Comments by "Mosern1977" (@Mosern1977) on "Military Summary" channel.

  1. This is pretty much WW1 with drones.
    10
  2. Depends on what happens in the nearest days. If Ukraine is able to hold this area for a long time, then Russia will need to destroy Russian towns in order to kick them out. How much resources will this drain from other parts of the front line for Russia and Ukraine? In addition this gives Ukraine Russian prisoners for swapping later on. Also in the future, Russia might need to use a lot more forces on the border to keep this from happening again. Which means less forces is available to be spent on the main fight in Ukraine.
    5
  3. NATO doctrine is heavily reliant on air-power, which is not something Ukraine has access to. Russian doctrine is reliant on artillery and air-defense. But thanks to Russia for making NATO stronger.
    4
  4. Thank you for a balanced report of what's currently going on.
    4
  5. Why don't you pull up a map of the frontline from one year ago, and then one from now. And then draw your own conclusions.
    4
  6. Well, if Russia is able to undo the small successes Ukraine has had on the battlefield this summer - there are three ways it can be taken in the West. 1. There is no point in continuing this war, lets pressure Ukraine to sue for peace. 2. Ukraine didn't get enough weapons, and needs more to really make a difference. 3. At least the current rate of weapon deliveries freezes the conflict, keep it like that for now. Hard to know how things will look in a year, but I think #2 is most likely, then #3 and least likely scenario is #1. There is a big money backing on #2 and #3, and since Westerners are not dying, there is very low cost in the West to the war. And the defense of Ukraine is seen as a morally right cause to support, and politically supporting Russia is suicide.
    4
  7. Ukrainians are dying. Russians are dying. At least Ukrainians are dying defending their homeland. What Russians are dying for these "goals" of the "special military operation". Can someone please explain what these "goals" are?
    4
  8.  @TheCrapOnYourStrapOn  - from a military industry point of view in NATO, there is no need for this war to be over soon. This war is great for military business.
    3
  9.  @MirianBatista  - true. Iraqi army was big back in the day, but that is 30 years ago. But unlike nearly every other country on this planet, the US has kept on fighting all the time.
    3
  10. Did you forget that Russia invaded Ukraine and started this war? At what age does Russians loose the concept of cause and effect?
    3
  11.  @Spaceman719  - yes, and that's also the only one. Its stealth, not invisible. Also the F-117 is pretty old by now.
    2
  12. Well, comparted to Russia, Ukraine is Switzerland.
    2
  13. At the current pace, a week is probably a better timeline.
    2
  14. Even though this is a pro Russian source, I do prefer that information is provided without too much speculation on what each side will do in the future. Because assuming someone will attack, couter-attack or defend successfully is always going to be speculation. And you'll be wrong a lot if the time. Keep to the facts.
    2
  15. There are broadly two types of warfare. Maneuver warfare, and attrition warfare . Ukraine tried the first, and it didn't work. So now we are back to attrition warfare. That's why cluster ammo from the US has been requested. So when the Russians are worn down, we will again see attempts at maneuver warfare.
    2
  16.  @cscs9192  - well, for now Russia needs to stop Ukraine. But if Ukraine holds this area for months, then hold a referendum and then it is Ukraine, by Russian logic.
    2
  17. Your knowledge of the future is impressive.
    2
  18. Neither will Ukraine. So this will unfortunately continue for quite some time.
    2
  19. Nato has nukes.
    1
  20.  @gilangputra7514  - which is good, if they manage to do what they are supposed to be doing - preventing idiot politicians from attacking others.
    1
  21. ​ @harrymills2770  - yes, absolutely. NATO just got two new members to join. Northern flank of NATO is now seriously more secure than ever before. Europe is ramping up military spending, which has been neglected for decades. New productions lines for different weapon types are popping up all over the alliance. Old weapon stock is given to Ukraine to fight off the Russians, already thousands of Russians tanks are destroyed. And Russia is bogged down in some fields in Western Ukraine, and only effective military unit took a little victory tour towards Moscow and shot down some helicopters and planes.
    1
  22. ​ @mikewardrop5962  - Last time I checked Ukraine isn't in NATO. You know when NATO gets involved the Stealth Bombers fly. NATO is busy sweeping up new members fleeing from Russian potential aggression.
    1
  23. Its even stranger how the West managed to get Putin to attack. I guess it was Norway that was tired of having Russia undercutting it on prices of gas supplies.
    1
  24. Really? You need better news sources. This one gives pretty good idea of what's going on, although with a Russian bias. I can live with that.
    1
  25. Of course it will.
    1
  26.  @frankmccarthy1779  - exactly same clever master plan Stalin had back when Germany invaded in 1941. Russian leadership is so cunning.
    1
  27. Riiiight.... You see all those F-22, B-2s, F-35, A-10s, Eurofighters and F-16s flying over Ukraine now? You see the cruise missiles raining down, and the Predator drones hovering around in the air over the battlefield? You see thousands of Abraham Tanks and Leopard 2s rolling in? When you do see that, then NATO is involved. What you see now is NATO donating mostly outdated stuff to Ukraine to use to bog down the Russian army - and some new stuff to test out in real combat. Its been a great way to clean out the old stuff in storage, while getting fresh budget money to buy new stuff.
    1
  28. Of course they would not. They have drones killing everything from miles away. Crawling and fighting by hand in dirty trenches are for poor eastern Europeans with last century equipment.
    1
  29. Partially correct, but only partially. NATO doesn't have that much artillery ammunition to give away, because NATO doctrine uses air-power to deliver pain at distance. But since there is now a big demand for shells, new factories are popping up all over the place in different NATO countries to produce the shells needed to sustain this war. Yet another way Russia has strengthened NATO.
    1
  30. Thanks to Russia, NATO is now bigger than before the war. And Europe is re-arming itself. So if Putin wanted a bigger and better armed NATO on its doorstep, it got it.
    1
  31. How do you know if Russia is doing very well? Do you know what the goals are here? But if the job was to bolster NATO I would agree.
    1
  32. Yes, nobody is dying in Ukraine now. And Russia isn't trying to destroy everything moving....'
    1
  33. Well, the military budgets all over Europe is expanding like crazy. Of course there are billions to be made now. All thanks to Putin.
    1
  34.  @hrymr  - much more now, than before the invasion... NATO countries were not hostile and the shared border was shorter. Now NATO countries are united and hostile and rearming as fast as they can, and the NATO border is now 1340 km longer. All thanks to Putins strategic mastery. He really is a special kind of "genius".
    1
  35. This comment is always so hilarious copy/paste. Russia is fighting one of the poorest nations in Europe, are stuck in some fields and have barely moved forward in a year. NATO troops and main equipment is not involved.
    1
  36.  @theonlinedancer8308  - What are you referring to?
    1
  37.  @theonlinedancer8308  - you mean value of Western support?
    1
  38.  @theonlinedancer8308  - the question is how you got that number, and how it is calculated. Because the devil is in the details. (For example: I send two Leopard 2 tanks. Say a new one cost 5 million USD. Did I just send support for 10 million USD? The tanks I sent was 40 years old, and 2 years away from being scrapped, not new).
    1
  39. There is a demand, there will be a supply.
    1
  40.  @TerryAShaw  - right now, maybe. In the future, who knows. But Russian style referendums doesn't really care about the people voting.
    1
  41.  @cscs9192  - yes, a powerful army could invade and take land anywhere it wants to. Of course that would make a lot of people unhappy, and angry at the attacker. And the attacker might never find peace.
    1
  42. Nobody knows (or those that do won't say), but the losses are high on both sides.
    1