He’s literally just downplaying their weaknesses/competition, as any salesman is going to do. Expensive (or even relatively cheap!) manpads make no sense vs drones economically, and manpads vs low flying/nap of the earth helicopters, especially in forested terrain have always been of limited effectiveness.
If you have the budget, still worth buying to have in the quiver, but they’re playing to the older more conservative players not selling the new hotness and they know it.
If you send your troops or vehicles forward without defense they will all get killed. You are not going forward in order to exercise your vehicles and you are not defending your vehicles and troops for the sake of simply preserving them. You are doing it in order to be able to go forward and win.
Armies that can't conduct an offense are unable to win wars. At best they are able to wait for wars to finish. Remember the nightmare of the columns in the north of ukraine in 2022 - TB2s (remember them?) ranging up and down blowing up operationally relevant assets without being hindered. If those troops had had a way of protecting themselves it's possible that they could have been resupplied and evacuated. If that had happened, or if they had been able to refuel and push south Russia might have won, it was pretty close anyway. Imagine the value of avoiding 3 years of this conflict.
>"Expensive (or even relatively cheap!) manpads make no sense vs drones economically, and manpads vs low flying/nap of the earth helicopters, especially in forested terrain have always been of limited effectiveness."
My point is that this isn't just an competition of economic exchange. The capability that a viable organic air defence option gives to a military unit shouldn't be understood in terms of "we spent $50m while they spent $500k". This is because if the $50m spend enables your units to successfully prosecute an offensive the value is potentially 1000x, or more.
Making your enemy spend $50m to defend against something you spent $500k on is a viable strategy for crushing your enemies economy. It works even better when you turn around and do it 100 times. If the enemy still can’t actually prosecute the offensive successfully to actually get out of the mess.
The US never wanted Russia to ‘lose’ the Ukraine war. They wanted them stuck in a never ending Vietnam, grinding their economy and a generation of young men (young men they were already in short supply on!) into paste for nothing. And it’s been working.
if the enemy can't actually prosecute the offensive successfully. If they can, you find yourself kneeling in front of a hastily dug trench.
You are right about the US and Russia though. It has suited everyone apart from the Russians and Ukrainians for the Russians to pick up this tar baby. I don't know if the rest of the world sees it, but a big part of the mess is courtesy of the British as a part of an extended and excruciating revenge play for the Russians messing about in Salisbury. Vashe zdorov'ye you bastards.
If you have the budget, still worth buying to have in the quiver, but they’re playing to the older more conservative players not selling the new hotness and they know it.