Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Russian Myth of Invincibility" video.

I can also add the Swedish conquest of Moscow in 1610 where the Russians were forced to accept a Swedish King as the new ruler of their country. But since Gustavus Adolphus younger brother was only something like 8 years old did his mother protest much and refused to let him go to Russia to become King there. So negotiations got drawn out, and the tide of war shifted and Sweden was attacked from Denmark. So Sweden had to give up some of its peace demands. But Sweden never the less won the war. And Karelia and Ingria fell into Swedish hands and Russia lost all its access to the Baltic sea with the peace in Stolbova in 1617.
70
@maxinabo russia should give back ingria and karelia. its important to respect 1650s map.
5
That is just silly russian coping. Sweden did beat russia on the battlefield. Sweden won that war. And yes you had your own civil war that helped you lose that war, but that does not change the fact that it was a military victory for Sweden. Just like 1917 was a military victory for Germany over your country. If explaining away other countries victories with inner weakness - like you do - is the norm, then have Sweden not lost a single war. With your standard did Sweden never lose Finland to Russia, because your country only won because of a civil war in Sweden.
5
Sweden fought alone against an alliance of countries with a 40 times larger population for 21 years during the great northern war, and still did it at many occasions come close to victory. I would say that the russian army was as much garbage back then as it is today. Just look at its track record. The Swedes did beat the Russians at Narva in 1700 37.000 Russians fought 10.500 Swedes. Russia lost 9000 men and 20.700 men was captured. Sweden lost 667 dead. In 1701 came the battle of Düna. The Russian and Saxon forces outnumbered Sweden 2 to 1, and had the advantage of a strong defensive position behind a river. Russia lost the battle with 1300 dead and 700 men captured. While Sweden lost 100 dead. Next came the battle of Rauge in 1701, where 7000 Russians faced 2000 Swedes. Russia lost the battle and lost 2000 men. Sweden lost 50 men. The next humiliation was the battle of Saločiai in 1703. Here 6000 Russians stood against 1,100 Swedes. Russia lost the battle with 1500 men killed and over a thousand flags fell in enemy hands, while only 40 Swedes died. In 1704 was a Russo-Polish force of 15.000 men beaten up by a Swedish force of 3000 men (plus 2000 Lithuanians) in the battle of Jakobstadt. Sweden won the battle, and lost 238 men, while the Russian-Polish side lost 2300 men dead and 500 men were captured. At Gemauerthof in 1705; did 7000 Swedes fight a Russian force of between 13.000 or 20.000 men. Sweden won the battle with 1900 men in casualties, while Russian losses numbered 5000. In 1706 did a Russian-Saxon force of 20.000 men go into battle against 9400 Swedes in the battle of Fraustadt. Sweden won the battle with 400 Swedes killed in battle, while the Russian and Saxon losses were 7377 dead, and 7,900 captured. At the battle of Grodno, in january did a Swedish force of 800 men attack a Russian force of 9000 men. Sweden won the battle, and lost only 11 men killed. While Russian losses was higher: 150 men killed and 50 captured. The battle of Holowczyn took place in 1708, 12,500 Swedes went into battle against a Russian force 28.000-40.000 men strong. This dangerous river crossing by Swedish forces, became the favorite victory of the Swedish King Charles XII. Sweden lost 265 men killed, while Russian losses numbered 2000 men. A few weeks later was it time for the battle of Malatitze. A Swedish force of 5000 men fought 13.000 Russians. Sweden won the battle, losing 1050 men killed or wounded, while Russian losses was 2,700 men killed or wounded. Then a month later came the battle of Rajovka in september 1708. 2.400 Swedes fought against 10.000 Russians. Sweden won the battle, and lost 100 men killed while Russia had 375 of their men killed. In January 1709 was the battle of Oposhnya, where 2000 Swedes fought against 6000 Russians. The battle ended with a Swedish victory. 19 Swedish men were lost while Russia lost 450. 12 days later came the battle of Krasnokutsk–Gorodnoye. 2.500 Swedish riders went to battle against a Russian force of about 5000 to 10.000 men strong. The battle ended with a Swedish victory, with 132 Swedish soldiers lost while Russia lost 1200. 1719 was the battle of Stäket where 1200 Swedish soldiers defeated a Russian force of 3000 men. Sweden lost 101 men while Russia lost 500. So which army was the better one? I would argue that the Swedish army was clearly the better one. Russias army was garbage. It fought only against 1 enemy unlike Sweden. And yet did it performed so poorly. And almost every war russia fought is like this. World war 1 is like this. World war 2 is like this. The current war in Ukraine is like this. High losses and a snail phase of advance are what is typical for the russian army throughout history.
4
@maxinabo Just because Ukrainians speak russian does not mean that they are russian. Americans today are not British. Just like Ukrainians are not russians even if they speak the same language. Zelensky speaks russian, but that does not mean that he is a russian. You may have that opinion, but that is probably not how he sees himself. Fact is that todays Ukraine voted for independence in 1991. And all areas, including Crimea voted for independence from Russia. In every area was the majority for independence from Russia. And with that should the issue have been settled once and for all. And the only way for Ukraine to becoming a part of russia again, should be if the majority of Ukrainians vote for voluntarily join russia again - something I cannot see happening anytime within the coming 200 years after russias genocidal war. It is a great irony that russia says it invades Ukraine to protect the russian speakers, but all it does is bombing Russian speaking cities like Odessa, Kharkiv and Bakhmut into ruins. 98% of all buildings of Mariupol has been destroyed and possibly as many as 200.000 civilians have been killed. So I do not call it liberation when russian speakers gets killed by the russian army, and their homes gets looted and destroyed. This war is just tragic and unnecessary. Russia should just go home. Nothing good comes from prolonging this war. And the russian speakers in Ukraine does not want russia there.
4
@maxinabo Many people in USA did probably see themselves as British after USA had become independent. And even more did before USA declared independence. 22.4% of the people in Ukraine saw themselves as russians in 1989 (altough that number should be taken with a grain of salt, as the term "russian" means different things to different people). Today however is this number likely much lower. Indeed the desire to rejoin the motherland is totally gone by now. Perhaps not so strange I guess. If I lived in Mariupol and had my entire family killed and my entire town where I grew up destroyed, then would I also not feel happy about the russian invasion. I might have been in favor of russia before the war, but after what russia had done to Mariupol, and in Bucha and Irpin is there simply no way I would have anything but contempt for Putins regime. Russian occupied Donbass have also become a place of constant electricity black outs and open daylight robbery by mafia gangs. A place where people can get killed for just waving an Unkrainian flag, and kids gets into trouble if they just speak Ukrainian at school. This is not liberation. That is what we call opression, lack of freedom, and anti-democratic rule.
4
To me it seems like Peter often changes his views 180 degrees. Sometimes in just a week
3
@gnice8765 "You claim WW2 was not won by Russia bc they lost more ppl than any other country. The human loses do not determine the winner." I think you have misunderstood me. My claim was rather that russia did survive the nazi onslaught thanks to the help that the western allies provided. Without this aid would russia likely have lost the war on the eastern front. If russia did not get millions of food rations, would the country have been forced to produce all that food by themselves instead or starve to death. If russia did not get planes, locomotives, trucks and tanks... then it would have been forced to produce all those things by themselves. And that means that russia would have needed more farmers and industrial workers and could not have afforded to field so many soldiers because they lacked food and weapons for them. And with the huge manpower losses russia suffered could they unlikely have afforded to keep on fighting this war like they did because they were beginning to run low on manpower already by 1944. Indeed only an increase in tank production by late 1943 helped russia to decrease its infantry losses during mass assaults against german lines. In an alternative universe without allied help, do I think it is extremely unlikely that russia could have kept on fighting the germans on their own hand. For the reasons mentioned, but also because of the force multipliers it meant to have access to radios (which was extremely scarce in russia), american high quality aviation fuel (russian fuel was low quality), explosives (which russia was in short supply of), and enormous amounts of military trucks that allowed the russian army to be more mobile than before and more mobile than their German enemy. British tanks was also more reliable than russian tanks that was built for a short life expectancy in mind. This made the Valiant tank very popular training tank for russian tank crews.
3
@gnice8765 Russia was created by Swedish vikings from a place in Sweden called Roslagen. Those Swedish vikings from Roslagen who did row oars on viking ships was called "Rus". And those vikings founded Kievan-Rus - which is considered the first Russian and Ukrainian kingdom. So Sweden created Russia, indeed the name "Russia" comes from "Rus". Indeed in Finland are Sweden still today called Routsi, refering to this old group of people. And when it comes to your anglosaxon heritage, could it be said that it was much formed by the Scandinavian vikings. Admittedly mostly Norwegian and Danish vikings, but still Scandinavians none the less. And this was back in a day and age when the differences between the 3 kingdoms Sweden, Norway and Denmark was insignificant in regards to culture and language. It was mostly just an issue about which King ruled over which piece of land, and what team of men followed and obeyed those Kings. Indeed half of all words in the English language are of viking origin. Words like "window", "sky" and thursday (the God Thor's day). The Danish rulers possesed enormous amounts of power during the viking age and many comtemporaries liked Adam of Bremen considered the Danish King equally powerful to the Holy Roman emperor. So the long lasting impact on England should not be underestimated. The vikings also found America long before Christopher Columbus did. You say Sweden would be nothing today without russia and USA. I say that you could just as well argue that America and Russia would be nothing like today without Swedish influence.
3
Germany did defeat russia in 1917
2
@DIA1020-o8k Reducing the Great Northern war to one battle is like when an American watch a movie about D-day and think it sums up the entire world war 2 😂😂 Russia lost one humiliating loss after another. And your best reply you can come up with is to brag about a battle russia won against an enemy they outnumbered with more than 2 to 1 in manpower and more than 28 to 1 in artillery. A Swedish army that lacked food and gun powder and had to attack a fortified position out of desperation. And even if the Swedish cavalry screwed up the battle plan from the start, did Sweden still come close to winning the battle. Peter the Great himself even prepared for a retreat and wrote a letter where he thought that the battle was lost. Gangut was a tiny victory with no significance for the war. It was a propaganda victory and nothing else. Russia won the battle by pure luck and no skills at all, as the lack of winds prevented the swedish ships from manouver. A tiny force of 1 pram and 6 galleys was lost. Thats all. The fact that the russian navy feels the need to brag so much over such tiny victory do I think says a lot about how few successes that navy must have throughout its long history. Otherwise its mostly just humilitations like Svensksund 1790, Tsushima 1905 and the war of Ukraine that comes to mind. Anyways, back to the topic of the Great Northern war. The Swedish high sea fleet did remain the most powerful one in the baltic sea even after the victory. Russia could dominate the shallow waters in the baltic sea with mass produced galleys built with low quality junk wood. But it stood no chance against the Swedish navy in the deeper waters where bigger warships were superior. Sweden did not have the resources for fighting a two front war against both Denmarks high seas fleet and the russian galley fleet. And most contemporaries in the 1700s Europe believed that Sweden would rise again after the loss in the Great Northern War. That would never happen because the corrupt incompetent nobility took a strong grip of power for the coming 100 years of the country and brought it towards ruin rather than recovery. They did behave much like russians today. Our nobles were filled with revanchism - just like Putins fanboys that are angry over the loss in the Cold War. There was a lust for military glory - like in russia today. There was an obsession about becoming a great power again - like in russia today - and the idea of peaceful future with economic development and civilian investments was getting contempt from the rich ruling class. The idiotic Swedish nobles brought Sweden into the seven years war against Prussia - for it was totally unprepared. Logistics was terrible, leadership was poor, thousands of muskets were totally unusable because of corruption. So even if the enemy had somehow ceased to exist, would the Swedish army have been unable to move forward more than a few kilometers because the logistics was in such a crappy shape. Much like the russian army outside Kyiv in 2022. The war ended with humiliation for Sweden. And the national debt grew into levels higher than it was after the 21 year long Great Northern War. Sweden was stupid enough to start a war it was not prepared for. And brought economic ruin upon itself. A lesson also other countries could learn from - like russia. Sweden would probably have been better off without more wars, even if I think that the war of 1788 against russia could have been succesful if the Swedish officers had not commited mutiny and treason against the King. After all was nearly all of Swedens empire still intact after the end of the Great Northern War. Finland was still part of Sweden. And the same goes for the German provinces. Swedens conquests from Denmark was still all in Swedish hands. So the empire was mostly pretty much intact after the war.
2
Putin reminds me of his own favorite Tsar Nicholas who started the Crimean war despite Russias backwardness and despite England and France was the richest high technological industrial superpowers of their age. And the reason why Tsar Nicholas and Tsar Putin believed in victory was the same. The west was decadent, materialistic, lazy, too comfortable, individualistic, unwilling to sacrifice blood and sweat, and unmanly. While Russia was manly, stubborn, brave, they were used to hardships, they were patriotic and understood the meaning of self-sacrifice for the greater good. It was believed that those virtues would compensate for russias technological, economical and manpower disadvantage. But Putin despite his love for history have failed to see that he is not the first one to have this faulty belief that wars could be won only by superior morality. Tsar Nicholas lost the Crimean war for Russia. Hundreds of thousands of people died for nothing for this childish man that had some silly fantasies about being a succesful conqueror King. Russia lost that war. Japan in World war 2 thought that the superior Japanese soldier would beat the industrial might of the decadent, comfortable, westerners that were unwilling to die for their country or for anything. But Japan had their asses kicked and lost the war anyways. And this was despite the Japanese undoubtably were fanatical and literarly fought til the last man and never surrendered, and japanese soldiers continued to fight for the emperor even decades after the war had ended on some remote pacific islands. So if not even fanatical Japanese bushido warriors could defeat the industrial might of the west, or German military professionalism. Then do I hold no doubt that russia will lose its future wars against the west. The russian soldier is less willing to fight than his western counterparts and more willing to surrender. And the lack of industrial might is even worse than that Germany had against USA. And nor do russia hold any manpower advantage like it had in previous world wars. Russias hopes and dreams are unrealistic. Putin just do the same mistake as previous Tsars. And russia will pay a high price for this for many decades to come.
2
Russian state tv claims that russia have never lost a war throughout its history. And that it have never started one either. But neither of those claims are true. And taking Kyiv will never happen. Not even with a 100% mobilization. Russia simply does not have the resources for that.
2
I feel like Stockholm is so vulnerable on the east coast. It needs a defensive barrier like in the past... when Finland and the Baltic states and Leningrad oblast belonged to Sweden, plus some north German provinces and Polish towns.
2
Nationalists exists in all countries. They exaggerate their own countrys importance and turn a blind eye to embaressing set backs. Russian nationalists do this however to an extreme degree not seen in any other country in Europe - which is why I regard every russian "history book" as worthless sci-fiction. They ignore all genocide and opression. They do not call World war 2 for World war 2 in Russia. For russians did world war two not start in 1939 with Germany and Russia invading Poland, the Baltics and Finland. But instead do Russians use the term "The Great Patriotic war" and say that world war two began in 1941, and they ignore everything that happened before that year and pretend that Russia somehow was the defender and victim in this war, and not the aggressor that criminally helped to start this war. Nor have Russia apologized for the wars and occupation of Finland. No attempts have been done to deal with the crimes of the Soviet union like Germany did with their Nazi past. And russian history ignores military failures. For them did nothing happen during the Great Northern War until the battle of Poltava in 1709 which they won. And they try to pretend that they did not lose 19 out 20 battles for the rest of that war despite having 4 times numerical superiority against a country with limited manpower reserves that was fighting a two front war against an enemy coalition with a population 40 times larger. Russian nationalists refuse to talk about the war with Finland, and even less about all battles. But instead they narrow everything down to the peace settlement in their attempt to make the russian military look competent, while everyone in the world knows that they got themselves completely humiliated against Finland in 1939 and in 1944. Russian nationalists produce fake statistics in an attempt to make their own combat losses against Nazi-Germany seem less humiliating for Russia. And they try to pretend that lend lease played no role at all for Russias victory. But fact is that Russia suffered the worst military defeats in history in humiliating military disasters like the battle of Kiev in 1941, where 600.000 troops were captured by the Germans in just a single battle. Any other army in history would have lost the war after suffering such hard losses. But the russians have not performed impressivly in other wars either. They lost the Crimean war. They suffered a humiliating loss in the russo-japanese war. World war 1 was a catastrophic defeat for russia. Russia failed to conquer Poland in the 1920s. They lost the war in Afghanistan. They failed in Chechenya. The Georgian army did do well against the russian forces, but a small country with 3.8 million people with no western help stood no chance against Russia. So not so much of a victory to brag about for Russia. Indeed defeating Finland when it was the poorest country in Europe, and now doing so badly against Ukraine today (the country with the lowest GDP per capita in Europe) is not that impressive either. Its a country that has always brought stone age equipment to war. During the Great Northern War (1700-1721) was Russia and Sweden the two most oldest equipped armies in Europe, and the only ones still using pikemen and big heavy muskets with bayonets built for close combat with bayonets rather than lighter muskets for firing that was easier to carry. During the Crimean war in the mid 1800s, did Russia not have any industrial base so its troops were often equipped with muskets from the early and mid-1700s as they lacked modern muskets to fight against Britain and France. During World war 1, did the Russian artillery quickly run out of ammunition after the first months of the war. And for the rest of the war could russian industry only produce a tiny number of shells each month. A German artillery piece on average fired more shells in 2-3 days than what a russian one did in a month. And so few rifles were made that many russian units often had to share 1 rifles for 2 men, and do attacks in the same style as in the movie "enemy at the gates". And such meatwave attacks are still common in later wars, such as World war 2 and in the war in Ukraine. Not only have russia lost most wars it have fought the last 200 years. It have usually been beaten further back in history, and its few victories were usually won when it fought in coalitions with other countries - like against Poland, Sweden and Napoleon. Russian nationalists loves to call russia for "the destroyer of great armies" but Charles XII still had a good chance of winning the Great Northern War even as late as 1718. The performance of the Russian army against Frederick the Great was rather one of humiliation in my opinion. The battle of Zorndorf have falsely been remembered as a russian victory, while in reality did Russia lose that battle. Kunersdorf was a great defeat for Frederick, but what russian nationalists forgets to mention is that Frederick did crush the Russian army in that battle and forced it into a wild retreat and demoralized it for months to come. The Prussians did run behind the russian army and chasing it, and then did the Austrian army under Laudon see an opportunity for a counter-attack against the scattered and exhausted prussian troops and inflicted a painful defeat on Frederick. So did Russia win a great victory in this fight? Nope. They suffered a humiliating defeat, but could participate in the victory parade after the battle anyways. Also Gross-Jägersdorf was really just non-victory for Russia in the seven years war. So they had nothing positive to show for their participation in this war.
2
@maxinabo If Sweden invaded Finland. And if Swedish troops there behaved like the russian army in Ukraine, and murdered, raped, plundered, destroyed cities, turned villages into dust and rubble, kidnapped thousands of children to brainwash them, built torture chambers for finns, forbade finns from speak their own language in occupied lands, forbade them from waving finlands flag, killed people for supporting finlands independence on facebook... and behaving like scum in general.... well then I could very well understand if the Swedish speaking minority would not want anything to do with Sweden. They would rightfully hate Sweden for destroying their cities and killing their neighbours. And the Ukrainians feels the same way towards russia today. But for some reason are some people not clever enough to figure that one out.
1
The winter war was a humiliating failure. They also suffered more deaths due to winter cold than the Swedish army in 1708-1709 but was less affected only because they had more cannon fodder. The same goes for the battle of Stalingrad in 1942.
1
I think russian propaganda is just full of contradictions. First it says that west is weak and that russia easily outproduce the west in artillery ammunition, and that the west have no military stockpiles and is laughably weak. And then all of a sudden Russia turns around 180 degrees and says that the west is a great aggressive threat towards russia that wants to steal their resources. Even if the western armies are so weak that even Germany have less artillery ammunition than for a 2 week fighting with russia. So I say this: Get your own story straight for F*** sake.
1
@ericdaniels4650 I base my prediction on the past track record of the russian military. If russia would continue to push forward with the same rate of advance as they had during the battle of Avdiivka it would take something like 800 years before all of Ukraine is occupied. And Russia have to spend the lives of about 300 million soldiers. Russias population is 144 million. And the population of men in military age is even less. So things do not look good for russia if the goal is to take all of Ukraine. So far has not yet any big city, not even Charkiv, fallen into russian hands. Bakhmut was a tiny place compared to Charkiv, and even more so compared to Kyiv. And with most of russias best troops and heavy equipment wiped out I doubt its possible for russia to gain anything. I do not even think russia have the artillery ammunition available for such a large project.
1
My bet is that 80% of russian nukes don't work due to corruption and bad engineering and maintence. While my guess is that 100% of American nukes works and will hit their targets unless intercepted. However when it comes to russian ability to intercept I am not that impressed. While on the other hand do the patriot missile system do offer at least some protection against russian missiles. And I would be suprised if USA did have any secret ace up its sleve either. But regardless if do or not do I think it would easily defeat russia in a war, both a conventional and an unconventional.
1
Seems like the only thing Mordor are good at are at letting trolls spamming how good their own country is and how much everyone else suck.
1
@neolord50pro77 Well it doesn't matter. Russia have used up their missiles intended for nuclear strikes in Ukraine and have used them for carrying conventional explosives instead and sometimes not even that and just concrete. And many such missiles has been shot down. So russia have used up most of their missiles intended for a nuclear war, which tips the scale even more in wests favor.
1
They do so today
1
Germany have never taken Moscow. But Sweden, Poland and France have.
1
Meh.. they often got brown eyes, strange looks like Peskov, and nearly all of them are around 160cm tall. Even I as a relativly short viking are like 20 centimetres taller than the average Russian dictator for the last 100 years.
1
@campfireeverything The younger version of him looklike Timon in the cartoon Lion King. Now he looklike the moon man because of all botox bloating. I have always thought that there has been something disproportional about the distance between his eyes that makes him look odd.
1
Yes, their mentality reminds me of the aggressive imperialism mentality that was so common in the late 1800s. Its the same concepts and ideas there. A country's measure of success is only through the might of its military. Womens main duty is as mothers and baby making machines to provide the state with future soldiers and educate the kids. Other races are seen as inferior. Historical lands needs to be retaken. Its just social darwinism as Herbert Spencer did view it, and racists like Gobineau would approve it.Russia have tried to destroy many cultures by killing people, forcefully resettle them to Siberia and scatter them all over russia while russian settlers comes to Ukraine, Estonia and Königsberg to replace the native population. Just like russia do today in Mariupol and Crimea. Children are indoctrinated in a young age, and put in uniform even as small kids. And the biggest holiday in Russia is may 9th - the day of a boring military parade. Its not even a day of flowers, tears, remembrance of all fallen who gave their lives for the motherland... but instead is this military parade only about showing power and prestige to the russian people and the world for the benifit of the ruling party and nothing else.
1
Power and prestige seems important to the ruling class. But if a good life for the people living in your land is more important than this dick measuring contest.. then trade and cooperation is a better way to go. Japan have done extremely well through trade and cooperation. Better than they ever did trying to be an imperial power that tried to get resources through warfare and conquest.
1
They were reversing climate change
1
Nope. Youtube blocks comments. I cannot even post "hateful comments" on my own channel without youtube deleting them for me without my permission. And russian trolls have a defealt setting to delete my comments when I respond to them.
1