Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "" video.

@everready800 Russia's fundamentals are good. Strong resource base. Balanced budgets. Enormous gold reserves. In many ways, Russia is what the USA used to be.
6
@burtharbenson8860 Russia's goal isn't conquest. Russia's goal is to destroy Ukraine's war-fighting capability. Russia gives ground at the onset of counter-offensives, inflicting maximum damage and sustaining minimum damage. The concentration of forces necessary for the counter-offensive exposes combat troops, armor and equipment to overwhelming counter-attack. The reason Bakhmut took so long was not because Russia failed or was incompetent. It took so long because Russia had a meat grinder set up to destroy Ukrainian forces, and the counter-attacks by Ukraine put more Ukrainian forces in harm's way. Russia might continue pushing West if Ukraine stops throwing forlorn hopes at Russia. Russia gave Ukraine its independence with very specific stipulations. NATO and the USA agreed to these stipulations. Then slowly started breaking their agreements, one by one. Russia complained and petitioned. Russia was ignored. Russia was explicitly threatened by U.S. State Department, and many officials in the west have demonized and threatened Russia. I'm a proud American, and I think my government's policies are anti-reason and anti-life.
6
@DrDoomsd If I wanted to tear down the USA and as much of the rest of the West in the process, I'd vote for the Uni-Party. When Republicans are in power, they have the same 3rd rails, sacred cows, and imperialist world view.
5
@notamurderer6226 Pride gets a lot of folks in trouble. I presume your words are hyperbolic. I conclude your words are inflammatory.
4
@Анита-о9й Artillery defeated Ukraine. Wagner was the mopping-up force. The infantry-assault force. They specialize in the nasty, door-to-door, building-by-building clearing-out of enemy. But their main tool is artillery. Their main skill is coordinating with artillery.
3
Look at the sheer scale of the support. Very costly, but not anywhere near a strategically significant amount. Much of it is destroyed before it's deployed. Some of it is sold to foreign countries. Any time they try to use the stuff, it just tells the Russians where it is. But I think "successful air defense" may come to mean "now-depleted air defense, and this war could turn into more and more destruction of civilian targets and the very means to live, through the use of stand-off weapons, and the dawning realization that it's easier to destroy than it is to try to defend.
2
A few tanks and a handful of F-16s is not strategically significant.
2
"Decimated" isn't the word. It literally means 10% losses. We're talking about 80% losses, here.
1
The Deep State of the USA is running an obsolete play book. They are the inheritors of a world view that's rooted in 1950 realities that no longer apply.
1
U.S. Congress is utterly incapable of cutting spending. Big spending is how they keep their jobs and cutting ANY social spending will get you labeled as lacking compassion, greedy, and probably evil. All the media will turn on anyone suggesting any cut. We all know the federal government is bloated and corrupt. But EVERYONE wants the one Free Thing they think THEY need, and so nothing ever gets cut.
1
It's hard to blame Ukraine for fighting back directly against the Russian homeland. It's hard for the USA to say it supports Ukraine and at the same time disassociate itself from aggression against Russian territory. In actuality, it's a meaningless distinction, but one which lays bare the hypocrisy of the USA.
1
@notamurderer6226 "Not really Ukraine is gonna attack rusisa no stopping it..." With what? You sound like the Black Knight in Monty Python. Arms and legs chopped off, he insists " 'Tis but a scratch." Edit: That's not really what you're saying. Yes, I can see why the USA would try to maintain such a distinction, but my point is it's a distinction with no real difference. A polite fiction maintained by very rude people.
1