Comments by "James H Gornall" (@jamesgornall5731) on "Real Reporter"
channel.
-
36
-
27
-
@Nero-Caesar I was watching Denys's channel during the period in December 2022 when he first left Kiev, then popped up saying he was out of Ukraine, he gave multiple reasons as to why he was able to leave unmolested, ranging from 'I was told they'd need me after the war to help rebuild the civilian air transport sector' to, 'I was unable to pass the physical to get into the military, but I'm still okay to fly civilian aircraft,' I was among a few who commented that it sounded more like he'd bribed his way out, as so many with means were able to, but these protests were met with anguished cries of horror, that Denys must've left legally and for a good reason...okay. Then I was shadow banned. He makes money off the back of his own people, after running away, to me he's a coward AND a traitor, and I'd hope he was on a list somewhere, that if he ever showed up in country again, the security organs might like a nice long chat with him.
19
-
@clarkenoble I hated Kagan's "Paridise and Power" so much that I burned the hardcover copy I bought when it was released; only book I have ever destroyed. It was clear a decade ago that Kagan-Nuland and their ideologically corrupt ISW think tank were in control of US foreign policy thinking, and that tensions in Ukraine would eventually spill over into war. I hoped and prayed that an executive would have the guts to kick them from power, Applebaum as well, and let sober-minded US policy in the State department come back... it's like letting the Church of Scientology run your education department. When you try and point out that Russia is a nuclear power, just as it was in 1985, and back then nobody would've dreamed of provoking it right on its own doorstep, this is met with cries of derision ranging from, 'it's an illegal invasion' (when did that EVER stop either the US or the Soviet Union from invading other nations) to, 'Russian nukes don't work,' (we have ample evidence that their ICBMs, IRBMs etc on land and SLBMs underwater have been working as intended since the 1960s)... all of it bunk, but that's not what people want to hear so it is disregarded.
7
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@clarkenoble he's a first-rate strategist, he can stand at a podium and give coherent Q and A for 3 hours, he's bilingual, has a doctoral-level degree, he was placed in power by oligarchs who thought he'd be easy to control, as Yeltsin had been, but he turned the tables and had those same oligarchs either imprisoned or run out of town, but did this via strategic thinking, long-term planning. My friends in Russia all voted for Mr Putin, and I can hardly blame them... I first went in 1999 had a gun pulled on me; 20 years later I barely recognise the place, a lot of that mobster gunslinging and corrupt militia racketeering has been kept in check, at least out of general view, and the cities look cleaner, the people look better-fed, life expectancy has risen dramatically... even touristy things, like there are far fewer cases of going out at night and the bar simply running out of stock and having to close up, fewer and fewer menus where only 1 item out of 5 is actually available. In general, the country seems to have moved forward over 20 years, and people like that, so why not vote for it? Hell, if I saw my standard of living improve year on year, I'd keep voting for it, too. The USA talks an awful lot about hifalutin ideals like free press, free elections and the like but these aren't much use when people can't feed their kids as much as they'd like to, when they can't pay their mortgage, and so on.
The hue and cry over the Russian elections is mainly because they didn't return someone to power whom the US could co-opt and use to keep the Russian people under their boot. Wouldn't we vote for someone who promised to make the country great again and actually delivered on it? Such things are hard to accomplish in nations with such short election cycles... 1 year settling in, 1 year formulating a plan, then it's already midterm season and time for election fundraising to begin... 3rd year raising funds for the election, 4th year spent fighting another election... that's 4 years wasted already, and a constitutional bar on running after a second term. It's a lot of time to expend when other nations have systems where leaders are able to take the longer view and think years, decades ahead. That's not to say they are without flaws, but these systems definitely permit them the latitude to formulate a long-term strategy.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ive been to Saint Petersburg, in 2005, in the middle of January when it was minus 20, and the Russians would say, "It's only minus 20, hardly worth bothering about." Im from the UK, and those temperatures, let alone minus 60 in Yakutia, are almost incomprehensible, but I dressed properly for the weather and walked the streets, visited the glorious State Hermitage and the Winter Palace, walked the length of Nevsky Prospekt and it was like breathing in the Russian history I was studying at university. The Metro, the number of men my age in uniform who must've been cadets at the various military schools, or conscripts moving from location to location. I sang the Soviet anyhem with a group of Russian submariners, and toasted those undersea leviathans whole standing on the frozen Neva river. Remarkable experience.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@clarkenoble I was a signals officer and attended our military academy after university where I received an MA in IR after a BA in military history; fast forward over 20 years and I now work in IT but my hobby is still military history and geopolitics; I look at people like Ryan and I think he simply shot down a rabbit hole to the subjects he felt comfortable with, only, he did so when the zeitgeist was with him; looking at latest whizz boom technology and kapow splat uber weapons, it's exactly how I'd expect a senior NCO to work, all the info about a narrow field but little strategic thought; I wouldn't come to him to discuss the battle of Kursk and it's similarities and differences to the 2022 'counteroffensive', I wouldn't expect him to give a sensible analysis, likewise I wouldn't expect to descend on him and say I knew more about the weapons system his unit was in charge of operating, he'd know it inside out already.
The problem is, because he speaks the language that the CoD generation wants to hear, that super weapons and elite soldiers win wars, which simply isn't borne out by evidence by the way, he manages to get pulled into talks involving strategy and fairly predictably whatever he says quickly falls as flat as a pancake. Sadly, because everything he says is, and I hate this term by the way, 'pro-Ukraine' (there's nothing in this conflict whuch benefits Ukraine, which hurts because I've spent time in Ukraine and Russia and love the people very much), because he's saying what people want to hear they will allow him to overreach and forgive him being wrong time and time again... talking about superior US tanks when there were only 30 in the entire country, that's the sort of thing someone thinks who has zero idea about strategy during war, and not much conception of how an opponent is able to adapt to new technology because it isn't a video game and you're not playing against a crappy AI which cannot do anything but churn out units and send them straight into your well-entrenched defences. However, as long as what he says is still popular, even if it's wrong, he can carry on regardless.
Contrast the above with a John Mearsheimer lecture given 8 years ago at U of Chicago, it's on YT, the same talk could've been given 2 years ago, could've been given last week, and most of it was on the money, still on the money. Prof Mearsheimer was a hero of mine at University and I was taught by realist academics, but what he is saying ISN'T what people want to hear, so he's vilified as a 'Putin apologist' by hacks like Piers Morgan. I'm upset that Russophiles like me are vilified (I was married to a Russian, I took vacations in Russia even in my teens and 20s, I can hardly help having an affection for the place) by people who know nothing about Russia or Ukraine, have never been to either, can't speak the language, have never studied their history, but are happily complicit in the destruction of so many of their young men, and think carrying on would be fantastic for the West. Ryan, Denys, Jake Broe etc all need to take a look at their hands, by profiting from this conflict and actively trying to extend it, they have blood on them.
Alex from HL, I've watched his channel for years, it was Napoleon and WW2 before the Russo-Ukraine war and he has a great breadth and depth of military history knowledge; it'd be a pleasure to listen to him if it wasn't a war among a people so close to my heart. I'm just glad they've not managed to demonetise him into silence.
1
-
@clarkenoble @clarkenoble I was a signals officer and attended our military academy after university where I received an MA in IR after a BA in military history; fast forward over 20 years and I now work in IT but my hobby is still military history and geopolitics; I look at people like Ryan and I think he simply shot down a rabbit hole to the subjects he felt comfortable with, only, he did so when the zeitgeist was with him; looking at latest whizz boom technology and kapow splat uber weapons, it's exactly how I'd expect a senior NCO to work, all the info about a narrow field but little strategic thought; I wouldn't come to him to discuss the battle of Kursk and it's similarities and differences to the 2022 'counteroffensive', I wouldn't expect him to give a sensible analysis, likewise I wouldn't expect to descend on him and say I knew more about the weapons system his unit was in charge of operating, he'd know it inside out already.
The problem is, because he speaks the language that the CoD generation wants to hear, that super weapons and elite soldiers win wars, he manages to get pulled into talks involving strategy and fairly predictably whatever he says falls as flat as a pancake. Sadly, because everything he says is, and I hate this term by the way, 'pro-Ukraine' (there's nothing in this conflict whuch benefits Ukraine, which hurts because I've spent time in Ukraine and Russia and love the people very much), because he's saying what people want to hear they will allow him to overreach and forgive him being wrong tome and time again... talking about superior US tanks when there were only 30 in the entire country, that's the sort of thing someone thinks who has zero idea about strategy during war, and not much conception of how an opponent is able to adapt to new technology because it isn't a video game and you're not playing against a crappy AI which cannot do anything but churn out units and send them straight into your well-entrenched defences. However, ad long as what he says is still popular, even if it's wrong, he can carry on.
Contrast the above with a John Mearsheimer lecture given 8 years ago at U of Chicago, it's on YT, the same talk could've been given 2 years ago, could've been given last week, and most of it was on yhe money, still on the money. Prof Mearsheimer was a hero of mine at University and I was taught by realist academics, but what he is saying ISN'T what people want to hear, so he's vilified as a 'Putin apologist' by hacks like Piers Morgan. I'm upset that Russophiles like me are vilified (I was married to a Russian, I took vacations in Russia even in my teens and 20s, I can hardly help having an affection for the place) by people who know nothing about Russia or Ukraine, have never been to either, can't speak the language, have never studied their history, but are happily complicit in the destruction of so many of their young men, and think carrying on would be fantastic for the West.
1
-
@clarkenoble @clarkenoble I was a signals officer and attended our military academy after university where I received an MA in IR after a BA in military history; fast forward over 20 years and I now work in IT but my hobby is still military history and geopolitics; I look at people like Ryan and I think he simply shot down a rabbit hole to the subjects he felt comfortable with, only, he did so when the zeitgeist was with him; looking at latest whizz boom technology and kapow splat uber weapons, it's exactly how I'd expect a senior NCO to work, all the info about a narrow field but little strategic thought; I wouldn't come to him to discuss the battle of Kursk and it's similarities and differences to the 2022 'counteroffensive', I wouldn't expect him to give a sensible analysis, likewise I wouldn't expect to descend on him and say I knew more about the weapons system his unit was in charge of operating, he'd know it inside out already.
The problem is, because he speaks the language that the CoD generation wants to hear, that super weapons and elite soldiers win wars, he manages to get pulled into talks involving strategy and fairly predictably whatever he says falls as flat as a pancake. Sadly, because everything he says is, and I hate this term by the way, 'pro-Ukraine' (there's nothing in this conflict whuch benefits Ukraine, which hurts because I've spent time in Ukraine and Russia and love the people very much), because he's saying what people want to hear they will allow him to overreach and forgive him being wrong tome and time again... talking about superior US tanks when there were only 30 in the entire country, that's the sort of thing someone thinks who has zero idea about strategy during war, and not much conception of how an opponent is able to adapt to new technology because it isn't a video game and you're not playing against a crappy AI which cannot do anything but churn out units and send them straight into your well-entrenched defences. However, ad long as what he says is still popular, even if it's wrong, he can carry on.
Contrast the above with a John Mearsheimer lecture given 8 years ago at U of Chicago, it's on YT, the same talk could've been given 2 years ago, could've been given last week, and most of it was on yhe money, still on the money. Prof Mearsheimer was a hero of mine at University and I was taught by realist academics, but what he is saying ISN'T what people want to hear, so he's vilified as a 'Putin apologist' by hacks like Piers Morgan. I'm upset that Russophiles like me are vilified (I was married to a Russian, I took vacations in Russia even in my teens and 20s, I can hardly help having an affection for the place) by people who know nothing about Russia or Ukraine, have never been to either, can't speak the language, have never studied their history, but are happily complicit in the destruction of so many of their young men, and think carrying on would be fantastic for the West.
1
-
1
-
@dfmrcv862 Rocket attacks on Poland. Oh, I'll give you one to watch out for in the coming months, "F16 gamechanger" he's been talking about thus for some time, about attacking Crimea with F16s. Watch out for the point when these arrive and make very little difference to the strategic outcome of the conflict. I point to this because he said precisely the same things last year about Western-made tanks showing up, about how things like superior fire control, thermal imaging would have a massive impact on the 2023 Ukrainian Summer offensive; when all the time it was clear to the more clear-thinking part of humanity that Russia would use enormous minefields to disable the heavy vehicles almost as soon as they began to advance. Ryan, at the time, paid no attention to this and was simply of the opinion that virtually invulnerable armour would give the entire Russian Army tank shock, whereupon we'd see mass surrender of poorly trained poorly led conscripts who barely knew left from right. It was essentially the same argument made by previous generations who had tried similar things back in the early 1940s, and a manifestation of the same overconfidence whuch affected the ability to see clearly. After that, I stopped watching his videos, I didn't even see the excuses he made for such poor performance of Western armour last year, of how Soviet-made tanks on both sides were vulnerable to the same weapons which were then used to disable or destroy Western-made armour... he was too focused on minute technical details, how this or that system was superior to Russian armour. Somehow, in all his technical details, he forgot that blowing tank tracks with mines, hitting them from beyond range with artillery, hitting them with man portable antitank weapons, etc... that all of these were far, far bigger threats to tanks than comparatively uncommon tank on tank fighting. Somewhere, in all the guts of the issues, he gets lost when it comes to seeing the big picture, and he certainly hasn't looked into the history of the subject or he'd know these things already.
I'm sure Ryan knows a lot more than me about the Patriot system, about how its various components mesh together to create a system, which shoots planes, etc down... what he consistently failed to point out was that these are point defence weapons, and the interceptors are both expensive and difficult to source. This blind spot left him unprepared for the scenario in Ukraine, where Patriot batteries work fine until overwhelmed and left low or completely out of interceptor missiles, at which point his analysis breaks down completely. Technically, yep, he's right, but he has massive blind spots out of his comfort zone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1