Comments by "Louis Giokas" (@louisgiokas2206) on "Anders Puck Nielsen" channel.

I love to hear about hybrid warfare as if it something new and omnipotent. First thing is that attacks on cyber assets have been going on at a high level for many years. Several years ago my sons showed me a site where one could actually see visually the cyber-attacks that were going on in real time. It was massive. Many of these were private actors, but many may have been government sponsored. The other thing to remember is that life in the west is so rich in material aspects that momentary interruptions are inconvenient but are not life threatening. In most, if not all cases, the effects are not permanent. It is not like being bombed. Additionally, the defense against such attacks gets better as time goes on. So, I agree that the west's response is correct.
4
Excellent analysis. The purpose of combat troops in a war is not primarily to take territory, but to destroy the enemy combat troops. Once that is done, then you can take whatever territory you want. By attriting the Russian forces in Bakhmut, especially given the combat ratios achieved, Ukraine obtained a favorable result.
3
It is interesting to hear someone like this. Good job, Anders. What is very likely is that the Russian Federation breaks up. This would take the form of ethnic republics and regions breaking away first. The demographics are such that ethnic Russians will become a minority in the Russian Federation. The war is accelerating the process. This could degenerate into warlordism as well. Considering the distortions of the Putin regime, this is not unlikely. Of course, China would use the situation to take big chunks of the Russian far east. They could use the land and the resources. Some analysts believe that China will break out into a period of warlordism as well. They have had many, many in the past. Mao was essentially just one of the warlords from the early 20th century. So, things are not looking good for Russia. They do not have the democratic traditions of the west. They are also one of the last traditional imperial empires.
3
Just at the beginning the talk about WWIII is ludicrous. I lived through most of the Cold War. While never in the military. I was in the military industrial complex. I always say that I miss the Cold War. I got to do fantastically interesting research with unlimited budgets. What could be better. My father worked at an Army weapons lab, and he did lots of cool stuff. But I digress. The nuclear calculus has not changed. If Putin starts a nuclear war, then Mother Russia is gone. Done forever. That is the only thing that stopped the Soviet leaders. If Putin started a war with NATO, and it did not go nuclear, then it would be over in a very short time and Russia itself would be dismembered.
2
Very good points. Artur Rehi has a good take on it and generally agrees with you. The next question is who did it. Artur has some good ideas on that as well.
2
Very interesting insights. I think you may be on the right track. The Ukrainians are much more clever than the Russians.
2
The US hasn't ratified the Rome Stature either. In fact, the US and Russia have the same status vis-a-vis the court. They both signed the original document and then withdrew. The other states in that category are Israel and Sudan.
2
Have you ever noticed the parallels between Putin and Czar Nicholas II? They are both short. Neither is/was a particularly dynamic speaker. Both were losing wars against smaller countries better equipped and led. In both cases the morale of the army was poor. Sounds like another situation of history rhyming.
2
Looking at the map you are correct about the border. There are lots and lots of places for incursions into Russia by the Russian Volunteer Corps. Are the places Russia is attacking now the avenues used by these groups in the past? If anything, by concentrating their forces for this incursion, the Russians hobble limit their ability to react when an incursion comes in a different area. As it is they are engaged with the Ukranian forces, and it would have devastating effects if they had to disengage and pivot to a different direction. The proper action for the Ukrainians would to be to let loose the Russian Volunteer Corps between Sumy and Kharkiv. They might even want to go in north of Sumy as a feint. All of this brings up one of my issues with the Ukrainian leadership. They seem to be much more reactive than I consider appropriate. They are, in effect, letting the Russians decide the time and place. I know that they have limitations, but a more active and aggressive approach might bring better results.
1
One flaw in your analysis is that you assume that the conscripts are fully trained. This is not so. The US used conscripts at least through the Vietnam War. They were fully trained before deploying though. That training took about eight months. In addition, we have seen evidence that the conscripts are not being fully equipped by the military. It turns out that their families are raising funds and buying necessary equipment for them. This is not a real fighting force.
1
This situation also points to the inevitable breakup of the Russian Federation. The demographics are such that soon the Russian ethnicity will become a minority. Russia is truly one of the last traditional empires on the planet. You might include China in that, since they control Tibet, Xinjian and Inner Mongolia, mostly through force. China, by the way, has had lots of warlord periods in their history. I don't know how accurate this figure is, but I heard that they have really only been unified for about 300 years of their long history. Up to the success of the CCP in 1949, they had been going through one of these warlord periods. Mao was just one of the warlords. So, the idea that Putin is basically a warlord makes sense. In these situations, the state becomes unsustainable.
1
I hate to break it to you, but false flag operations are often not proven to be such until a considerable amount of time has elapsed. Even the 1999 apartment bombings in Moscow, which are now acknowledged as a false flag attack, took some time to be revealed as such. So, you and all the other commentators are just guessing. Frankly, it is not even very informed guessing, since there is no way for you or others to get solid information about what is going on in Russia. I guess this generates clicks. Don't get me wrong, I do value your content, but on this issue I have seen so much that it seems somewhat redundant.
1
@nian60 No, I know exactly what he does. I have broad experience in the field. Frankly, I was just venting. Don't take it too seriously.
1
@gorillaguerillaDK It is curious. Frankly I think the Russian government is close to falling apart. Just a feeling.
1
There you go with the "three to one" rule of thumb. Look at the Gulf War and the Iraq War. The attacking side in both cases actually had fewer troops than the defender. Look at the offensive phases of the various war that Israel has fought. In the Yom Kippur war, the Israelis were even at the point of moving all the way to Cairo. They were held back both by the US and by the daunting prospect of what to do when they got there. The real issue is force multipliers. The US has those in spades. In the Gulf War the Iraqis had built massive trench lines and minefields. Using airpower to suppress the Iraqis the allied forces were able to punch through these. If Ukraine had such assets, they could have easily pushed through the Russian lines in the south, for example. Another thing I find interesting about all this drone warfare stuff, again going back to WWI, is that this will not be static. Don't forget that aircraft were initially used for reconnaissance. Then there was a need to shut down the other side's ability to reconnoiter the area from the air. This led to dedicated fighter aircraft. We probably will see something similar in Ukraine with the drones. I expect this is already being worked on by all parties, including the US.
1
The omniscient and omnipotent CIA. Everything is a CIA plot. Of course, Maidan was a CIA plot. Actually, I saw parts of Putin's speech where he laid out his conditions for peace. He might just want to shut up. He might also want to rein in his propogandists as well. Frankly, he is making Russia look stupid and unhinged.
1
Your initial assumption does not hold in cases like Ukraine, where one side decided to start the war. Are you implying that the party invaded had a choice not to fight. If that is the case, then why spend money on armed forces? I would be very interested in the answer to this question, since it affects the analysis.
1
@anderspuck Thanks for the response. I can see where you are coming from. What is interesting in this context is that I can think of no example of a country deciding not to react. Even Georgia reacted, although it did not go well for them.
1
On the mobilization front, Ukraine has already done this. They have many more troops than Russia does now. Considering that the attacking force needs three times the number of troops as the defending force, the Russia would still be hard pressed to get to this number and equip them. So, to put a win in that box is not necessarily reasonable. It would also take a long time, and the Russian equipment available is limited, and almost none of it is the "new" stuff. In the meantime, Ukraine has the West behind it, and they can beef up their forces to a level Russia cannot match. In fact, as the war goes on longer, Ukrainians can be trained in using better Western weapons, which further tilts things in their direction.
1