Comments by "Kevin Street" (@Kevin_Street) on "Anders Puck Nielsen" channel.

The fact it took so long for the security services to respond just proves what you're saying. They're set up to respond to things like protests where they can prepare in advance, not sudden unexpected crimes like this one.
80
This is an example of how authoritarian regimes are inherently limited. The people running Russia keep making the same mistakes, doubling and tripling down on the same strategies because they can't see the mistakes in their thinking. In a democracy there's always someone else who can come along and replace the original advisors or decision makers, so errors can be corrected.
10
@markrice41 Well said.
3
Well said! So in the end it's the supply chains to Ukraine that matter most.
2
I think the purpose of the Russian navy in this war is to launch missiles at apartment buildings and schools, and that's about it.
2
@gimmethegepgun Very good points! Yes, authoritarians always have to make sure they're the source of all military and political power. Anyone who's too good at anything or just too popular can be a potential rival.
2
Thank you for this video!
2
Very well explained. Thank you!
2
Thank you for the new video.
2
Thank you for a very informative video. I'm fascinated by your conclusion that the West can fund Ukraine indefinitely - at first it seems wrong, but upon reflection I can see that you're correct. It's been years already and funding Ukraine is barely perceptible within western economies. Together we have enormous capabilities. Edited to add: The costs of the war in the form of higher energy and food prices are substantial, but that's different from the cost of paying for tanks, missiles and shells. The former would still be high as long as the war continues, but the latter barely make a dent in national budgets.
1
Thank you for the video. That makes a lot of sense.
1
This is a scary video to think about, but I see why so many people connected with NATO have been bringing up the possibility of war with Russia lately. Clearly the people who have to think about these things believe the risk is higher than it used to be that a Russian attack could happen. It's so frustrating that we're all basically being held hostage both to the election results in the US, and to the fading dreams of Putin in the East. The fact that Russia is rapidly growing weaker makes it more likely Putin might try to cross "break up NATO" off his bucket list while he still has the chance.
1
Trump lies, that's all this is. Remember his first term, when he was going to build a wall on the Mexican border, and make Mexico pay for it? That was the same as this. Of course it never happened, but he still claims he did it. He isn't going to take Greenland or Canada, it's just lies.
1
Excellent video! Thank you for making it so quickly. I would disagree on a small point, though. You said that Trump has a lot of credibility at stake in proving that his idea of the peace process will work, but Trump doesn't really function that way. Although elected democratically, he behaves more like an autocrat in the sense that he doesn't really need credibility. He does whatever he wants without worrying what the voters will say. And like an autocrat Trump's personal ties to Putin are what drives his interest in this issue. What worries me most is if the US will continue to sanction Russia at current levels, and what they might (or might not) do in response to Putin using a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.
1
Thank you for the video. It sounds like you're making a fairly complicated point: if I understand correctly you're implying that Ukraine is losing territory, but Russia's goals in the war are so overwhelmingly difficult it's still quite likely they'll run out of resources and have to stop before achieving all of them. And the more exhausted Russia becomes taking Donetsk, the more likely it is that a Ukrainian offensive will succeed, possibly in some other part of the front line. Meanwhile the air war is becoming more and more significant over time. Ukraine has successfully expanded it to Russia, where it's possible that drone attacks will cause shortages of critical resources even more quickly than before. It's interesting that Russia just made it's amount of oil production a state secret.
1
Seems like a Ukrainian bridgehead on the Dnipro is almost inevitable, and the Russians are debating if they should keep defending the bank and suffering losses, or skip ahead to the next step by abandoning the bank for higher ground and building a more defensible position. If they accept that they can't keep the Ukrainians out then they can attempt to set the conditions for what comes next and suffer fewer losses getting to that point. But that kind of pragmatism isn't acceptable at the highest levels of the Russian government. For proof of this, just look at how long they held on to Kherson while suffering massive casualties and front line collapses in the east. If they had stayed in Kherson they would have probably lost the war, and that's the only reason Putin grudgingly allowed a retreat. I don't think he'll allow it here.
1
Very interesting! Thank you.
1
This is the central conflict of the war. Everything else is like shells around this struggle between Russia and the world of international laws.
1
Thank you for a most informative video. I'll definitely be thinking about what you said if (or when) the US forces Ukraine into peace talks next year. Your thoughts need to be more widely known.
1
This is crazy! Not your analysis, that's as clear and sensible as ever - what's crazy is the idea that we could have reached this point after seventy-five years of successful deterrence. Or that all it took to enter a nightmare scenario was one really stupid US President. We have to make sure this never happens, by making it clear to Russia that Article 5 will absolutely be invoked if there is any act of aggression. Nothing has changed.
1