Comments by "chaosXpert" (@chaosXP3RT) on "BBC News"
channel.
-
1600
-
1200
-
After a battle or attack, the Ukrainian military reflects on its combat operations and works to learn from these moments so that they become more and more effective with each battle. In addition, they've spent years learning from Western military advisors, and now the Ukrainian military is also receiving tons of modern Western military vehicles and equipment. This is a winning strategy, that will see the Ukrainian military become stronger and stronger as time goes on, despite whatever losses and damage the Russian military inflicts.
What does Russia do after a battle?
They deny anything bad happened and say that everything is going to plan. Then they "exercise" in front of a camera to show to the world. They practice every day for marching in Red Square and argue over which of one of their coolest, newest, high-tech prototype weapons they'll threaten the world with. What did they learn? Nobody knows. Are they gonna be better prepared for the next battle? Doubtful. What did they accomplish? They really showed all those Western teens with a Soviet flag on their wall how badass the Russian military appears to be.
It's gonna be a rude awakening when in the future, many Russians realize that they killed Ukrainians for nothing and that thousands of dead Russian fathers, brothers, sons and cousins only managed to accelerate the decline of Russia's population and economy.
669
-
444
-
238
-
148
-
110
-
89
-
70
-
57
-
57
-
52
-
49
-
48
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
35
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Afghanistan, as I understand it (take this with a grain of salt, I'm a factory worker with no military experience and just an affinity for military history and geopolitics), was a failure similar to Vietnam and Iraq because
1) Much of the people don't support American soldiers. It's easier for them to relate with the Taliban/VC/Al-Qaeda than it is for them to relate to a foreign force. That, or they don't care about the war and just want to live.
2) The US military went into all 3 conflicts with a vague objective and vague timelines to achieve success. How do you win a war in Vietnam with no plan to actually invade and defeat North Vietnam? How do you win a war in Iraq when you disband their military and government and have nothing to replace them with? How do you win a war in Afghanistan when your plan to defeat the Taliban is to only hold the cities and prop up a puppet government?
"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." - General William T. Sherman.
Winning wars is about identifying a clear objective and doing everything to quickly and efficiently achieve that objective. General Grant and General Sherman won the US Civil War because they knew that their objective was to secure strategic Southern cities and securing Richmond. It didn't matter what Southern forces got in their way or how severe the battles were, General Grant and General Sherman didn't retreat. They secured their objectives and won the war. Defining your objectives defines the war and what "Winning" constitutes.
"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on." - Ulysses S. Grant
Finally, all I have left to say is that nation-building clearly failed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam. But it did not fail in West Germany, Japan and South Korea. Comparing and contrasting them, I think, is the best way to figure out what went wrong.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia has said they found 150 American chemical labs within 2 miles of the Russian border and all the bombing of civilians is done by Ukrainian Nazis. President Zelensky also apparently has the honor of being the first ever Jewish Nazi, according to Russian authorities. Russia has also stated that Nazis are in power in Moldova, Georgia, and in the Kuril Islands, hence why they had to send soldiers to seize Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Japan's Northern Territories. The Kremlin also wants you to know that the West completely supports all these Nazis and Putin has said that he will protect Russia from the West's "LGBTQ", "Cancel-Culture", "multi-culturism", and "pro-immigrant" forces. Apparently, the Western world is run by the most progressive and inclusive Nazi's that have ever existed?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Afghanistan, as I understand it (take this with a grain of salt, I'm a factory worker with no military experience and just an affinity for military history and geopolitics), was a failure similar to Vietnam and Iraq because
1) Much of the people don't support American soldiers. It's easier for them to relate with the Taliban/VC/Al-Qaeda than it is for them to relate to a foreign force. That, or they don't care about the war and just want to live.
2) The US military went into all 3 conflicts with a vague objective and vague timelines to achieve success. How do you win a war in Vietnam with no plan to actually invade and defeat North Vietnam? How do you win a war in Iraq when you disband their military and government and have nothing to replace them with? How do you win a war in Afghanistan when your plan to defeat the Taliban is to only hold the cities and prop up a puppet government?
"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." - General William T. Sherman.
Winning wars is about identifying a clear objective and doing everything to quickly and efficiently achieve that objective. General Grant and General Sherman won the US Civil War because they knew that their objective was to secure strategic Southern cities and securing Richmond. It didn't matter what Southern forces got in their way or how severe the battles were, General Grant and General Sherman didn't retreat. They secured their objectives and won the war. Defining your objectives defines the war and what "Winning" constitutes.
"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on." - Ulysses S. Grant
Finally, all I have left to say is that nation-building clearly failed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam. But it did not fail in West Germany, Japan and South Korea. Comparing and contrasting them, I think, is the best way to figure out what went wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hankgu1328 What happens is the member states within the UN propose legislation on stopping violence in Myanmar. Then they put it to a vote. However, the USA, France, the UK, Russia and China all have veto power. This means 99% of the UN could vote to pass the legislation, but if China, Russia, France, the UK or the USA veto the legislation, it will not pass.
The UN can't do anything if the USA, France, the UK, China or Russia veto it
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1