Comments by "Alan Friesen" (@alanfriesen9837) on "William Spaniel" channel.

"Ukriane has more resolve to continue fighting than Russia." Don't bet on it. Russia is fighting for self respect and they will over time put everything they have into this contest.
3
@ubroc Russia is in a hell of a lot better position than it was twenty years ago. It's a much stronger country and much more respected. That's not to say it's better liked, especially in the west. Historically, underestimating Russia is a bad business. The indicators of power that the rest of the world uses don't always apply well to Russia. I don't want to presume too much. The criticisms of Russia and Russian power may be valid to some extent. I'm just not willing to put my faith in western analyses towards other peer powers, too many biases of assumed superiority in play.
3
@ubroc Keep drinking, I'll be outside.
3
@dantankunfiveancestorsfist I think there are probably many Ukrainians who want exactly what you are saying. They want the war to end so that they can get back to their lives. I strongly suspect though that there are many others who are justifiably furious with the Russians regarding lost territory and invasion, and they are willing to fight to the death to drive the Russians out. From what I understand there are also Ukrainians who are happy to see the Russians come in and support them against the ultranationalists, especially in the east. I think the United States, and to a slightly lesser extent our allies, are supporting anti-Russian sentiments in Ukraine not for the benefit of the Ukrainian people, but to expand our influence in Eastern Europe at the intentional expense of the Russians. The Russians are pushing back against this. And because both of us are too chicken-shit to face each other directly, we're using Ukraine as a chess board at the great expense of the people of Ukraine, regardless of their point of view. Or perhaps I'm just jaded.
2
@Sarefsx Well, it would depend on who replaced him, but I think most Russians likely to do so would be just as determined to defend Russia's position in the world as he is.
2
@ubroc "In a conventional war NATO would win decisively." I've thought about this, and a large part of me agrees. The United States and western Europe has population and industrial capacity advantages that I don't see how Russia could overcome unless China came in as a belligerent on Russia's side. And we're really going of the reservation if we entertain that scenario. The one thing I'm not so sure of is NATO's current state of mobilization. I don't think NATO has the brigades of tanks and infantry in marching distance the way that they did during the Cold War. NATO would have to take time to get their troops in place for a full-scale operation. Here again, whether or not NATO would defeat Russia would depend on things like "what defines a victory?", "Where is the war taking place?", and "How long are they willing to fight in order to defeat Russia?". I have no doubt whatsoever that NATO could drive Russia out of Ukraine. That imbalance on Russia's periphery is the reason Russia attacked Ukraine in the first place. Russia is gambling that they can keep NATO from strengthening further without actually engaging directly with them. But if we're talking about NATO troops in Red Square, I think that's less certain, even if we don't consider the nuclear option.
2
@ubroc If no one respected Russia then they would have already been evicted from Ukraine. Respect comes in different forms. Russia is despised, but that is not the same as not respected. Russia is definitely no longer a laughingstock. I get the impression you think they are weak. They definitely have weaknesses, but I don't think they are objectively weak. I respect your right to disagree with me on this point.
2
@mekingtiger9095 My own interpretation is that Russia hoped for a quick and cheap victory but underestimated the Ukrainian resolve. They didn't put all their resources into the invasion in part because they were trying to deny their intention to attack until the moment it happened. Plan A failed, so plan B was put into effect, which is the long slow grind. That may also fail, but we don't know that yet. Obviously the Ukrainians don't want the Russians there, at least in the western half of the country. Occupation, even of part of the country, is likely to be expensive in both lives and treasure, especially with western countries propping up resistance forces for the duration. A victory over the course of a year or two may be invaluable, but an extended stay is likely to be a quagmire.
2
The reverse is true as well. Russians are concerned that a pause would just allow Ukrainians to acquire and train on more western weapons.
1
@Squee.1366 Agreed and liked.
1
@diegotapia2830 Russian resources are not unlimited either, and Russia has a more difficult argument to maintain support among her people. While fighting for global respect is a fairly worthy cause, fighting for survival is an absolutely worthy one.
1
Do you have any evidence of officials falling out of favor and being executed because of it? I've not heard of such in Russia under Putin. I will acknowledge that his chief rival was poisoned, presumably by someone who did so either at Putin's request or independently in an attempt to curry favor with him, but Novolny was an active adversary, not a mistaken advisor. Putin's inner circle may very well hide the truth from him because they don't want to lose their cushy positions, but I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that they are at risk of dying prematurely merely for telling Putin what he might not want to hear.
1
Penny Neiman You haven't refuted anything I mentioned. If there are incidences of Putin executing advisors who deliver unwanted information to him, I haven't seen it. If you have, please point me to it. Russia said they would not attack Ukraine if they gave up their missiles. NATO said they would not expand past Germany, Ukraine said they would abide by Minsk II. Everybody lies when it suits them. That doesn't really excuse it, but it does put it in perspective. I'm not taking Russia's side here, but saying Putin shoots his messengers is an example of gross misrepresentation if you don't have evidence to back it up. Now, if you are a Ukrainian defending Ukraine, it's your duty to smear your enemy. And if that's the case, I salute you. If you are not at war with Russia, than you can still slander them as a symbol of your support for the Ukrainian side, and that's perfectly okay. If you really believe it though, then either you're brainwashed, or you have access to information that regular people like me do not.
1
@ubroc Anyone who thinks Putin is crazy hasn't really observed him closely. Putin is cold, calculated, Machiavellian, and gutsy. He's shepherded Russia back from the brink of irrelevance in the face of overwhelming western headwinds, not through insanity, but through willingness to take necessary risks. It's quite possible that at some point he'll take one risk too many. It's possible that he's already done that in Ukraine, but it had to be done, otherwise Russia would end up torn to pieces the way the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were, at western instigation. One of the cornerstones of western propaganda is to declare unapproved of leaders crazy. It's been used against the leadership in North Korea, Venezuela, Libya, Syria, now Russia. I've even seen accusations of craziness levelled against Xi Jinping of China, probably the most competent world leader currently holding office. You can't effectively run a country if you are crazy, and Putin is very effective at running Russia. If, on the other hand, you want to say that Putin is evil, I think that's a much more defensible position. He certainly seems willing to break a few eggs.
1
@robertbricker What you're saying here jives much more with my limited understanding of Putin's behavior regarding his friends and enemies. The comment I was responding to from you was, "When you have an authoritarian government like Mr. Putin's, one doesn't go off quietly in to retirement if things don't go well. One is given a blindfold and asked to stand in front of a wall." which I didn't think matched my perception of Putin's actions up to this point. I do agree that Putin appears to be willing to use old-fashioned methods for sidelining his adversaries. I don't know of any instances where he has threatened the survival of advisors who offer harsh advice, or poor advice that leads to unfortunate (from his perspective) outcomes though. I did want to thank you for bringing up details to support your general description of Putin's political history, it's probably more work than I would have done, me being lazy and all.
1
@ubroc I've seen western descriptions of the performance of the Russian army. These are the same describers that told us that the Syrian army was doomed and on the verge of collapse several times during that conflict. I don't trust these descriptions entirely. That doesn't mean that I believe the excuse ridden narrative of Russia's boosters either. I'm going to wait to pass judgment until the reality becomes obvious under the overlying fantasies of both sides.
1
@ubroc They may not attack, but they damn sure encroach. I don't blame the Russians one bit for being nervous. They have been invaded three times from the west during the modern era, and each time it was devastating to the Russian people. They just don't believe we're as benevolent as we think we are.
1
@GameOvais I saw that argument made by Scott Ritter, and I think he may be right to some extent. I'm certainly no strategist. The takeaway I'm getting from this conflict so far is that war is a difficult business. I've always heard anecdotes about things like the fog of war and that "the enemy gets a vote" and of course, "the best laid plans of mice and men…". I have no insight on what Russian intentions were at the beginning, I'm guessing as much as anybody else, but I suspect that there were optimists in Putin's inner circle that thought that Ukraine could be forced to come to terms quickly when faced with a full-on assault, and that resistance to the degree it was encountered was somewhat unexpected. At least the Russians didn't assume that the country could be defeated by air power alone. I think that in the long run, whether it was planned or not to make a show of force near Kiev and then back out, Russia will destroy the Ukrainian army and obtain the military victory, unless NATO actually comes in on the ground. Whether Russia occupies, inserts a puppet government, or divides the country into pieces ala Yugoslavia, I don't know, but I would be shocked if Russia leaves without making sure that NATO has no opportunity to establish a presence in at least the eastern half of what is now Ukraine.
1
@michstockholm1164 We all make assumptions, and being flooded with propaganda, those assumptions are constantly being encouraged. Nobody at my level knows what's really going on, myself included.
1
@ThePandafriend "Casualties on the Russian side have been harder to assess with the country’s defence minister saying on March 25 – its most recent update – that 1,351 of its soldiers have been killed in combat, while 3,825 were wounded. Ukraine says 19,000 Russian soldiers have been killed. However, experts say figures by both parties cannot be trusted as Kyiv is likely to inflate them to boost the morale of its troops, while Russia is probably downplaying them."—AlJazeera 08April2022 The gap between claims is extreme and the real numbers could be anywhere in that window. Fancier equipment requires more extensive training and it seems that for the moment NATO is dumping its obsolete equipment into the conflict. Ukraine definitely has the advantage regarding asymmetrical tactics which could very well wear down the Russians over time.
1
While access to seaports is a major benefit to any country's economy, Ukraine borders the largest economic trading bloc in the world. Losing its ports would be problematic, but it wouldn't take Ukraine out of the global trading economy.
1