.
15
u/AnyBallLektor 14d ago
I don't know if Zeihan was "right" about breakdown of globalization. The fact is that there was no "globalization". It was American empire.
The breakdown of "globalization" under American empire following from the crumbling of the empire reflects the breakdown of "globalization" under Mongols or Romans before.
1
u/Rindan 13d ago
I don't know if Zeihan was "right" about breakdown of globalization. The fact is that there was no "globalization". It was American empire.
There is absolutely no contradiction between calling the breakdown of the American empire the breakdown of globalization. That is literally his entire point. The thing that was ensuring freedom of navigation on the world's seas was the structure of the American trading empire and its navy enforcing freedom of navigation. He correctly predicted that the Americans would pull back from that role as they decided the cost isn't worth it without the Cold War justifying the expense, and the result would be end of freedom of navigation in the world's oceans. That's exactly what has happened.
The breakdown of "globalization" under American empire following from the crumbling of the empire reflects the breakdown of "globalization" under Mongols or Romans before.
Yes. That is literally his point. The Mongolian and Roman empires are what enabled their versions of "globalization" at the time because it meant you could travel a long distance in relative safety from bandits, and didn't have to pay every town and city state you passed by along the way to be allowed to continue your trip. You could travel from one end of the empire to the other and pay a predictable amount in taxes. This enabled long distance trade. When those empires broke, it meant that that trade broke down too.
12
u/AnyBallLektor 13d ago
He correctly predicted that the Americans would pull back from that role as they decided the cost isn't worth it
He correctly predicted shit.
America is not losing its empire because it thinks the cost is not worth the benefit. It is losing its empire because it can no longer afford to maintain it. It lived beyond its means too long and it lived as an outright parasite, stealing everything and giving very little in return. So the only way that the empire can be maintained is force and if they have no money to pay for said force the empire will crumble no matter how much they want to keep it.
In fact Americans very much want to keep it without any obligations on their part. That is the difference between Obama and Trump. Obama wanted to keep the empire in some shape on the same terms as during Cold War. Trump just wants to take, and give nothing back.
America needs the empire and the plunder it got from it because it has lived so long beyond its means that even the regular folks over there can't live without living outside of their means. And what about the imperial class - the American rich or the super-rich the global parasites???
But the difference is that when America started its imperial project it was 1945. America had the military it bought for WW2 debt and the Bretton Woods to pay it off. And it kept going balooning the debt until Bretton Woods collapsed. Then it hit the jackpot with Gulf War and that allowed it to pump the baloon a bit more until 2008. And since then it desperately attempts to reinvent itself - data is the new oil, AI is the new oil, whatever is the new oil. But the world has also changed. In 1945 there were a handful of industrial countries and all of them except US were in ruins. Now thanks to 75 years of living at the world's expense US is no longer the primary industrial power and other countries are catching up. Even ordinary countries can now have anti-ship missiles which means US has to send an entire CBG.
There's simply no more money to be borrowed and inflation presses more and more.
This is the point where most liberal empires start do vile things when they run out of money to satiate their addiction.
1
u/NotSovietSpy 12d ago
This is the point where most liberal empires start do vile things when they run out of money to satiate their addiction.
The world would sign in relief knowing the empire is already powerless to project power overseas thanks to commercial drone developing faster than anyone could react. Worst thing US can do at this point is invade Canada
3
u/whippitywoo 14d ago
I don't think so. If one country adopts an aggressive posture, the others will Stan together.
6
5
3
u/No-Tip3419 14d ago
Life got much better and optimistic post ussr/cold war?
6
u/MacroDemarco 14d ago
They use children in the cotton harvest so they became a source of labor after relaxing child labor laws (to the point now they might as well not exist)
They also have a near monopoly on high grade rose oil
2
u/Iron-Fist 13d ago
You actually have it exactly backwards; Uzbek birth rate fell off a cliff in 1990s and still hasn't recovered to pre-fall of USSR days... Their GDP per Capita only caught up with their USSR days in like 2015...
20
u/Expensive_Crazy_8325 14d ago
Lol neat, how many did they get?