Comments by "" (@yellowtunes2756) on "Defense Politics Asia (DPA)" channel.

  1. I'm glad that Russia stopped it's attack because you were busy for those few days. Very polite of them
    171
  2. Russia is winning in Ukraine, but Russia is loosing in Russia. What a twist
    15
  3.  @aboner2551  Russia fights against soldiers with 8 years of experience who's been trained by NATO, using NATO equipment, given NATO intelligence reports and NATO advises, while fighting against literal bunkers and strongest army of EU (according to amount of tanks and artillery). I should also mention that Ukrainians were raised by ww2 stories and great defensive war. Also the fact that Ukraine is a huge country, Russia already has captured territory of UK basically. And it's all with 200k soldiers about 700k. Sounds really good to me In first weeks of war Russia wanted fo force Zelensky to give up, but he decided to fight, very unfortunate for everyone. It was a failure, but not military one, because it would be impossible to capture such big territory within few days anyway. So i would call first few week of war a political fuck up
    13
  4.  CFC - Citizens For Change  Russia captured 20% of Ukraine in 3 days too, but lost many people and tanks, Ukraine did the same but captured less territories. The difference is - Ukraine doesn't have a lot of armoured vehicles and can't easily replace them. Considering that Russia chose war of attrition - nothing really changed
    11
  5. There's letter H in Russian language, but it looks like X. For example Kharkiv in Russian sounds like Har'kov. But Ukrainian H sounds like something like G and H combined. That's why mostly Ukranian cities in English have H, while Russian have G instead
    9
  6. More troops holding the line could free up "top of the top" to attack things. Also many of those "top of the top" soldiers aren't fighting because they didn't want to. Also 1 year of training and 2 months of extra hard training can be pretty successful, just like Ukranians who were trained by NATO. Also, what NATO weapons in Ukraine are better than Russian? Russia captured 20% of Ukranian land against far stronger forces than now, while using 3 times less soldiers than they will have now. Why do you think that extra soldiers won't make the difference? Of course they won't be as good, as before, but still better than majority of Ukranian army
    8
  7.  @volkerr.  photos of that rocket have been posted after a few hours, it is s300. And it coud not have been fired from Russia because it doesn't have such range. Why are you lying? And btw, NATO doesn't have to attack anyone who accidentally fired at them. Otherwise they would have invaded Ukraine back in may 9 after Ukraine destroyed Romanian fighter plane over black sea "Had mercy with Russia" - ah yes, when you're afraid of nuclear annihilation - you're showing "mercy". Suuuure
    7
  8.  @Carl88-p5n  no they aren't. Javelin is one of the most effective anti tank weapons today
    6
  9.  @MrGhostTube  don't be ridiculous. Idris Elba will play Zelensky
    6
  10.  @ellisduckworth5908  well, Russian soldiers in Ukraine in a "contract army". Those aren't regular soldiers but people who paid to be good at war. And since war on Ukraine hasn't been called war yet - soldiers can just cancel their contract. Many people did exactly that. But majority stayed, so they do have will power and experience
    6
  11. Mostly c300 and c400
    6
  12. He didn't, Ukranian propaganda said that he did
    5
  13.  @mu5ic1  all Russian men went through 1 year of training. It's 6 times more than most well trained Ukranians in EU
    5
  14.  @pineapplesareyummy6352  frontal assault without proper protection with armoured vehicles with rubber tires can lead to huge Ukranian counter attack in 9 months. Russians should be ready to pull out their forces in case of Ukranian attack, otherwise they could get in big troubles
    5
  15.  @danisdoingok3196  so you're saying that Russia lost 7k tanks? Very funny. In 30 years Russia produced 30k t72 under iron curtain. They are capable of products 1000 tanks per year without war economy and foreign parts T62 is as good at suppressing enemy troops as any other tank. And as easily destroyed by javelin as any modern tank. So why exactly Russia shouldn't use them everywhere outside tank v tank combat? Ukraine has biggest army in EU and most heavy weapons by far. Ukraine also was building fortifications in Donbas for 8 years. I should also mention that NATO was sponsoring Ukranian army with modern equipment and trainings for many years. And since Russia outnumbers Ukrainian artillery 15 to 1 despite NATO help - of course Russia chose to bomb enemies into depression and push later. Why should Russia be fast if they have unlimited equipment and ammo? Especially since they are using only 20% of their army and 5% of possible conscripts The last time NATO wasn't fighting against farmers with AK-47 was in Vietnam. And USA was loosing territories every month, unlike Russia right now "Foreign soldiers are killing a lot of Russians" - 80% of casualties in any war since ww2 caused by artillery and Russia outnumberes Ukraine in artillery a lot. Your assumption based on nothing. I doubt that majority of dead/wounded mercs in Ukraine even saw Russians. And for sure, majority of them who actually saw Russian troops are encircled in Severodonetsk right now
    4
  16.  @mattkemp2162  how did you count it? Ukraine also lost shit tons of armoured vehicles in Kherson
    4
  17. 500 kilogrammes, not lbs
    3
  18.  @sk.43821  I'm Russian and there's X that sounds like H in hope, hi, how etc. But Harvard indeed sounds like Garvard for some reason And yeah, i see no difference between H in Hope and CH in Loch Ness. Maybe due to my shit English
    3
  19.  @tomwensrich9602  since Ukraine outnumber Russian army 4 to 1, was building fortifications for 8 years, being outnumbered in artillery 1 to 15 and the fact that 80% of losses in any war caused by artillery - Russia prefers bombing enemies into the ground and then push. It does take time, but deputy of minister of defence of Ukraine stated that Ukraine lost 50% of its heavy equipment and NATO supplies only cover 15% of their losses. So Russian strategy is working And no, himars won't change anything, since Russia also has long range weapons, but 20 times more than Ukraine has and can hit targets 200km further (Iskander)
    3
  20. You do realise that only people, who don't have toilets inside their homes, are living in villages hundreds of km from nearest towns, right?
    3
  21.  @mattkemp2162  so how did you count that Ukraine lost less than gained in that offensive?
    3
  22.  @dennisg1460  according to Ukranian deputy of minister of defence from 4 months ago - Ukraine lost 50% of their heavy equipment, while all NATO supplies only covered 15% of their losses. And since then NATO was sending less and less equipment. Last few months they were sending like 10 howitzers each time. Ukraine had thousands when war started. When it comes to himars - Russia has Tornado s and smerch with the same range, but more rockets. And iskander with other missiles with far better range than himars. So if destruction ot enemy backline can win the war - Russia can win the war faster. It doesn't matter if tank is loosing top or no when crew is dead. What tank can consistently survive javelin for example? And what tank in Ukraine are u referring to? What German artillery in Ukraine has better range that tornado s and smerch? Pzh 2000 (or whatever it's called) is a lot worse that Russian artillery. Or you're talking about something else? VDV aren't "elite commandos", they are just paratroopers, Russia has like 100k of them in regular army
    3
  23. 80% of casualties in wars caused by artillery. Russia outnumberes Ukraine in artillery 15 to 1, according to Ukraine officials. Russia doesn't attack anyone head on before blowing vast majority of enemies up. Your version of Russian losses comes from Ukranian propaganda and has nothing to do with reality Russia won't run out of artillery and shells because Russia is the second biggest weaponry exporter in the world, they have unlimited resources and artillery ammo is cheap to make, sanctions won't stop it's production. Trading your soldiers for Russian ammo in hope that Russia will run out of ammo is the dumbest strategy imaginable Also Russia has biggest amount of artillery in the world by far, you cannot outnumber them in artillery fire. Especially since Russia can hit targets (new weapons from the west, training camps, storages and weaponry factories) anywhere in Ukraine while factories in Russia will remain untouched And after all of that - it's just 150k army. Russia can use other 2m of their army, Russia can mobilize another few millions
    3
  24.  @candykane4271  many holes are made by grad or small mortar that soldiers can bring anywhere. If you're seeing 10 guys running across the field - it's much cheaper to spam something that hits huge area to kill them than waste precise ammo. Also only 4200 out of 920k 155mm shells that USA sent to Ukraine are GPS guided, everything else also need "correcting". When you're shooting something with dumb rounds - you're firing in general area which is calculated by machine (angle of barrel, general direction and distance between you and target), shell can easily miss by 100 meters, so dude with a drone corrects artillery crew by saying "aim 0.1 degree lower". So even best artillery in the world will make many holes somewhere in the field while trying to aim correctly if gunner isn't firing precise GPS or lazer guided round
    3
  25.  @MyBigBoss  no, Russia is probably the strongest now. USA doesn't have experience against modern opponent. Their main strength (aviation) has shown it's limited use when your enemy has modern air defence system. And their military production in huge scale conflict is pathetic - USA planning to make 90k shells per 3in.2025, while Russia using 20k shells per day now
    2
  26.  @MyBigBoss  Well yeah, NATO has no experience in modern conflicts, they were only fought goat farmers. Have you forgotten how everyone said that Ukraine has more than enough weapons to start an offensive? You can see how poorly it went
    2
  27. Both countries have been doing damage to each other from the start of the war. Of course Russia will also get hit. The difference between those 2 countries - Russia can hit targets anywhere on Ukrainian land, destroying their industry, ammo depots, command centers etc, while Ukraine can only hit targets within 150km from the border. Saying "Russian attack is over" it's like seeing someone getting beaten up for 10 minutes, but then bully gets hit once and you say "omg, bully will loose". It's not anime. If you hit 20 targets for every target that was hit on your territory - you are winning
    2
  28.  @werner9643  many. Rybar (which dpa uses a lot) shows it time to time
    2
  29.  @werner9643  I don't think so, i guess he just gave interview to some channel. I found this info in google, not in yt
    2
  30. 1) Russia never announced any big offensives "since October" and clearly they don't care about taking ground 2) Russian goal from day 1 was destruction of Ukranian army (demillitarisation), so there's no point in rushing in and taking big chunks of land. After first month of war Russia clearly focused on encircling cities where Ukraine is willing to sacrifice thousands of PR stunts. And they did it in Bahmut and Avdiivka 3) Ukrainian offensive previously worked out because Russia barely had troops to defend the line. Now Russia has a lot moe soldiers, while Ukraine has a lot less equipment, less air defence systems, less artillery and only few dozens good western tanks with barely trained crews. And those barely trained people will face dragon teeth and actual defences lines 4) Btw in last offensive Ukraine lost at least 5 times more soldiers than Russia, according to Washington post and their interview with Ukrainian soldiers from Kherson offensive. How many they will loose now?
    2
  31.  @sk.43821  literally every word that has russian X has the the same sound as H in Hope. Hren', horosho, huevo, ohuenno, harizma etc. But some English names (like Harvard or Harry Potter) transferred into russian with sound G instead of H. Just like Moskwa pronounced as Moscow in English for some reason, despite it also being a name of the city
    2
  32.  @arnantphongsatha7906  i never said it's perfect, i said that javelin is one of the best. There are many videos of Russian t72 in Syria taking many other anti tank weapons in the face, turning their gun in the direction of happy "allahu akbrar" noises and vaporising people who thought that t72 is destroyed. Javelin is indeed very effective if used right Also, you need a week to train soldier to use javelin, but many months to teach a tank crew. Despite having roughly the same cost, javelin is very effective at destroying tanks and their crew
    2
  33.  @dimitriboodoo2651  and what anti tank weapon has better graph?
    2
  34.  @mandoreforger6999  60-80% of casualties in any war caused by artillery, Russia outnumberes Ukraine in artillery 15 to 1, according to Ukranian officials. Therefore Ukraine is loosing a lot more than Russia Not sure about "repelling". Ukrainian mod can call few sniper shots "an attack" and call it a victory, after sniper fell back. "Fighting" in some area doesn't really mean anything Artillery is indeed damaging Ukranian troops a lot, but they also have a lot of troops to send to trenches
    2
  35. 7:29 you shouldn't have moved it. Slav names are indeed pretty confusing, but you got it right in the first time Btw, thanks for amazing content. No propaganda, only reports of fighting. It's such an obvious and easy way to draw a frontline, that it's actually a genius idea
    2
  36.  @kalu19991  i doubt that anything will happen in 40 days either. When Russia will train 300k troops and move them to the frontline (currently only 80k is in frontline, according to Russian minister of defence) - they will need time to get used to actual war. They will also lack equipment from the start and will have problems with logistics So my assumption that attacks will start only after 2-4 months
    2
  37.  @nelsonbladimir6671  30% of their army according to Ukranian propaganda. You can't trust any propaganda during war. But 80% of all casualties in any war caused hy artillery and according to Ukraine officials - Russia outnumberes Ukraine in artillery 15 to 1. Therefore, by using pure logic - Russia's losses are a lot lesser than Ukranian ones
    2
  38.  @ChucksSEADnDEAD  i don't trust Patrick or anyone else who's reporting this war. But i trust my own eyes. Holes from himars haven't stopped trucks from using this bridge. And there are photos of bridge being repaired today. So this night it will be fully functioning again
    2
  39.  @aniksamiurrahman6365  but Ukraine still has plenty of anti air systems. Obviously not as many as at the start of the war, but Russia still can't fly over Ukraine
    2
  40. Russia has smerch and tornado s with same range as himars. Many missiles like Iskander, kinzjal, kalibr etc with far better range. Ukraine can't intercept Russian rockets, Russia can intercept some Ukranian ones NATO high mobility warfare did nothing in Kherson, where Ukraine lost thousands and captured only few villages, got stuck and bombed by artillery and air force to oblivion. The only reason it worked out in izym - its a huge forested area. And yes, Russia barely having any troops there made a big difference
    2
  41. There are literal bunkers and underground tunnels in that region. It's as close to Maginot line as you can get. The only difference - bunkers in Donetsk aren't forming a line, but being a bunch of different bunkers all over the place
    2
  42.  @youareliedtobythemedia  it's not about artillery itself, but about shells. USA sent 920k dumb 155mm rounds and only 4200 precise GPS guided 155mm rounds since 2021. Do you think that Russia used less than 4200 precise shells? If you don't think that way - then Russia used more precise shells than Ukraine
    2
  43.  @lucifer1661  Ukraine only had 4200 precise artillery ammo, everything else also takes many shots to hit the target. Considering that Ukraine stated that Russia used 4000 precise long range rockets - Russia surely hit more targets with high precision artillery rounds since they are easier to produce than rockets. Tho yeah, on average their artillery is less accurate, but it doesn't mean anything Equipment that was sent to Ukraine is either equal or worse than Russian analogues. For example himars has same range and accuracy as smerch and tornado s, but Russian versions have more rockets. Pzh2000 has same range and accuracy as koalitsya sv, but Russian version operated by 3 people instead of 4
    2
  44.  @NachoSqueaks  i read one Russian milblogger channel who covered this attack and then author said "Pls, don't waste our rockets on random ass crap out if anger, pls blyat"
    2
  45. Reality itself is pro Russian. Thats why all map updates have pro russian audience
    2
  46.  @idomalion6167  even very pro Russian sources admitted that this video is fake. People who made this vid even showed newly made dollars and euros lol
    2
  47.  Ukraine Combat Footage  according to Ukranian deputy of minister of defence - 3 months ago they lost 50% of their heavy equipment, while all NATO supplies only covered 15% of their losses. "Long term" Ukraine won't have equipment to fight Russia. Fun fact, Russia has more tanks and artillery than entire NATO. And since NATO won't send majority of everything they have - they can't outgun Russia on the battlefield in Ukraine. Also they won't send planes (biggest NATO strength). So Ukraine is left with 15 new howitzers a month. It's basically nothing Also it's not the first time in history when someone was conquered, there's a reason why Russia is a biggest country on Earth, it used to deal with resistance and calm people down
    2
  48.  @jeredmarkoff2442  when it comes to strikes on field - some Russian artillery is indeed inaccurate, because it was designed to hit bigger areas to deal maximum damage on a big scale. Saying that it's inaccurate it's like saying that iPhone is bad at stopping bullets - it's true, but it was designed for different purposes It's impossible to completely destroy all air force, cos planes can constantly fly from one place to another making them almost impossible to hit Well, Russia was constantly destroying targets all over Ukraine - ammo depots, training camps, command centers, industry, weapons etc. By dozens per day since day 1. Ukraine was doing the same but in a lot lesser quantities
    1
  49.  @jeredmarkoff2442  some rockets could have been hit by air defence and fell, some hit military targets, but their rocket parts fell on cities, sometimes military targets were inside cities and caused damage to their surroundings. There are many reasons why some civilian infrastructure could have been damaged You won't see damage done by Russians because for filming it you can go to jail in Ukraine. But at the beginning of the war - there were many videos of completely destroyed training camps and ammo depots When it comes to high precision strikes - Russia mostly uses Iskander, which has same accuracy as himars, but can hit targets all over Ukraine
    1
  50.  @randyalthetime2116  strikes on schools and some hospitals are indeed intentional, because Ukraine keeps their troops in schools and hospitals. There are many videos with Ukranian soldiers training in schools or shooting artillery next to hospitals. Even amnesty international admitted it And i don't remember any apartment blocks being exploded, so most likely first stage of rocket fell on them or it was shot down by air defense. I'm talking about residential areas deep in Ukraine territory But when it comes to frontline - there are also plenty of videos of Ukranian soldiers shooting from roofs and using civilian houses as a shield
    1