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

@randyalthetime2116 i was following the war pretty closely. 1-2 times a month Ukraine does something cool. Blows up many vehicles during river crossing, blowing up few big ammo depots, killing a general or damaging the bridge. But Russia was doing the same shit daily in bigger quantities Russia only uses volunteers, Ukraine is in total mobilization. Russia has huge amounts of vehicles and ammo, Ukraine can only receive them from the west, Russia can hit anything on Ukraine territory, Ukraine can't do shit to Russia. There are many examples
1
@randyalthetime2116 Russia indeed uses old tanks and artillery a lot. But Abrams and javelins were made in 80s, stinger was made in 60s. Of something is old - it doesn't means it's bad or ineffective. Considering that Russia is second biggest weaponry exporter in the world, that they chose this strategy and always relied on mass produced reliable equipment - i can assume that there are plenty of weaponry for them to use Indeed, majority of Russian ammo isn't guided, because majority of their artillery designed to hit huge territory, instead of something tiny. It is a lot more effective against enemy troops. But it doesn't mean that they don't have shit loads of Iskander systems for example Even amnesty international admitted that Ukraine uses hospitals, schools, malls and apartment blocks as their army positions or ammo depota. At the start of the war there were plenty of videos where Ukrainian artillery shoots near schools, but later they made the law that punishes people from publishing it. Also some rockets can fell on random cities due to Ukraine air defence, or it could have been just engines of rockets Well, Russia can't just rush B in Donetsk oblast, because it has many bunkers, trenches, tunnels, industrial areas etc. Destroying it takes time. And when it comes to other regions - Russia doesn't have enough troops to stretch the frontline that much. So they have to keep the frontline pretty much the same length. First few weeks of war and Ukrainian partizans has shown that it's too costly for Russia to push too fast On other hand, NATO is sending their weapons in Ukraine in small quantities, so they are always outnumbered and destroyed faster. Considering that Russia has more tanks and artillery than entire NATO, pretty sure the exchange is pretty good for Russia. I'm also not sure about united NATO and EU, since some countries keep trading with Russia a lot, especially when it comes to gas, many people are disappointed in their governments due to rising prices, Euro is lower than ever and many people don't like that their countries are sending billions to Ukraine Unlike EU - Russia can sustain itself, it has plenty of lands and resources to provide their people with everything like it was in USSR, that had second biggest economy in the world. Majority of resources world needs is in Russia and Asia, that region supports Russia Finland and Norway have total military of like 20 thousand people, they aren't scary. What reputational damage are you talking about? NATO was bombing half of middle east for no reason and no-one cared. They also were bombing Serbia and no-one cared. Russia's reputation was damaged only in western media, where Russia is always a bad guy anyway. It doesn't matter if Russia helps legal government (Syria, Afghanistan), helps seekers of freedom from their bigger oppressor (Georgia, Ukraine) or fights against terrorists (Chechnya). Hell, Germany became part of NATO 10 years after they started two world wars, commited worst crimes imaginable and killed 16m of Russian civilians because they haven't considered them people. Don't tell me anything about "reputation"
1
Ukraine Combat Footage 2000 were reported by blatant propagandist Arestovich. Not sure how exactly 2000 soldiers can sit in village with 4000 population total. Unlike Ukraine, Russia never used big quantities of man without tons of tanks and artillery. Either Arestovich is blatantly lying again or Russians managed to fit a 1000 tanks and armoured vehicles in a small village and get encircled by much larger Ukrainian force with even more tanks, which Ukraine has almost non
1
@KevinSmith-qo3lv mobilization even with some poorly trained conscripts sitting in trenches (like Ukrainians) can solve issue of holding ground without wasting potential of Russian army. In last 6 months they haven't moved an inch in Zaporozhye or kherson, despite those regions having open fields, ideal for their tanks. Every extra kilometer, every extra village, every extra road should be secured and guarded to some extent and without partial mobilization it's impossible I don't think that Russia will zerg rush with conscripts, but they can help a lot And no, you don't need to have more manpower than your enemy to push them, it's enough to have more fire power and someone who can hold those positions after you captured them
1
@aboner2551 in the north - yes, absolute retardation. But in the south it worked out pretty good - few thousand encircled troops in Mariupol, entire Kherson region and half of Zaporozhye fell really fast too
1
@youareliedtobythemedia but no-one mentioned Belarus, even Zelensky, so it's not possible
1
@candykane4271 well, when you're loosing ground - you won't report it, cos it will lower moral of your troops. But if fight was taking place and you won and still holding - Ukraine is reporting it, so there are some news about fights that Russia haven't reported, but it shows where front is
1
@davidrussell8783 both sides blowing up each others ammo depots daily. What's the point of thinking that Ukraine lies about them? Especially since there are tons of footage that proves it
1
@davidrussell8783 footage of blown up ammo depots made by pro Russian citizens and posted on pro Russian sources (like dpa's favourite Rybar). Why are you denying this? It's like saying that ALL footage of destroyed Russian tanks is fake. Majority of footage is real, but Ukraine is loosing a lot more tanks and heavy weapons than Russia. Same goes with ammo depots, cos Russia was blowing up Ukranian ammo depots and industry from day one (and probably few times before war even started, but no-one found out why exactly few storages got burned down) and in huge quantities. Not a single modern air defence system can block 100% of missiles. Why are you so stubborn to accept some Ukranian achievement?
1
When it comes to wars - someone has to sign a peace treaty at the end. If some military fanatic will get in power - it can indeed be a war until last Ukranian
1
It was. But now all soviet symbols are banned, so you can't wear their uniform, use their flags, medals etc. So people who want celebrate it are getting fined or beaten up by nazis
1
@TeoBlu don't be so harsh on him, his country is being destroyed, obviously he wants to believe that everything is better than in reality. Unlike western propaganda, he's speaking from his heart, not because arms industries paid his boss
1
@Malcovic29 USSR was biggest economy after USA for a few decades
1
You can't also trust Russia or any country during war. Or any country that supports one side. War propaganda is the same everywhere
1
Do you want Russia to place camera on every Iskander they're firing to Ukranian positions? Or you want Russian drones to go deep in Ukranian land to give you a spicy footage? You won't see many proofs, because it's illegal to film destruction of Ukranian army in Ukraine. You might have noticed, that many photos of Ukranian destruction in the distance are blurred at the bottom with only smokes in the sky, that's because people don't want to go to jail Of course it's a NATO army. NATO soldiers with NATO equipment paid by NATO money. Yes, they are mercs, but they were part of different NATO armies before
1
@jeredmarkoff2442 USSR won because it outproduced Germany in everything after 2 years of war. And Ukraine can't produce anything, because Russia can bomb any target anywhere in Ukraine. Also, according to deputy of minister of defence of Ukraine - Ukraine lost 50% of heavy equipment, while all nato supplies are only covering 15% of their losses
1
@jeredmarkoff2442 well, lend-lease is only 11% of all weapons USSR produced 1941-1945. It was good, but it wasn't a game changer. You can't win war without strong economy. And you can't expect to outgun enemies only with foreign supplies that can get hit all over the country
1
@youareliedtobythemedia well, since they don't have many professional soldiers, greatly outnumbers Ukraine in tanks and artillery - Russia prefers to bomb enemies into the ground and then push with tanks to avoid losses as much as possible. Moving speed doesn't matter if enemies don't have equipment and manpower to stop you Also Ukraine build fortifications for 8 years. There's a reason why Stalingrad and Leningrad weren't taken by Germany after 3 years of fighting - preparation matters
1
@saattlebrutaz yesterday there was a video by Patrick Lancaster with huge tracks crossing this bridge with no problems. Also yesterday's evening there was a video of those holes being repaired completely. Bridge is fine again Nothing stops Russia from sending few extra c400 from guarding this bridge 24/7. Saying that Russians are stuck there is retarded. I love how when Ukranians are running away from Lysychansk on their feet and leaving 2 big towns and hundreds of tanks behind while being bombarded into the ground media calling this "russian failed encirclement", but when Ukraine makes few holes in ONE of the bridges in Kherson that has been repaired already, everyone says how entire Russian army in Kherson is stuck forever and will be dead soon
1
@gothicgolem2947 600 out of 150.000. 0.4% of their army in Ukraine and it was someone's tragic mistake. Right now there are no conscripts, only trained people with will to fight
1
Russians support Putin more than ever and also supported the mobilization. Russians have food, heat and basically nothing has changed for them. Ukrainians on other hand - won't have anything soon. They aren't fighting for Kiev, they are fighting to capture regions that don't want to be part of Ukraine anymore. If Ukraine surrenders now and give up on territories Russia captured - nothing bad will happen to Ukrainians, but they will stop getting bombarded. But if Putin leaves Ukraine - his support in Russia will drop significantly because Russians do support war. And since Ukraine looses 5-10 times more than Russia and their economy solely relies on the west - Ukrainians definitely aren't happy. Also they know that every time Ukraine does something cool (destruction of Crimea bridge) - Russian response hits hard (destruction of Ukranian power grid)
1
@FamilyGuy-t6s 23. Where exactly have i lied?
1
@giovanni-ed7zq Russians are one of the best nations when it comes to math. For example in International Mathematical Olympiad they are getting 1-4th place almost every time
1
@Emperorofmankind_1 many russian Telegram channels were getting money to buy civilian drones for the soldiers. Russia is indeed lacking good quality cameras, so every drone counts
1
@terjeoseberg990 Russian soldiers in Ukraine signed the contract to join military, they can leave their job at any time if they wanted to. Many people did that and left Ukraine already. Surely there are some fuck ups when big amount of people and bureaucracy involved, but all Russian soldiers are fighting because they want to. Unlike conscripts from dnr and lnr
1
@DIREWOLFx75 i was talking about Russian troops who had no will to fight, they all or their vast majority already left Ukraine, so all Russian troops right now do want to fight. Either my English is too shit or you read my comment wrong. Or both
1
@vladtheimpala1 Where exactly have i lied? Can you quote a sentence with copium?
1
@vladtheimpala1 wdym by awful logistics if Russians firing 75k shells per day, comparable to 35k shells entire NATO sends to Ukraine? If this is bad logistics in your book, what would you consider good logistics? "Useless officers and commanders" - how did you conclude that and compared to whom? Russia is being pushed out of Kharkiv region, not Donetsk. And i never said im happy about it or that it's somehow good I said that Russian army is capable of dealing with NATO tactics (Kherson is a proof of that), but terrain and amount of troops played big part in Kharkov. We have 2 assaults with the same tactics, but different outcome, so obviously something was different: amount of troops and terrain. In what world simple conclusion called copium? And i said that Russian analogues of himars exist and Russia can hit targets a lot further away than Himars, which is a fact
1
@antoniocorreia8591 no, they pushed hard all over the front, crossed the river and stormed people in, just like in Kharkov. But got destroyed. Long war of attrition is what Russia prefers, they were doing it for months. And i see no problem for Russia to send as many pontoon ferries as they want across the Dnepr to supply their troops
1
Russia has many pontoon ferries in storage, some of them can deliver up to 360 tons at one go. Also many Russian artillery units can shoot far enough to stay at eastern side of the river without any problems with supplies at all. Supplying Russian troops is a lot easier than supplying Ukrainians who pushed deep in Russian lands
1
@juancho1663 training is up to 2 months. Yeah, some soldiers are just drivers, some won't use high tech equipment, so they don't need much training. But everyone who does need training - will be training for 2 months Well, Russia used only 150k of "contract army", plus some volunteers, minus people who left the army short after they were thrown into Ukraine. But Russian regular soldiers or conscripts weren't fighting Russia has thousands of pontoon ferries that can be used to deliver everything Russian army at Kherson needs. Wars are meant to be fought without bridges Very few of Russian equipment are modern, but they are still better or equal to everything Ukraine has
1
@youareliedtobythemedia Arestovich (one of the top Ukranian officials) in interview to Gordon admitted that everyone knew about Russian attack, Biden was warning about attack for like a month. Wdym it was a surprise? Russia didn't had enough people to hold more territories, so they kept bombing Ukranian troops from the same distance Smerch can fire up to 120 km compared to 70km of phz 2000. But when it comes to same type of artillery - koalitsya sv got the same range, but operated by 3 crew members instead of 5 for pzh
1
@davidedelbrock7828 Russia has smerch and tornado s with the same range. Also iskander, kinzjal, kalibr and many other long range missiles that are doing the same job as himars, but at far better range So im himars is a "game changer" - Russia has a lot more and a lot better "game changers"
1
@xblade11230 you confused me with someone else because i never claimed that Ukraine can win artillery war
1
@Jack-e5t he joked about Russia loosing ground in Russia, therefore Ukraine is technically gaining ground. But nothing is happening on the frontline at the moment, despite Ukraine being on their grand offensive. So currently Ukraine is loosing in Ukraine and Russia is loosing in Russia
1
Bahmut was fortified for 8 years but has some hills near it, so one side wants to defend it and other side thinks it's easy enough to attack. Also it's a big supply hub with many roads, so capturing it will help with encircling Severks. Also it opens roads to Slavyanks-Kramatorsk line of cities. And because of hills - if Russia captures it - they will have open view on all land from Bahmut to this line of cities. So Ukraine either defending it or letting Russia take half of Donbas for free. And Russia is either attacking it or pushing through open planes of Zaporozhye or through forests of Kharkov which is too costly in manpower. And doesn't make sense since Ukraine wants to attack there anyway
1
@alexlazar4738 when you're loosing a lot of ground, like Russia around izym - you're loosing men and don't have time to prepare new lines of defences. Considering that this area has a lot of forests and Ukraine relies on small units running around with anti tank guns - Russia will have a hard time dealing with them, since they have a lot less manpower. Ukraine fucked up a lot attacking Kherson, but in izym - environment benefits them a lot, so Russia is indeed in troubles. They can't really "demilitarise" big forested areas, cos they're relaying on tanks and arty. It's a big loss for Russia, at least until winter
1
@volvogoodtruck1117 what logistic problems? Russia fires 75k shells per day, comparable with 35k per month entire NATO sending to Ukraine. Do you think it's hard for them to supply everything else? Also part of those 300k will be delivering everything Russian army needs. Or do you think that Russia will just put those 300k in trenches and figure out how to give them food later?
1
@Makkez that's why Russia should bring more people in, to push on different fronts at the same time. There's a big line of cities under Slovyansk - it cannot be pushed, those locations also were heavily fortified. Russian has no other option, than to push around from different sides of country and encircle them, while being on unfriendly territories. Not sure how is this even possible with limited troops, cos frontline will be huge
1
In 2 months wagner encircled city that was defended by 50-80k soldiers (including reserves) with NATO money, equipment and intelligence, despite Bahmut being fortified for 8 years. Compare it to USA taking Fallujah in 2 months against 2k goat farmers with ak47 So how exactly Russia did a bad job?
1
@gordomg 1) "since February 2022" - you can say this about any Russian gain. But Bahmut attack started when soledar was captured 2) Last remaining road is 1km away from Russian forces, they can shoot it with everything. This road is filled with destroyed Ukrainian vehicles. Just because is possible to send reinforcements doesn't mean that Bahmut isn't effectively encircled. I mean, Leningrad also wasn't encircled by your logic, since Soviets were able send trucks there time to time 3) Yeah, they were fighting against 2k goat farmers with ak47. It's not hard to win against tribesmen 4) 10k buildings in Falluja were destroyed by USA. Obviously since Bahmut is defended by 50k soldiers with far better equipment - more buildings will be damaged
1
@gordomg 1) Putin stated that his day 1 goal was destruction of Ukranian army (demillitarisation). And the best way to do it (other than making Ukraine surrender immediately) is to encircle cities and bomb them to oblivion when Ukrainian army has little to no supplies. They don't need rapid gains to achieve this goal, especially since Ukraine is feeding troops into Russian cauldrons for PR stunts 2) Ah, yes, thousands starve to death due to lack of supplies because city wasn't surrounded, right... You don't need physically cut off city as long as your enemies can't supply their troops without dying 3) What do you mean by that? Is this even English? 4) Just because some buildings has no windows - doesn't mean it's destroyed. They still have basements where soldiers can rest in safety or store ammunition in. Also Bahmut opens road to Siversk and to Slavyanks-Kramatorsk line of cities to finish Donbas. By the same logic - there's no point in retaking cities from Russia because they're just rubble anyway
1
I mean, defence in debth is a thing and there's a reason why Russia built defenses pretty much everywhere dozens of km away from the frontline
1
What? Few months ago Putin said that only 150k haven't been deployed yet. So why do you think that entire 400k haven't seen action yet? Especially since Russia is pushing and front stabilized
1
@killa361 on what telegram or yt channel can i find videos of Ukranian charging through the battlefield?
1
Those skilled fighters need someone to deliver them ammo and guard territories while they are busy fighting Btw, all Russian men served in army for 1 year at least (except for 1% of smart kids who were studying in good universities). They aren't worse than Ukranian soldiers. Even those who were trained by NATO for like a month
1