Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Russia headed to strategic defeat in Ukraine" video.

  1. And what goals are being achieved exactly?
    2
  2. You don't understand strategic defeat by looking at maps. Strategic defeat means you can "win" the war militarily, but you lose everything you achieved. Like the US winning the Vietnam war by getting the North to sign a peace treaty, then losing strategically when the North broke the peace accords and took over South Vietnam.
    1
  3.  @jackyao9061  The US had to contain North Vietnam. They got North Vietnam to agree to stop. They signed the peace deal. So the US won. But then the North invaded and Saigon fell. Militarily, the US beat the North. The VC were decimated during Tet. But they lost the strategic objective. You're the one who's blind. The US was fighting with one hand tied behind their back and still beat the North into a bloody pulp. And like Russia, at one point the enemy refusing to stay down is enough to let it go and just accept strategic defeat. Russia can beat Ukraine into a bloody pulp. But Russia will leave. And once they turn their back, are they going to do anything when Ukraine gets up again?
    1
  4.  @The_Custos  The US won. Vietnam signed the peace treaty. In Afghanistan the US also defeated the Taliban militarily. In both cases military victory did mot secure strategic victory because the enemy simply took over once the US left. That's STRATEGIC DEFEAT. The US was defeated STRATEGICALLY as they couldn't be defeated militarily. So both North Vietnam and the Taliban went back on the deals made knowing the US would not come back. You people are insane. The same thing is happening to Russia, but you believe Russia is immune to the same situation. Delusional. Russia will leave after winning. And then they will be STRATEGICALLY DEFEATED as just like the US their military wins did not secure their strategic goals. Please think. Please inform youself. Please read. Then think again. You're here denying that the North Vietnam agreed to peace in the Paris accords. Learn some history.
    1
  5.  @The_Custos  Exactly, thanks for admitting you have nothing to say. No need to waste my time pinging me, there's better ways to get attention.
    1
  6.  @The_Custos  Leaving a fight that isn't yours isn't a military loss. The US had troops stationed in Vietnam and Afghanistan, and they left because it wasn't their conflict anymore. The UK was also defeated in the Revolutionary War, they're still around. Germany lost two world wars, they're still around. Did you just claim that to be defeated, an organization or country has to cease to exist?
    1
  7.  @The_Custos  Yes. Very simple. When you leave a bar because a fight breaks out inside, it doesn't mean you got beat. What would I have to accept? You're punching air. You're trying to fight a ghost, possibly the Ghost of Kiev, by bringing up unrelated things I'm not arguing for. Stop imagining enemies that don't exist in your head. They can't take it right now. They cannot keep it. The size of the occupying army is simply insufficient for the purpose.
    1
  8.  @The_Custos  If my friend gets into trouble, refuses to learn how to handle his affairs, and had me fight his battles for years... at some point I have to realize this is a bad friend. Why am I bleeding in fights that end up not benefitting either of us? I know it's fiction. Thanks for explaining to me how I'm mocking you. Because the joke wouldn't make sense if it was real. The US also "turned" most of Afghanistan. The Taliban quickly "turned" those areas back as soon as the US turned their backs. Russia will turn their backs.
    1
  9.  @The_Custos  You can bleed and still win. Ever seen a boxing match or a UFC fight? Stop acting insane. There's no backstabbing, first of all the Afghan government backstabbed the US for refusing to stand on its own footing. They stole all the money instead of building up their country. This is not a friend. This is someone who uses and manipulates others. Yes, all is fair in war. The US left Vietnam and Afghanistan because they were not longer at war. The complacency wasn't coming from the Americans. Yes, Russia isn't the US. It's losing a lot more equipment and men compared to the US. How are they going to have staying power when they're wrecking their military and economy for minimal gains and actively unifying Ukrainians against Russia? The US lost strategically. Russia will lose strategically. They may actually lose militarily. I'll save my good day wishes for the Russian fathers and mothers losing their sons.
    1
  10.  @The_Custos  The Soviets won WWII because Germany was occupied and the nation rebuilt by the occupying nations. The bear can't take a long beating anymore. They're not pumping out kids like they were back then. Their economy can't make up for the lost materiel. You've been told already. There is military defeat and strategic defeat. You bring up American strategic defeats while denying the military victory, and then refuse to concede that Russia can suffer a strategic defeat despite YOU explaining how easy it is to suffer one. The Taliban did not strike when the US was weak. They started winning the country back when Americans had left. The last soldiers were not "driven out". They were simply covering for the people leaving, and left when there was nobody else they could bring.
    1
  11.  @The_Custos  How is the US weak? Staying power? What does that mean? After 20 years of a useless and unpopular war, deals were made to end it. You wanted the US to stay there for more 20 years? My soldiers? What do you mean? They were not repelling attacks, they were not participants in the fight. So Russia is throwing a tantrum and destroying things because they can't win. Children. Thanks for admitting how infantile the Russian leadership is. Pressure on the Ukrainian forces? The pressure on the Russian forces has essentially gutted them for the next decade. Settlements they've taken, can they hold them?
    1
  12.  @The_Custos  The US was fighting a professional army, the NVA, which was being supplied by the Soviets with high tech equipment. The "rice farmers" were massacred by the ARVN during the Tet Offensive, the VC were almost wiped out and had to be replaced by NVA regulars. South Vietnam killed so many VC in 1968 that they stopped being able to recruit in the villages.
    1
  13.  @The_Custos  I can't believe I'm giving history lessons for free. The guerrillas - Mujaheddin - that fought the Soviets were later caught up in a civil war, and the Taliban was the organization that ended up putting the hammer down and fighting those guerrillas. They came from regions in Pakistan. They didn't have bio-weapons labs, they had bio-labs. Which exist all over the world. Amazing how Russia made these claims about bioweapons and then presented absolutely no evidence of weapons. It's the Iraq WMDs all over again.
    1
  14. Not true. I criticized the US. Liar.
    1
  15. I love how you people insist on not seeing the truth. What was the point of the air assault on Hostomel in the first night? Why did Russian media accidently release that article celebrating victory? It was meant to be a quick special operation. It turned into a war. This assessment is visible to anyone except those refusing to look.
    1
  16. Secured their economy? Uhhhhhh okay.
    1
  17.  @the_bonebreaker7588  Their view is what, that money grows on trees? There's a reason Ukraine wasn't already exporting gas, and securing water to the separatist regions was peanuts. Now they lost massively.
    1
  18.  @the_bonebreaker7588  I'm at a loss here. The sanctions could be in effect for the next 50 years. Are we going to have to wait until then to figure out the juice wasn't worth the squeeze? Considering that the Russian stock market has been closed for 3 weeks... It can't be good.
    1
  19. And the mini governments would fare better than the separatist regions?
    1
  20. How does that make for a strategic win?
    1
  21. How do you replace a government the people are fighting for? You need occupation. That's the million dollar question.
    1
  22.  @Gio954  Because puppet governments can be thrown out and concessions walked back on. What's the point of getting concessions if Ukraine can just break their promises a year later?
    1
  23.  @Gio954  My point is sort of that Russia has already lost so much money in this fight, they probably wouldn't go back inside Ukraine. Hence why occupation is needed.
    1
  24.  @keltskiy  It shouldn't take state secrets or 5D chess. If you say they have different goals they're acomplishing, we should be able to see them. So far, they've lost a significant number of men, vehicles and even generals in this mess. They must be getting something big out of it for it to be worth it.
    1
  25.  @keltskiy  MK Ultra was CIA, not NATO.
    1
  26.  @keltskiy  I'm sorry, we all obviously know that France and Poland were behind it all.
    1
  27.  @keltskiy  Firstname Lastname
    1
  28.  @keltskiy  Lock him up. Do you have an actual argument or you are just saying things?
    1
  29.  @keltskiy  How does this relate to Russia winning or losing? Also, wasn't Putin also WEF? Why the break up?
    1
  30.  @keltskiy  Stalin cooperated with the Nazis.
    1
  31.  @keltskiy  Even Israel cooperated with Nazis, what's your point? Everyone cooperates with everyone they need.
    1
  32.  @kataliyun226  North Vietnam also signed a peace deal. They went back and invaded the South anyway.
    1
  33. We'll never forget their sacrifice.
    1
  34. The Biden administration being a trainwreck is a moot point. Increasing energy independency would hit back against countries that depend on oil sales.
    1
  35.  @ucmanhho9457  in the same sense that the US lost Vietnam on the internet
    1
  36. Okay. What happens when the Russian forces leave, and Ukraine immediately goes back on their promises? Are they going to go back in?
    1