Comments by "Gaza is not Amalek" (@Ass_of_Amalek) on "Jake Broe"
channel.
-
90
-
37
-
32
-
31
-
29
-
there also were the massive V1, V2 and V3 projects (cruise missile, ballistic missile, giant stationary gun) that ate up huge amounts of ressources to make weapons that were only accurate enough to hit british cities, not military targets, while also not causing as much damage to cities as aerial bombardment could have. though V1 and V2 were both very scary in their own ways - V1 was produced in much larger numbers (cheaper) and killed more people, it was basically a much louder and larger analogue of the shahed loitering munitions, whereas V2 was special in that, being a supersonic ballistic missile, there was absolutely no warning (radars weren't good enough yet) and no way to defend against them, so they would effectively just appear out of nowhere and explode pretty damn big (I think like a 1 ton warhead), capable of flattening a big house or two.
18
-
17
-
14
-
14
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I would not call failing miserably at first, then very slowly developing an entirely different strategy, and months later very slowly advancing, all the while also sustaining unaustainable losses, "playing it smart". maybe it's too difficult and expecting better results is unrealistic, but these are nowhere near good results. the only thing that's been going impressively well are ukraine's deep strikes, those are developing very positively. particularly ukraine's apparent ability to, with whatever degree of covert allied support, still produce not just rather large numbers of low-complexity strike drones, but even proper sophisticated heavy weapons like neptune missiles, surpasses my expectations.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
wow, trying shrinkflation with gasoline is absolutely bizarre.
on the other hand, by american logic (gasoline gas price is the most important economic metric, and the president makes it), I guess putin is still amazing. the average gasoline price in russia over the last couple of months has been €0.53/l, or $2.60 per goofy american minigallon (seriously guys, you had to invent and keep another gallon, and at least two non-metric tons, and like three different miles, two mass ounces ans two volume ounces, and subdivide inches both as fractions and as decimals, and then you had to have foot and yard so close together that either one alone could do the job?). here in germany, it was €1.83/l, or $7.36/gal, while america had €1.03/l, or $4.10/gal.
also apparently iran, venezuela and libya are the best countries, since their gasoline costs three cents per liter. or if you prefer a moderate amount of democracy, kuwait has $0.32/l gasoline. and the worst is hong kong, at $2.93/l. well, that's not a country, so it's iceland at $2.23/l.
2
-
2
-
15:20 jake still not understanding what is and what is not fission is pretty cringe. 🤦 it's also clear earlier in the video where he claims that there is "no fission" going on in the warm shut down reactor. no, whenever there is reference to temperature in relation to reactor cores or spent nuclear fuel, that is not because the material is being externally heated forsome technical reason, or magically retains heat, it's actually the product of the fission, with the heat output being proportional to the rate of fission. when a reactor core is cold, its radioactivity is lowest, when it's warm it's moderate, and in use they regulate the rate of fission up to make it hot. "waem shutdown" means that the reactor is having a moderate level of fission maintained, but is not being used for electricity generation. "shut down" refers to the electricity generation, not the fission. the, couldn't shutdown fission anyways, but "warm" means that it's still at a considerably high level, not as low as it can go.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yvonnetomenga5726 wagner's resource deals include ownership of a gold mine in the CAR projected to yield $3bn in 8 years of operation, and a 25% profit cut from the many oil facilities they recaptured for the syrian government. and wagner is active in many other african countries, such as libya, mali, sudan, and burkina faso. libya has huge oil production, whereas many sub-saharan african countries have huge relatively easily accessible mineral wealth because all throughout modern times, poverty, bad governance, and instability have prevented industrial mining efforts. wagner has made huge amounts of money by securing african regimes with a few thousand troops for mining rights, and then securing the mining sites and bringing their own industrial mining equipment.
2
-
@Lasse65 I also think that threats from putin's people, probably via hostages, are likely to have been more important than any pay-off offer. though with a pay-off, you need to consider that by giving up on the rebellion, prigozhin has surrendered a huge portion of his and his family's wealth, probably much more than half (at least if you assume that any assets in russia are gone, though they may have been promised to remain in prigozhin's possession, for whatever that's worth). money in russian bank accounts and investments could be gone, both prigozhin and his wife own dozens of businesses in russia (mostly in saint petersburg) that would be gone, and likely most valuable of all is the likely total loss of the income streams generated by wagner's foreign deployments (mining and oil drilling concessions). even if prigozhin retained command authority over wagner, wagner has very little ability to enforce its claims on the resources granted to them now that russia not only does not support their claims, but opposes them (again assuming that continuing this was not promised in the withdrawal agreement, since the promise would not be reliable enough to make it worth considering). in weaker countries like the central african republic or mali, wagner may have some very limited ability to violently enforce its claims, but then they would be in a very different sort of business (at that point, it might make more sense to depose governments instead). in syria, wagner has no chance of keeping anything that putin doesn't want them to have. and really anywhere else, putin has plenty of leverage to make any contractual partner of wagner turn against wagner. without russian government support giving it access to all necessary military equipment and recruitment of personnel, wagner can no longer deliver on its security guarantees anyways.
so basically, besides the possibility of hostages, prigozhin would have gotten a buy-out from putin calculated as surpassing the value of most of his possessions multiplied by the percentage chance of success if he continued the rebellion. if he actually did it for the money, with no hostages involved, then the payment must have been enormous (really not the sort of money that would normally change hands in physical form). wagner's holdings include stuff like ownership of a gold mine in the CAR that was projected to yield $3bn in 8 years of operation when they got it ~3 years ago, and a 25% profit cut on oil installations that wagner recaptured for the syrian government. prigozhin may also have a lot of money safe outside of russia and not tied to continued russian support for wagner, but wagner's holdings certainly are gone, unless putin promised that prigozhin could keep them and actually delivers on that promise.
my guess would be that there was a payment, but much less than would compensate for the lost chance of prigozhin keeping his property, and the main part of the deal were hostages. not necessarily prigozhin's own family, family members of other essential coup perpetrators could also suffice to kill the coup. but if the russian authorities really did find that personal go-bag of prigozhin with the money, gold and false passports at the wagner HQ in saint petersburg, that speaks for rather shoddy planning that could also have included failure to secure prigozhin's own family. and there is the problem that trying to get all close family members of prigozhin and other important coup plotters out of russia in preparation would have been suspicious and would have posed a risk of information leakage. so perhaps they instead went with sending wagner personnel to those family members immediately before the operation to hide them in safe houses in russia, and perhaps that plan failed for some of them.
if by "not without a parachute" you mean that any deal would have required security for prigozhin: money is the only security he could have gotten, besides weapons for his troops.
2
-
2
-
liar! you can't claim to have a history of having a problem with israel's treatment of palestinians, and then support the biggest crime that israel has committed against the palestinian people in your lifetime, which is the total blockade of gaza and the unprecedated severity of bombing, with the expressly genocidal intent, according to netanyahu, of fully depopulating the gaza strip. israel is telling gazans to leave, but there is no way for them to leave. none can get into israel, israel blocks sea access, egypt requires entry permits to allow a trickle to leave, and israel even closed the one crossing into egypt for a day by bombing the immediate vicinity of the crossing.
israelis complain about a palestinian intent to "drive the jews into the sea", but that is, absolutely literally, what israel is currently doing to all gazans. while at the same time depriving them of water, food, fuel, medicine, and everything else they need.
the way israel is killing is less personal than the grotesque depravity of hamas' massacre, but through its scale it has already far surpassed hamas in total harm done, and it is no less clearly criminal in the eyes of international law, by violating the prohibition of collective punishment and the principle of proportionality. no massacre can ever justify a genocide. and this has nothing to do with the hostages, since what israel is doing is the course of action most likely to result in the deaths of all hostages. israel will probably cause most of their deaths directly with its bombing.
for comparison: three days ago, the IDF reported having already dropped a thousand tons of bombs. by now, as bombing has increased in severity, that number will have more than doubled, probably tripled. the beirut port blast was calculated as having had the force of 500 tons of TNT, and spreading out explosions directly into or under buildings increases total damage severalfold compared to one explosion (same principle as cluster munitions; and the beirut warehouse was supposed to contain 2700 tons of AN, but much less detonated, in my opinion most likely because hezbollah had been stealing/selling the stuff, which fits with its later intense open effort to prevent an investigation).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michelleisaacson6069 based on what is ukraine doing damn good?
you definitely can't claim steategic genius when their original strategy of armoured breakthroughs failed completely and cost them dozens of vehicles at no gain. given the situation thus demonstrated, strategic genius would mean not trying that in the first place.
even without detailed knowledge of the battlefield, I think it's very telling of how little ukraine has to show for its efforts that ukraine's government and supporters start chanting "breakthrough, breakthrough!" every time they pass another one or two percent of russian defenses towards melitopol. at this rate, they wiuld literally never get there. not only is the advance so slow that russia could build additional trench lines in front of ukraine faster than ukraine captures them, but neither ukraine's manpower and stocks nor ukraine's foreign support can take that much attrition. and it's not like melitopol is victory, it's just a waystation to enable a recapture of the zaporizhzhia and kherson oblasts, and hypothetically then attack crimea, which is looking absurdly unrealistic as that would be ten times more costly than melitopol, and look at how that is going!
of course the russian army getting routed again can't be discounted as a possibility, but I think that seeing their extensive defensive network in zaporizhzhia holding as well as it does is giving them quite a lot of confidence in not being overrun, unlike the situation in kharkiv and luhansk a year ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
depends on what you mean by winning the war, but yes, in general russia is winning. it's not winning as much as originally intended two years ago, and it failed to achieve its second phase goal that would have included capturing the whole coastline and perhaps kharkiv. but it will sooner or later reach a peace deal that will leave russia with all of the territory it's holding now plus the rest of the donbas. over the last 6-12 months, the balance of power has shifted really badly in russia's favour, and will only get worse. ukraine's recruiting will only get worse, and so will its foreign support, while russia's recruiting is still going great, it's getting massive ammo support from north korea now, and unlike the west it has actually spun up a war economy (which ukraine mostly is not able to do due to the damage, threat of missile strikes, and lacking workforce that's largely either joined up or left the country or is living under occupation).
in retrospect, ukraine f°°°ed up by not leveraging the option to sue for peace to get a more adequate amount of western support. they should have either gotten more, or actually negotiated a settlement much earlier. now they're in a terrible negotiating position, probably the worst it's been at any point of the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
well, western media and politicians love to play up the closeness of turkey and russia, but really, it's only been partial cooperation this whole time, and if you look at any proxy wars going on, turkey and russia are generally on opposing sides. between the US and russia, turkey is like 80% on america's side. in "libya", turkish troops and russia/wagner have even deployed combat troops on opposing sides, and in syria, one of russia's closest allies and the country of russia's biggest war effort before 2022, turkey has invaded and currently occupies parts of the country in collaboration with syrian islamist militias (and there also is that thing we don't talk about, which is that turkey was ISIS' most important supporter before that became a losing fight).
it's not that turkey and russia have friendly relations, it's more like a consensual dominance-submission thing, with turkey having provided a large portion of russia's biggest embarrassments in recent years, and putin seemingly liking erdogan not in spite of, but because of this. turkey had some drama with it deciding to buy S-400 air defense systems from russia instead of america's patriot, and getting kicked out of the F-35 program as punishment (which now looks extremely stupidy given the demonstrated relative capabilities of ukraine's patriots shooting down kinzhals, whereas russian air defenses including many S-400 systems have proven largely incapable of even defending against strizh attacks). but even before 2022, turkey's military-industrial cooperation with ukraine was bigger than that with russia, or the cooperation between many other NATO countries and ukraine, including setting up baykar drone production in ukraine.
perhaps it's also that putin is so desperate for any friendly gestures from NATO countries that he's very appreciative of the few that turkey provides, since that's more than russia is grtting from any other NATO country. and of course turkey doesn't just have that kind of relationship with russia, but also partially with the US, as demonstrated when turkey invaded syria to attack the mostly kurdish SDF, the US' only major remaining ally in the country, and the US' reaction was a hasty withdrawal abandoning america's allies to be overrun by turkey, and america even pretended like nothing happened when tuekey shelled an american military base still containing US military personnel because they felt like they weren't running away fast enough. of course the US wasn't a fan of turkey's support for the islamic state either, but publically pretended like it wasn't happening, and by the looks of it, turkey didn't cease its support until the US had more or less defeated ISIS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
there are other considerations though than just who ultimately wins a battle. nobody really wants to win a war the way anyone except for the americans won either world war. the battle of stalingrad was a pivotal soviet victory, but probably didn't feel much like it. even the siege of leningrad was technically a soviet victory, but in reality it was a genocide in a bottle most noteworthy for killing a million soviet citizens.
you really don't do yourselves any favours by making second world war comparisons, given that the negative aspects of those examples are always much worse than the war in ukraine. I've seen a bunch of comments about how there were allied losses on d-day, too - yeah no shit, that was an amphibious landing human wave attack, it was planned to cost tens of thousands of lives of allied soldiers, it was calculated and successfully executed by landing and advancing infantry at a rate faster than they were being killed by machine guns, mines and artillery on open beaches and fields assaulting concrete bunkers built and garrisoned to defend against exactly this attack. ukraine is not doing this, you would lose your minds if they did. nor does the ukraine war involve strategic bombing, or even a war economy anywhere but in ukraine. so calm down with the world war comparisons, you're making things look worse, not better. I get it, WW2 is the only war you know anything about. but it's mostly not a good comparison.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hgv1883 uhm no. xD
both very serious injuries to soldiers inhaling uranium dust on battlefields where the shells are fired or the removal of vehicle wrecks hit by uranium munitions, and dramatic increases of cancers and birth defects in the local population from uranium exposure through water and agricultural produce after uranium munitions use are well-documented. the risk to soldiers has even been acknowledged and warned about by the US military for decades (while the permanent poisoningis denied because the US doesn't want to stop using the stuff). uranium contamination is extremely long-lasting, since it can only be diluted and washed out by rainfall, there is no practical way to clear it. that's why DU munitions are less reasonable to use on one's own territory, and in a country with a very important agricultural industry at that, than mines or cluster munitions. chernobyl was already contaminated by the chernobyl disaster, but it was actually quite lucky in terms of wind direction, and severe contamination occurred mostly to chernobyl's west in a largely swampy and forested region of less agricultural importance. belarus and even parts of russia were hit much worse than ukraine, except for the immediate surroundings of the power plant of course. things would have been MUCH worse if the winds throughout the weeks the plant burned had blown south the short way to kyiv. almost all of the territory where ukraine will use DU saw hardly any contamination, less than austria and large parts of sweden, norway, and finland, and those normally are among ukraine's highly productive regions of agriculture. and the fundamental difference between DU munitions and reactor fallout is that the reactor fallout was made up mostly of radioisotopes with half-lives measured in days to decades, so most of the danger from it has already dissipated, and what remains will continue to get substantiallyless harmful in the coming decades. DU contamination is an eternal problem, it's a permanent poisoning of the land.
the reason why ukraine is getting DU munitions is that DU is essentially free. it's an abundant waste product with no other use, and would otherwise cost money to dispose of as high-grade radioactive waste. tungsten is just as good, but since that is a material with many other uses that needs to be mined deliberately, tungsten munitions are many times more expensive than uranium munitions, and the amounts that exist are a fraction of those of DU munitions. they have been produced in large quantities by countries like the US and russia which fight many wars on foreign soil, which they are willing to poison.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1