Comments by "Miriam Weller" (@miriamweller812) on "The New Atlas" channel.

  1. It's not just the numbers alone. Range is still king in warfare, from melee times to modern days and now even more. When you got a shortcoming in range, is it numbers or even worse the ability itself, you got a problem you can't really compensate for. Tanks are not useless, but the reason they lost quite a lot of their meaning is just that. Even modern tanks got a firing range of around 5km. While that seems far, it's already way inside the killing zones of many other systems and with modern day surveillance, sneaking in with something big as a tank is also not really a good chance anymore. Western media loves to talk about how our oh so superior western tanks will one shot the oh so crappy Russian tanks. But that's not even a fight that will likely take place all to often. When it comes to the main front lines, drones, air force and (missile) artillery, wil be the main threat for any tank that tries to even get the chance for a shot. Russia for example got a guided anti tank missile system, very close to the Pantsir system, that can rip you apart pretty much any kind of armored vehicle at up to 20km range with upgrades even 100km. And that's just ONE system. As soon as you get close enough to fire yourself as a tank, you are not only already far inside the range of these systems, but then the enemy tanks and of course infantery is also close enough to you and of course Russia also has anti tank RPG. Tanks are really the least thing that will gonna make a difference for Ukraine.
    260
  2. "We got more missiles than we thought" sounds like "We got some old crap lying around that we haven't dismantled yet."
    179
  3. Always love when the say, the reason for Russia not taking Kiev or not bombing the shit out of Ukraine is Russia failing at it, being denied it, not the obvious, that they don't want to do it.
    158
  4. All history of warfare: "Don't get flanked!" Ukro/NATO strategy: "Let's put ourselves into a completely flanked position!"
    142
  5. "More precise than Russian weapons" - meanwhile Russian obliterating NATO camps on the western border of Ukraine with pinpoint attacks.
    83
  6. Grain export (in tons). Russia is exporting double as much, so the sanctions against Russia are likely a much bigger problem. 1 Russia 37,267,014 2 United States 26,131,626 3 Canada 26,110,509 4 France 19,792,597 5 Ukraine 18,055,673 6 Australia 10,400,418 7 Argentina 10,196,931 8 Germany 9,259,493 9 Kazakhstan 5,198,943 10 Poland 4,689,130
    63
  7. As Douglas McGregor said: if you see news about Russia, just replace it with "Ukraine" and you got the actual news.
    60
  8. "Only 5:1". Even if true. 5:1 sound so nice. Maybe say it that way. "They got 400% more artillery than us." You don't even want to see 20% more. 100% more is already a nightmare. 400% more is simply crushing.
    57
  9.  @markorsrpska7230  Because Russia went in to defend just these rights of the people in Donbass and on Crimea.
    48
  10. Main reason to start with for the strict rules is the massive backlash after the last regime change by the USA in Iran. Without this, Iran would have went further on its own, but when the US installed pupped tried to just abolish all the Iranian cultur and replace it with a western one plus all the violence involved, the backlash of course made it 'worse' than before, with great rejection against all the so called 'western freedom', which the regime change perfectly linked to the violence and abuse...
    45
  11. At least SOME kind of control. Tanks on their own simply don't work anymore in modern warfare, if you don't have all the other parts of your military working. They are like good doors in a house. You want to have those, but without the house they are pointless. Some decades ago, a good tank might have had a bigger use - especially in the usual NATO war, which mainly go against pretty light armed militias and in times with less precision and surveillance, a tank could rush in to get things into its own, quite low firing range and cause havoc. But today you got so many systems, which detect your tanks, mark your tanks and then dozens of weapon systems able to obliterate them... simply not working anymore. They are not worthless, but it's not compareable at al with their starter days.
    41
  12. Patriot missiles are just absurdly expensive.
    41
  13. If I see it right, those ATACMS are around 1--1,5M$ per shot. 220kg warhead. Pretty expensive for that and quite the limited range.
    36
  14. Overall you have to be even stronger to show restraint. A weak enemy would use everything he can, since he does not have the space for failure or holding back.
    34
  15. The most obvious is the usual: They managed to hit that Il-22, thought they shot it down and then just used their usual multiplier and took the most expensive plane they could find. Not really the first time they did it, question is how often people want to fall for it?
    30
  16. Reuters in the 1940th: "Reports from concentration camps could not be confirmed, the german government did us not give any information about them."
    29
  17. If that was the case, it was extremely stupid. That guy got ZERO chance for that. Media loved to point the camera at him, but that's it. All his BS talk was one thing when it was useful for deception on the battlefield, but someone like this in an actual leading position? Nope.
    28
  18.  @Turbo999be  Doesn't really matter where he has his hands in, he goes along with it, celebrates it, so he's part of it.
    28
  19. They are used to fight against an enemy, who simply can't fight back at all.
    27
  20. Not unlikely, they are simply defenseless against such drones. Air defense must be layered for just that reason.
    25
  21. Heared 6 an 8 NASAMs. Joke is: they cost 1,2 million per missile, so three times the cost of already expensive IRIS-T. Against <20k drones, they likely can't even lock on.
    24
  22. Don't have to go that far back. Two years ago a much lager US navy ship and only half that old burned out right in its homeport. Moskwa is over four decades old.
    24
  23. Also like the idea, that the "landbridge" is just a bridge and not, you know, land, 60+km wide.
    21
  24. What Ukraine wants is NATO joining the war and just saying "yeah, those are all Ukrainien forces".
    20
  25. That's just money laundring and they likely sell it for 2-10times the prize on top, since the NATO governments will throw money at it without care, as usual. Meanwhile what could these things produce? Maybe drone parts. Nothing such a portable 3d princer produces could survive any real military hardware.
    20
  26. I mean, that's pretty much what they already do with angry Nazis.
    18
  27. It's well known, that they do this - and even more ignored. It's disgusting.
    17
  28. Problem with sabotage is, that you very likely surprise people with it the first time you do it (and can even do stunts like 9/11). But of course it gets a lot harder the following times and will piss of your target in general...
    17
  29. They don't care. Never did.
    17
  30. Overall urban warfare it the one thing a tank might still shine, since it's close range combat, so you overall want something that can take a punch (IF it can take it). Field warfare... yeah, range of tank cannons are a joke there and they need do drive kilometer through kill zones of pretty much everything. Without something to protect the tanks from all this, which includes powerful ECM and anti air, yeah... pretty pointless. And Ukraine got nothing of this.
    15
  31.  @branislavpandur2270  Ukraine is losing the last 4-5 monthes, the only thin tha matters and that is life of soldiers and equipment. Massively. If you want to lose a war for sure, do it like that.
    15
  32. And it's not just the optic of the tank. When you look at leaks from the war, you often see Russian drones marking even soldiers and keeping them tracked. Easy to do that with a massive, heavy tank. And behind that possible Russian T-72 or better tank is a hell lot of artillery, attack drones, attack helicopters, missiles, air forces and of course the infantery can also not be ignored. The Abrams and Leopards won't have such cover or at best a fraction of it. Russia is also far better at keeping up their drones and bringing down Ukrainian drons with anti air or ECM.
    15
  33. No. Russian missiles. They are just that superior.
    14
  34. From Patrick Lancaster video, it seems that Ukraine got absolute terrible surveillance. So with such system they CAN shoot 50km or whatever, but they can't SEE 50km (what is far behind the horizon thanks to earth not being flat). One of the reason they just shoot at what can't move - like villages, even though no soldiers, neither from Donbass nor Russia, is there. With that, even if some of the western stuff survives long enough to put in action: it simply can't hit miltiary targets beside sheer luck. As their videos have shown over and over again, when they hit something, it's some lone units acting in front of the frontline or beside those. You get even close to winning a war with that.
    13
  35. Yeah, people don't get that the most part of invention comes from state education and research. Even when companies do their own thing, they still rarely educate people but grab them from schools and universities. On top of that and far worth: companies want to make big profit, by that it's not even their focus to improve things, but to exploit the status quo as long as possible.
    13
  36. Yeah... democracy wasn't really something we ever had in stock, actually. But we LOVE to advertise it.
    13
  37. There is barely any countress less sovereign than Ukraine since 2014.
    12
  38. Destroyed infrastructure hurts civilians the most. In contrary to Ukro and NATO Nazis, Russia never wanted to do that.
    12
  39. Those patrol boats are 100% helpless against any kind of air strike. How stupid can ppl be to sell this as a victory? It's like using a tank against a police car. Wow, you beat the police. With a tank...
    12
  40. Frighening for what? Me? Of course, I'm a human and even a knife is frightening for me. Against a high tech army like Russias? Not so much.
    12
  41. Wonder how far a FOAB (7t weight, 44t TNT equivalent) could glide.
    12
  42. In german media they made a big thing out of swiss not allowing swiss made Gepard ammunition to be sent to Ukraine. Laughed, when I heared the numbers: it's about 12.400 shots, while the original delivery was 30 Gepards (people must remember, the effective fighting range is around 4km or lower) and 60.000 shots. That's 2.000 shot per Gepard. Would be much if it would be missiles, but it's an anti air cannon destroying a target with several seconds long fire bursts - and the twin cannons fire ~1100 rounds per minute. 2000 shot for a Gepard is like a demo version.
    11
  43.  zollyy  Child, if Russia would have no red lines, Ukraine would still have a working energy infrastructure. And this cn of course continue... And holding some lands means nothing. Mexican drug cartells could easily fall into the USA and "hold some land". They will never do that, because it would be stupid and give them nothing but brutal push back.
    11
  44. Hel lot of weak armored stuff, likely good enough when you fight goat herders with rifles, a nightmar when you fight an actual army that just rips you apart...
    11
  45. It would indeed be a very odd malfunction...
    11
  46. "Russia tanks got turbine engines" Russia got sheer endless fuel for their tanks, so even if, that's not the point.
    10
  47.  @michaelharvey75  To start with: the Gepard is not even a tank. It's an anti aircraft gun vehicle, that can also hold some stingers, but overall, it's absurdly outdated with an effective range of the main anti air gun of only 4km. The last effective usage in a war was 40(!) years ago in the Falkland wars. When it comes to the stingers, military-wise it's a better idea to give those to soldiers who can at least hide well, while the Gepard is just to big for that. Not talking about, that just as the Gepard, most stingers NATO sends to Ukraine are also outdated and don't function well at all anymore.
    10
  48. A core problem of all those weapon delivers is, that NATO sends parts. But an army have to be a well crafted and oiled machine. Simply throwing parts of it at something won't do the job and massively decreased the effectivness and value of the parts.
    10
  49. Happens when you got something like time zones.
    10
  50. Reached the point where they can only lie further a long time ago...
    10
  51. The only remarkable part about that attack is, that withotu NATO it wouldn't have happened at all, without NATO, the whole war would be over since monthes, if not years and many tenthousands of men still alive and western Ukraine not without any future.
    10
  52.  @zakjuly6721  Whatever you want to do with just tanks. Those will be toast very quickly without all the needed structure around it.
    9
  53. What isn't even Russia's goal. It could have done that long ago, but never wanted to go for that. We are runing ourselves or better, our fascistic leaders do.
    9
  54. Either you got a well working army where all the parts work together what includes all range and heights (especially air, when you don't dominate air, you are pretty much fucked anyway - even more because this also includes long range missile defense) - or not. Those weapons would have a strong impact - against the usual enemies of NATO = people who mostly got rifles and some short range RPGs and mortars and alike = can't fight back.
    9
  55. In addition to the longer range of Iskander: you need the surveillance to guide them. People may think: yeah, Ukraine got NATO surveillance, but overall it's not that easy. Satellite images and alike are good enough to hit not moving structures - and that's what we see when it comes to those attacks from Ukraine. When it comes to fight a moving army, you need much more than that. Also: range alone doesn't help you, when the other side got the means to shoot it down. Longer range if not combined with higher speed leads to more time in the air, more time to detect it and shoot it down - if you don't attack the frontline, but for that they don't need high range missiles and if used to just keep distance to the front, they overall just got less effect than the smaller rockets, they got less of the big ones, those are single shot and by that can be easier intercepted than the barrage of small ones. In the end the main thing the long range missile can lead to is the possibility to keep the remaing HIMARS launchers from getting destroyed, but seeing the behaviour of coup regime Ukraine, I doubt that they actually gonna use it that way and instead will try to hit something in Russia or Crimea with it.
    8
  56. That Iris-T ground system has a range of 40km. And they only get send one system that is what? four launchers? So you pretty much have to put them for defense in one position - where it will still be easily overwhelmed with only four launcher (and the rockets likely costing more than those drones). Don't even know how they want to train people with them, not even the german army got these systems. How many rockets will they get? And will they again place them right inside the city, leading to all kind of problems?
    8
  57. Worst part with just giving everyonia a weapon: Even trained soldiers in a halfway controlled environment like an army miss a lot and even in modern armies, friendly fire is still something very dangerous. Now imagine what civilians gonna do - it's pure, deadly chaos. Don't want to know, how many people already died from that alone. Very likely that at least in Kiev, more people died from friendly fire and people going nuts about "russian saboteurs" than by Russian missile strikes.
    8
  58. Overall Ukraine simply enmassed a lot of their forces in certain points and with the billions of NATO support they can of course do such pushes. It doesn't change how dumb it is to do that. You don't rush in like that, they clearly give a crap about their loses, is it expensive equipment (which they seem to think might come endlessly from NATO - what it won't) or - even more sick - soldiers.
    8
  59. Everything else aside, the idea to defend such a small island against a whole continent right in front of its door in these days with weapons easily able to get over that 'small' gap between mainland and island, it's just absurd.
    7
  60.  @jesan733  Ukraine does not have endless people to throw into the shredder, especially when they run out extremists and braindead (who believe the lies of the extremists). And of course someone with some weeks of training is pretty much still a civilian with no clue - good enough to be cannonfodder, but that's it.
    7
  61.  @iraklinatroshvili7915  Likely. As full Adolf modus as Zelensky is, it's quite obvious, that there won't be much left of the Ukrainian army, if they fight to the last in Bakhmut. Not that his will help much, the idea of them, that the got millions of people still to waste and NATO will just keep it coming, already sent them over the cliff. Even with big numbers you should never be waseful with your resources and even less people. Against Russia it's even more suicidal, because they got WAY more still on the hold.
    7
  62.  @Hereford1642  First one was abaout that NATO used Saddam as proxy warrior against Iran, but that sucked, so Saddam turned around and attacked Kuwait instead, wha was a very more worthwhile target for him. Suddenly he was the bad guy, while doing pretty much the same as before where NATO had armed him. Germany and others had sent Saddam the chemicals for his weapons...
    6
  63.  @alainfernandez778  ATACMS are meanwhile over 30 years old. When you got more than you think, there is mainly one possible reason for this: you got rid of older ones and now found out that those are still lying around somewhere.
    6
  64. Omg... that description in that WP quote about such a strike force sounds like straight from a video game cutscene. These guys live in a video game. Even if you GOT all that, it would never work like that in reality, that the enemy is just there, doing nothing, all your stuff works and hits perfectly and you role over them with ease. Good enough against some 3rd world countries which got decades old, badly working crap around, with no surveillance, bad tactics and questionable anti air. If you then got a 20 times stronger US military, that goes in full force, yes, it might work. But Ukraine, no matter how much you send in will never reach that level and Russia is no 3rd world country with old crap, no matter how often internet trolls post that odd fantasy on social media.
    6
  65. More like using 'elastic logic'.
    6
  66. That's what our money already is. So they rarely even care to print it, most of it is just an arbitrary number on a hard drive.
    6
  67. Just have to look at the different PoV on the two sides. Russian reservist: untrained idiots without any clue Every single Ukrainian: invincible super soldiers, who don't even need weapons, they will just build some molotov cocktails and win with that
    6
  68. 40 were build, they only use a fraction of it, so the got 2 dozens+ in reserve if needed and while they sell for a lot of money, that's because the design is the most expensive part, not actually building it. And the whole thing was fake anyway. They couldn't even down the bomber that flew close to the frontline. The idea that they could down an A-50 200+km away from that frontline is pretty absurd.
    5
  69. You can clear mine fields in many ways, the problem is that those only clear a small area and of course it is seen. Those mine fields don't exists to defeat the enemy army, but to slow them down.
    5
  70. "Logictical hub" - whoever would place something like that right at the border/frontline. Makes no sense.
    5
  71. There is a saying in german, by meaning: Death as Health keeps the doctor poor, so he does his best to keep you between them booth. It's more said with a wink than being meant serious, but it points right at the profit over people problem.
    5
  72. West never understood, that the reason for Russia and China to buy in the west wasn't that they couldn't produce it themselves, but the west buying so much from Russia and China. When you trade, you want some actual value. Money is only an interim step. You don't just want a mountain of worthless money = coupons, you want something of actual worth. Since the west got very little worthwhile things, you could only focus on stuff you per se could produce yourself, but instead bought with the money you made from your sells. And even then Russia and China still had a massive surplus.
    4
  73.  @buravan1512  While tanks aren't worthless, in times of pin point artillery, missiles and drones, they lost a lot of their meaning.
    4
  74. It's capitalism. That's LITERALLY the system. It's a system build upon that. It's the reason and method how it creates wealth.
    4
  75. That's not just how Russia thinks, that's a basic rule of warfare. It's simply just thinking at all.
    4
  76. That TU 22 footage looks incredible fake. You got a giant fireball and then the TU 22 pokes out of it, all you can see completly undamaged, not even a sign of soot. Also: who even filmed that and that without anyone else being around?
    4
  77. Just take Ukraine and imagine NATO could only deliver anything to Ukraine via the Black Sea. Then you got the Taiwan scenario. Good luck...
    4
  78. New to fascism? Fascism is about to reject the idea that all humans are equal and got the same rights. So what you write is 100% how things have to be - for fascists.
    4
  79.  @elektrotehnik94  Millions of accidents happen every day. Thousands of fires. If you get one of those close to explosive stuff, this can get bad very quickly. You got accidents in ever military all the time. You just rarely hear about them in the news. Overall, regarding the ship itself, Moskwa is no big loss. It was old and about to be replaced anyway. Even less in this conflict, because all the smaller ships are the actual attack ships. Two years ago an half as old and triple as big US navy ship burned down in its own homeport. Happens.
    4
  80. Wonder if they even manage to blow up their tanks anda like, by mixing it up ammunition. (Not sure if possible, normally you would not have such a chaos, but if you are able to put the wong kind of ammunition into a weapon and thinking of the forces involved, this could end ugly...).
    3
  81. Big gag about western progand is: when they do something, the name it the abolute opposite. It's almost funny. Like the Mafia naming itself "super legal and absolute non-shady friends group".
    3
  82. Quora is even worse than witter. It's like the internet Nazi bar.
    3
  83. German KZs were also just 'camps for enemies of germany"... if you follow that logic.
    3
  84. IRIS-T? Those are Air-Air missiles for western jets. What shall Ukraine do with that, even if they would have some Jets left (and those be able to get close enough to a Russian air target to fire those).
    3
  85. Chodorkowski is the one NATO would like to make new Russian president. Navaly was only pushed as the "man on the street" who fights "evil Russia", but they would never want that guy as president. Pretty much the same like in all the other proxy wars and alike: they like their criminals on the street to do the dirty work, but in office you need a better working and looking puppet than that. Take Afghanistan: arming Bin Laden and co was one thing, but they don't want him as president. It's obviously one of the reason why this is blowing up like that. Their puppets don't get, that the USA isn't on their side. It uses and abuses them for THEIR goal.
    3
  86.  @jpnewman1688  90% of our politicla parties are corrupt, those who are not got no chance to get in power and if only as small junior partner unable to change anything. And the majority of germans aer stupid enough to fall for any lie you tell them. So, well, likely never, until the country is ruined by that corruption and even then all the stupid germans will likely just go more into the extreme than against the system.
    3
  87. Of course it does - IF you use it as advantage.
    3
  88. It's fascinating, how man Nazis and Nazi lovers celebrate this. Or the stamp Ukraine already is printing for that. Even more, how all our massivels censored (social) media is fine with that. They love to censor any little fact that is against their fucked up narrative, but celebreating terrorism and murder is fine.
    3
  89. It's not even a shuffle but expansio, what make sence, since the active military and likeley also all the tasks were massively increase, so you want a bigger command well working together. So instaed of having (simplifed) one commander, you have several sub commander and then one commander working with these sub commanders. You got that in all companies as an easy example, simply caused by the size of the company and the number of teams. If you got one team in a small company, the boss is enough to lead it. If you got many teams in a big company, you need team leaders and the boss works with the team leaders. Pretty much the same thing. Of course more complexe than that example.
    3
  90. In germany, the known bots still spread these completely absurd Oryx numbers. Following those, Russia would pretty much have lost everythin it got, three times more than Ukraine, while Ukraine actually has MORE than it started with, since the "conquered" Russian vehicles (if you take Oryx numbers seriously) are even higher than everything Ukraine has lost all together. And people eat that...
    3
  91. Nazi company google having fun with their censorship again, but you can't get rid of reality that way. No matter how hard you try.
    3
  92. No, it can't. You can't buy soldiers like that and most of that money must meanwhile be used to to just pay orderinary bills. Any civiilian you force into uniform will also just die quickly, because modern warfare is nothing you can just throw people in, even for trained soldiers it's horror. There was an Ukrainian talkshow where a soldier from the southern region talked about the absurdity, that they got new recruits, pretty much just instantly sent from the street to them with zero training an new clue and the commander got over 350 killed in just eight hours. It's a disgusting mess - what is sadly no surprise. Russia meanwhile adapted more and more tot the "tricks" NATO sent in and used most success you see are more by ugly surprise than actual skill, like randomy hitting worthless ships for example with zero military impact. Wasting the few and expensive missiles for pointless targets is for sure a surprise, but to use the same trick again will work less and less.
    3
  93. Reason why those are not reuseable is, that it's so much work to control and repair it, that it doesn't really make much difference, while increasing the risks. Rockets are overall just controlled exploding bombs, so the stress on absolut everything of it is immense and even a single weak point means instant, violent destruction of the whole system.
    3
  94. Someone please make some artwork with a Russian 'Berserker' dual wielding shovels like warhammers.
    3
  95. Happens, when you have such a long fortified frontline and warfare that is pretty much solely focussed on blindly firing at each other.
    3
  96. I think the main reason they don't want to give up on Kherson is, that they have gotten the city without much fighting, means there is not much destruction. Giving it up and taking it back later isn't a problem, but it could cause a lot of destruction. Likely also one of the reason they cut down Ukraine inftrastruture now. Overall, if the fighting ends, this can still be replaced quite quickly. Russia could also burn down cities like Ukrop Nazis do, but that's the military worth of it? There is none.
    3
  97. The drawback would be damage to the city when you take it back and threat to civilians, though those moved out. Overall it's not a good situation to fight with a river in your back, when you can have it in front of you as barrier. Ukraine could move in, but it's not like they decreased Russian ability to bomb them by any means. And not bombing bridges does not help them anymore at all - nor bombing the dam.
    2
  98. EMP or any kind of electronical counter meassure. Overall: that's the big problem with drones.
    2
  99. It's indeed absolute obvious that the area wasn't important, else it would have been way more protected and on top of that it's a good guess, that it is left open like that on purpose. Of course you can't just leave it completely open, even the most stupid would get, that an open door with a giant neon sign "Please Rob Me!" is a trap. Have a strong door, cameras, a watch dog - but leave the window open.
    2
  100. The USA COULD be a great country - without the warmongering. Hell, it does not even need it. It had so many resources it could have done well with it, but no, it's not enough.
    2
  101. I think what people don't get is, when they look at the map, how big that area is. The area Russia controls is bigger than for example the whole country of Greece.
    2
  102. 1,5 miles isn't much and even if Russian tanks would be worse (what they aren't), they got dozens of other weapon system which destroy tanks on much larger distant. As usual the idea of a single weapon system on its own making a difference is absurd against an actual enemy. If you fight the usual enemey of NATO, sure, those barely have anything anyway.
    2
  103. "USA plans a hellscape" In case of Taiwan the first thing you should think about is, that YOU will be that 'hellscape'. And yes, USA gives a giant F about it. As usual.
    2
  104. Remember Syria? I think it was NYT who created a virtual scenario to show how evil Syria used chemical weapons. They love their virtual evidence, it does look and do exactly what they want.
    2
  105.  @JGalt-em4xu  Of course it is no line. You got a line on the map, but overall that's mainly the rough border of the area behind which you get in range of more and more firepower. You can easily storm in there - as easily as you can jump from a cliff. The jumping isn't the problem, surviving it is.
    2
  106. Military impact of this is borderline zero.
    2
  107. Always funny those stories with washing machines and shovels and whatevr. They do get, that this would just make them more scary and borderline invincible, if they do all that with some scrap metal? Imagine a nation weaponizing freaking waching machines.
    2
  108. If you want to know the biggest reason why Russia is attacked tha much, look at resource of the world. Russia is leading there with resources of over 75 trillion dollars. And that's real worth, not just money you creat as you want. This is gas, oil, gold, diamonds and many valuable metals. Second place is USA with 45 trillions - already much less and even more, 80% of that is timber and coal, so not really high valueable resources, while its burns through the rest of its oil and gas reserves. Other countries with high resources are China (here espcially rare metals play a big role), Iran (second biggest gas reserves after Russia, together 42% with Qatar those three got over 52% of world gas reserves) and Venezuela (biggest oil reserves on the planet).
    2
  109. That's of course a reason. You also don't just fire 24/7. Also not every hit by far will create a big fire to begin with.
    2
  110. Usual social media clowns praise this, especially the US aid part, as if it was anything new that USaid was used for propaganda and regime changes...
    2
  111. It start with the problem, that not every impact will create a (big) fire. Depends a lot what you hit with it and how.
    2
  112. People call Kherson the feint, what is very unlikely seeing the amount of attackers and losses. Actually more likely that Kharkiv attack was the feint to drag forces from the south there to prepare the actual idea pushing south, destroying the landbridge and then using artillery to destroy the crimean bridge, what would indeed by a very strong success for Ukraine in contrary to the pointles 'success' in the north. Overall Ukraine/NATO will likely not really know now what to do with this success, after Russia did not fall for the feint and may even tend to split now itself, to defend the 'conquered' territory in the north - plus all the additional havoc Russia will continue cause over the whole front line and its attack against the infrastructure and alike.
    2
  113. That satellilte image looks odd anyway, especially that both look the same afterward. Easy to fake such things these days and on picture increase the impact of what you actually managed to do.
    2
  114. As he said: even those hits are not many. It's a war and Urkaine was brutally over equipped by NATO. You can't just have zero losses.
    2
  115. Röpcke has earned the nickname "Jihad Julian", since he was always such an extremist also regarding the Syrian conflict and alike.
    2
  116. Overall doesn't make much sense to fire a salve of such expensive missiles on a dry dock, when you got much more worthwhile targets with actual impact, if you could destroy them. Wonder if that drydock hit was simply just bad luck of a shot down Storm Shadow crashing there. When you got one such shot (and it's not like we got other like that) would you go for the missile cruisers or a small out of order submarins and landing ship?
    2
  117. If there would be an unforseen escalation like NATO somehow stepping in even more directly and sending in not only whole armies of equipment but also troops.
    2
  118.  @Mdude59  Not even then. The only thing 'special' about HIMARS is,, that they took more care to not lose them. What they used them for is shooting at cities, without any military worse and try to destroy bridges with limited success.
    2
  119. A war of machines. He means, when the other side got machines, too?
    2
  120. People don't get, that the fact they can march that fast is a clear sign that they shouldn't do it. Sure, when you are a super power and you fight a small third world country you might get away with it. But if it's more the other way around, you really shouldn't expose yourself like that. Overall the whole PR stunt would only make sense, if the Russian army simply just ceased to exists, wiped from earth by god's hand or whatever. Then, yeah, sure, this could work out well for the coup regime and its NATO masters.
    2
  121.  @LevanGudadze  Wonder what retarded idea is behind all this regarding UK. Do they hope that Ukraine might become a colony for them after this or what is their idea? Still dreaming the old dream of their fallen empire?
    2
  122. The west is sure that you can easily beat those by playing classic music very loud.
    2
  123. What kind of drone? Thery use thousand of drones, the majority are small ones for surveillance.
    2
  124.  @FordFalcon1962nBlue  "Flagship" does not have any real meaning. It's not a computergame and the Moskwa was not the main battle ship like for example an aircraft carrier. The frigates and corvetts of the Black Sea Fleet got the offensive firepower and are also the young, modern ships.
    2
  125. Heared that the attack on Donezk was done with via NATO weapons CEASAR system and alike. They try to keep them as long as possible by simply attacking civilians and not the army which would obliterate them.
    2
  126. The whole idea with 'cutting the landbridge in half" is just insane, following the idea, that this is just some kind of rubber band, that when you cut it snaps back and is gone, while in reality, they would create a bloody cauldron for themselves, being flanked from two if not three sides plus whatever Russia is able to do via air AND sea. Russian border to the east will make it close to impossible to cuth further in, while the Dnirp on the west will make it hard to impossible to flank the troops coming from there. And the idea to bombard Crimean bridge, well, you would have to bring your launchter pretty close to that area... what will put them at a very high risk to just be destroyed. And they don't have many weapons with that range. We talk about 100km of sea to the bridge alone if you stand right at the coast.
    2
  127. Children in Azovstahl? Now I imagine Azov Nazis wearing diapers....
    2
  128.  @argentshard  No onee ever gave a single fuck to attack NATO countries, especiall because they are batshit poor and there is nothing to gain from it.
    1
  129. Patriot can't even shoot down cruise missiles and drones? That's just sad...
    1
  130.  @CJFCarlsson  Happens wenn one side is an insane fascists with no problem to waste hundredthousands of lives and endless billions in weapon systems. One of the main points it to destroy the military capacity of Ukraine, so it can't be a threat anymore. And Russia did this over and over and over again, the west just keeps pumping in new weapons and its puppet the 'meat'.
    1
  131. Western media talks about that as if the frontline on the map is some kind of wall you can break through and then have already breached the biggest part of defense, while in reality the frontline is more the barrier after which the barrels pointed at you massively increased and you are more and more in range of fire of pretty much all the fire power the other side got. So of course you can pretty much just run in there. It's just extremely dumb ans suicidal. A real counter offensive would have to get rid of these barrels and deploy their own to not just run into territory but actually put it under your control and push the other side out of it.
    1
  132. China will just bombard the shit out of Taiwan from its mainland, before sending any ships in - IF they would go to war with Taiwan.
    1
  133. Yeah, the problem is, NATO nazis give a fuck about Ukraine. The goal is to hurt, damage, weaken and bring down Russia. Ukraine can end as a hole in the ground for what they care.
    1
  134. Ukrop coup regim is just crazy. NATO gives a fuck about Ukraine burning down anyway, but that the coup regime is just sending everyone to a pointless death and wasting billions in equipment, as if there is just endless suppy, is simlpy insane. If you want to make sure to lose a war, do it like that.
    1
  135. Is there actual proof meanwhile? But even if true: the whole thing looks like bait. Why should a single, small missile boat be alone there that close to those drone attacks? Feels like it was put there to be an obvious target, so they focus their drone attack on that, instead of going after anything else.
    1
  136.  @JohnSmith-jp8se  What's the excuse of Ukraine that already sent way over 100k citizens to their death? Russia lost a very small fraction of that. You people just believe any stupid shit you read on the internet, as if you are four years old. And that's a borderline insult for four year old children...
    1
  137. I mean, it would be incredible easy to just collapse Ukraine completely. Simply destroy infrasctruture and let it bleed dry. Overall it's more Ukraine coup regime itself that destroys their own infrastructure. From the first days of Russia's intervention they started to destroy bridges for examples and they are the ones who try to destroy power plants.
    1
  138. All evindence point at the Nazis - just like Mh17. But we can't admit that, because those are our Nazis.
    1
  139. You can literally just look on the map to see how stupid the idea is, that Russia would use Crimea as main route for the southern areas. Russia border via landroute is simply much closer and easier to use.
    1
  140. NATO is used to slaughter helpless victims. No surprise they got not clue how to fight someone who isn't defenseless.
    1
  141. Normally, delivering weapons make you very clearly a war party...
    1
  142. Question is, if Poland wants that part of Ukraine right now after we made it to a burning pile of shit. They for sure don't give a f*ck at all about the human there.
    1
  143. Always wonder where the idea is coming from regarding "why is it taking so long". Probably from people who are used to their video games and movies, as their other 'analyses' tend to show. Russia got no need to hurry. Sure, shock and awe CAN work, if you don't care for maximal destruction. In case for a pretty big country like Ukraine, that would leave a burned down Kiev and alike behind... And the west ist just ruining itself by throwing money and weapons into the black hole. Money and weapons they can't use elsewhere.
    1
  144. "I conquered this area!" "At what cost?" "I conquered this area!!" "What damage did you do to to the enemy?" "I conquered this area!!!" "... that bad, eh?"
    1
  145. The contra for it would be, that you risk slaughter by the Nazis, what can be avoided by evacuating civilians. Other contry would be, that if they would march into Ukraine, it would cause a lot of destruction to it, since they are known for hiding inside cities, abusing them as cover, to take it back. But overall they hopely stop to attack the dam now.
    1
  146. Most peopel cheer for certain jets by those simulator games, which overall are good enough for a halfway correct flight model and all, but when it comes to actual combat and scenarios, they are a joke. But some channels make videos with NATO jets just flying deep into Russia for example to destroy an airbase and alike and so people think, those are simply just godlike machines which could win on their own easily.
    1
  147. The idea of our western leaders is probably to switch sides and make the west the new third world to exploit...
    1
  148. Never made sense, those numbers. Ukraine would have an absolute ultra army on the field meanwhile, double as big as they started with, means more conquered stuff than they lost PLUS everything NATO sent. Of course while it is easy to make up stories and numbers, it's hard to show the proof what in case of a giant ultra army would be pretty obvious.
    1
  149.  @lauwew7642  The Nazis inside that 'modern client state' do, since they can't talk openly about it. Yet. Hell, NATO and EU DID openly vote PRO Nazism in the UN.
    1
  150. You do get, that this topic is pushed on purpose to distract idiots, right? Got by the way nothing to do with transsexuality, because no one on this planet knows better that women and men are different than people BORN(!) with the curse of transsexuality do. It literally ruins their lives.
    1
  151. Was funny when I read a stupid warpropaganda article in german news about how bad and dumb and evil Russia is - then below the article were the numbers where most people fled to: Russia.
    1
  152. You are the Nazi, kid.
    1
  153. Sure, when you got no clue of tactic and strategy and think everything is like a Hollywood movie with plot armor and all, it might look like that.
    1
  154. Big problem in the Russian/China relationship has suerely been the fear that one would betray the other. Afterall: China could of course need the land and the resources of Russia, so Russia feared that they might strike some deal with NATO and so on. Decades later without that happening and both countries out of the dangerous zone they were in after 2.WW, those fear do not have a basis anymore, even though of course NATO still loves to push it, but this does not work, it's too obvious.
    1
  155. An example: There was a medicine for the heart you had to take constantly, which was at least kind of cheap. It was seen, that this also helped with an eye disease that would constantly blind you, but it could be treated with that same medicine. They just rebranded it and the old one was forbidden to be used to treat the eye disease, while the new one - exactly the same just with a new name - was sold for 60 times the price. People just fear to be blind, so you can take more money from them. It's capitalism. When people talk about the system, that it's about what people want and what is produced, the actual argument is: if there is a need you can abuse, abuse it and squeeze them dry. If you are the one producing something, dictate the price and go for a monopoly to do this even further.
    1
  156. It shouldn't have been started by NATO and the fascist and alike they love to bring to power in 2014.
    1
  157. Why exactly should Russia even care if the Nazis go back into Bakhmut? It's a gift if they do this.
    1
  158. Ukraine hat several mobilisations meanwhile and the majority of their army got no military experience and are getting older an older. Also simlpy a lie, that Russia has never mobilized parts of its army since 2.WW. Western propaganda simply pulls nonsense out of their a$$ and just hope the idiots falling for it...
    1
  159. You know what the biggest insanity will be? When it's clear, that it was Ukraine and it's suddenly not a 'monstrous war crime' and alike anymore and we keep on sending weapons.
    1
  160. It's not military infrastructure. If you count that as target, you can burn down absolute everything you like. The impact on the military is close to zero. Most military IS on crimea and what the want to bring there they can also bring by ships - or simply via landroad. The big impact is on civilians, military cares shit about that.
    1
  161.  @gtengineer1967  Russia obviously is. They cut decapitate Ukraine with ease. It would just be terrible for civilians.
    1
  162.  @lexchaotica190  With that you can even slaughter civilians, since, well, you need civilians to run your country and that is vital to run your military. Does not work that way.
    1
  163.  @antyspi4466  They are Nazis. They are actually WORSE than ISIS and Co.
    1
  164.  @twenuaba  Uh, what? Since when does a terrot attack legitimate another terror attack? But, sure, overall you can 'legitimate' pretty much anything. In 3. Reich gasing people was totally legal. So overall Nazis will just do what they want and especially murder and destroy who- and whatever they want - as long as you let them.
    1
  165. Melnyk is also a Holocaust denier and Banderas fan. For that he had to leave his position as ambassador in german (they were in no hurry with that, was simply for upholding the image and german media still loved to invite him with no care about that) - of course just to get a promotion in Ukraine.
    1
  166.  @arctifire5709  You do get, that WW2 stuff does not just vanish, right? Especially not what was build with megatone of concrete. Azovstal for example, the bunnker under the factory, that's not build the last few years, just started to actively use it.
    1
  167. It's fascinating how people don't seem to get, that the MAJOR point of a strategy and tactics is, that the enemy doesn't know it. It's one of the reasons why Russia is talking SOME shit here and there, that's tactical play. They don't just make up complete nonsense but on a distracting and confusing level and of course overall their whole tactical and strategical planning is far more advanced. Take Bahkmut: They come up with "See! Russia is evil and weak! They just send in Wagner and sacrifice conscripts for clearl to no gains." In reality, they are acting from a position of overwhelming strength, but they don't just send them in like a horde, but created a massively fortified and surveilled frontline from which they act, while keeping the 'walls' strong. Not only is this smart regarding minimizing your losses, it's also a nightmare for the enemy regarding planing, because that fortress can of course fire from all position. It isn't as easy as: let's just send everything to Bakhmut and crush the enemy, in contrary, that's the most stupid thing to do. That talk about offense at best seems to try to force Russia to move - what they don't need to, since their surveillanec is so good, the know exactly where any bigger army gathers up, the don't need shouting from the enemy.
    1
  168. The SU itself never wanted most of the countries they hold all these decades. They were forced to hold them to keep NATO fascism away from them.
    1
  169. Nononono, that poor old man was also forced to walk in by the evil chinese regime for the propaganda of course! /s ;)
    1
  170. Problem in modern warfare is: when you throw more people into a kill zone - you mainly have more people dying there. Does't help to just send in more infanterie. This said, it's not like they have much left to build up an offense that could work. Their stupid PR offenses ruined the 'chances' they got for anything meaningful. They should simply give up to not ruin their country and people any further. Of course they won't do that...
    1
  171. That diagram fits perfectly to the quality of US stategy. Looks like those carpets for children, where they print a little town on it with streets the kids can use with their toy cars.
    1
  172. @ Ammunition When you got a neightbor who got a hell lot of ammunition that will likely not be used anyway, why not buy it? Ridiculous to joke about it was a westerner, when NATO pumps absurd amounts of weapons into Ukraine - without much effect...
    1
  173. It all looks just desperate. The got ABSOLUTELY no plan going on. They just take their printed money and all the crap they alreadys produced and randomly throw it into Ukraine. Wonderweapon this, wonderweapon that, nothign working together. This stuff is of course still dangerous and in the mass can still kill some soldiers and even more cilivians the Ukrop Nazis love to shoot at, but if you would ignore that for a moment: the Russian generals would likely just laugh about that show. Dozens of billions in equipment, several whole armies, all together with a country willing to just burn through their men without care, this COULD be quite a threat, but the absolute incompetence we see here, just blindly throwing it in, one after the other, always missing the other stuff that isn't sent yet - or already destroyed, this reduces what all of it combined COULD be to a mere fraction of its potential. A gigantic waste of resources - and lives. And it's not like espcecially the west got resources to waste.
    1
  174. They now start to praise NASAMS delivery, another wonder weapon (though quite a surprise, while they also praise how the wonder army of Ukraine is already shooting down all Russian airforce enemy). But how shall an at best low level med range anti air defense system make a difference, especially in such few numbers?
    1
  175. It's the only thing they shoot at. Good enough to kill some civilians, military-wise it's just nothing.
    1
  176. Well, nice guesse from NATO. We know who is clearly running out of ammunition to deliver, though. The rest is wish-think.
    1
  177.  @dylanc9174  So you think those 10s of thousand of troops just got obliterated by Ukraine in three days by... what exactly?
    1
  178. They ARE western muppets, from the start.
    1
  179. Well, why are you surprised about Nazis acting that way?
    1
  180. @ Railroad trap: Wth... what level of retarded do you have to be to run into such an obvious trap?!?! "Oh, they destroyed that railroad but left th one close to their artillery intact? How nice, let's use that one." ...
    1
  181. The women mainly shows, that AI is full of people who abuse it for war propaganda and who leave the moment this does not work out anymore.
    1
  182. Never put enough soldiers there. They also know, that Kiev is full of mislead people and extremists, so while they CAN take it by force, it would ruin the city and cose many, man lives. And it simply does not want to have Kiev in the first place. It COULD become nevessary at some point, if these "Endsieg" fantasies of the west and their puppets continue. The real Nazis did not even accept defeat when sowjet tanks stood IN Berlin.
    1
  183. Russia got 2000 S-300 launcher and only 800 in active service, means they got 1200 in reserve - and that before their production capacity taken into account (at the moment they don't even get beyond that). Just as one example, how many they would have to destroy to make even a DENT.
    1
  184.  B A  Whatever they even want to do. Sanctions? They already did all they could and it was a shot into their own face. Sending arms? They already sent all they could. Cry more with their usual lies at the UN and alike? As if they would ever stop doing that.
    1
  185.  @Brslld  They don't advance at all. Even when they take whole cities, the actual frontline stays behind those. The movement you see at the front on your videos is mainly scout and small assault units.
    1
  186. Many humans for some reasons have a huge drag toward extremes. I don't know why, it's pretty stupid, because no matter what, the extreme of something is pretty much always wrong.
    1
  187.  @monaliza3334  Still remember today the outrage about the Maidan revolution, the police violence, while when I saw the pictures from there it was 'demonstrants' throwing molovots at the police who stoically took it. Then, after the militant coup, the coup regime instantly used the ARMY and sent it against anyone who was against that coup. And after crying about police violence, military slaughter is not only fine, no, we deliver the arms and training for it.
    1
  188. By the way: Israel loves to say that Hamas is abusing civilians as human shields, but that they (Israel) tells the civilians to flee. This makes no sense: If Hamas would use civlians as human shields, they would force the civilians to stay so they wouldn't be able to flee in the first place. That's on top of Hamas being imprisoned in Gaze = having no choice of battlefield in the first place and human shield tactic only working against an enemy with morals....
    1
  189. 30-60 bullets for unexperienced people who will likely miss 10 times more - or hit other targets. Friendly fire still a danger even in modern armies, and a desaster, when you just merge random, untrained people together. Don't want to know, how many civilians were actually killed by other civilians or militants, even more when looking at the propaganda about "Russian saboteurs". Seeing people comment on this, most of them sound like they imagine (especially) a (modern) war like a map in a shooter game and you start somewhere, got your rifle and 20 shots and then you just walk around and snipe enemies form the back who stand around there everywhere, pick up some extra ammunition and go on, clearing the map. Then in reality they are for example in Kiev, actually hundredthousands people in the city, while no 'marked target' anywhere, but they stand there, go no clue what is happening at all, because they are just a militia and everyone around them could, especially other people like them, could be an enemy. Their idea of their heroism is, what will likely make them kill just other people like them or civilians. As you described the tanks: a modern army got all kind of technology to see you way before you can with your own eyes and way more clearly and that from further away than in any game peopel for some reason got in mind. Most stupid idea were those molotov cocktails., more likely to burn down the city than killing a single Russian soldier. They can barely make an ambush with 2000m range Javelin. Imagine a 20m Molotov...
    1
  190. If you take a look at the Black Sea Fleet of Russia, the main strikes forces Admiral Gorshkov class frigates and Buyan class corvettes. Those are also all much younger, showing the focus of Russia on lighter missile ships, what by the way was also another surprise for NATO a few years ago.
    1
  191.  @joseph17372  That's the error you got: this is not a flagship in regard of "main battle force". The Moskva was the escort ship at best. The main battle ship are all the other ships. That's why even IF it was a rocket attack, it was an extremely dumb one. They took the most unimportant target of all and the chance for this to happen again would be very small. At best the had this one moment of surprise and likely only these missiles left and chose the most unimportant target by far and on top of that a ship, that was past it days anyway.
    1
  192. The whole attack now is not retaliation at all. Ukrop Nazis/NATO simply pushed it further and further and the more they push the higher the amount of force from Russia will get to stop them. They get closer to the last warning levels they got. This was still warnings - but they still don't stop. A bit further and Russia will just switch all lights off. What they could do since day 1...
    1
  193. Azov not only got the Wolfsangel but below it the Black Sun. Also saw many other Nazi stuff in Ukraine over and over again. Black/Red Ukrainian Insurgent Army flag, all the SS emblems, Dirlewanger SS Brigade emblem, Galicia SS Brigade emblem, and so on. 100% Nazis.
    1
  194. What people also don't get: it doesn't help you to be able to shoot 80km or 300km, if you can't look that far. Seems like people think it's like in a video game, where you simply scroll to the other side of the map and then place the target marker on the clearly visible unit or building there.
    1
  195. Well, they might sink 1-2 more coast guard boats
    1
  196. You can't even trust fotos and videos anymore these days and have to anyalyze them consequently. It's for example more than odd when you got 'proof' of a destroyed, burned out missiles system, but zero sign of burn marks around it, no sooth nothing. That's... unlikely. It's also typical for the NATO side to produce videos with endless cuts, what you mainly see in Russian videos when cutting to the surveillance drone to show the impact). Not even starting with how Russia is constantly using those 1500 FABs or even that Aerosol version. While those don't make fancy close range videos, the idea that anything could survive this in a 100m radius is... far fetched. And they use hundreds of those every week. On top of way more and way better drones, missiles, artillery superiority, other aviation and so on...
    1
  197. Sweden already had a guy who was very against the whole NATO show of Europe, Olof Palme. Was murdered. Bevor that the NATO fascism tried to weaken the peace seeking Palme and provoke Sweden overall with stupid stories about sowjets submarines and so on.
    1
  198. What key targets even? They damaged a landing ship that plays no role in the SMO and a small submarine, both in the dry dock for repairs so they damage somethin that was aleady out of order anyway and likely mainly hit it because Russia didn't think about that they would be so stupid to waste the few shots they got on such pointless targets. Same for the Moskva. People still bring it up, but Moskva didn't even take part in the SMO and is an almost half a century old ship, borderline out of commission in general = an absolute pointless target. Overall. All the missiles used by those Russian warships (and none of the active ones was ever taken out by any missile or drone) can be fired just fine from land, too. Russia does not even need the ships. So even if you force them to stay back with the Navy because it's too risky or whatever, this changes nothing.
    1
  199. Since they love to sell destroyed Ukrainian stuff as Russian stuff, you can't really count it anyway.
    1
  200. Russia can't lie about the losses. The whole idea about wrong numbers is build upon the idea, that Russia is just buring soldiers or let them rot there and then tell the families "lol, sorry, we lost your son somewhere" It's absurd to even think that. Look at May 9th in Russia. The army is somehow sacred in Russia, since it saved the country against the Nazis and this includes the soldiers. The idea, that they would tell absurd lies to the mother of a soldier is simply absurd.
    1
  201. Would make more sense if he would want Rambo, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter and all kind of other plot armor heroes - would also way more fit the war these Ukrainian and NATO 'leaders' are 'winning': mainly a fictional one.
    1
  202. They don't even need airforce for that. People don't get what a gigantic amount of anti air and ECM Russia got. Even when you just eat everything the Banderites claim, that's not even making a dent in their army. For example: Russia got 2000 S-300 launcher. They only actively use 800 of them (of course not in Ukraine alone, this includes all used system). 1200 are in reserve to replace losses. Just to understand, what level of destruction you would need to even start to bring Russia into a reduction of its anti air capacity. What you got now isn't even enough to get beyond their production. And since they produce that stuff themselves, it costs them only a fraction of what the west pays to private companies to get a new system, the majority of it just bein corruption to generate profit. Even a radar system isn't expensive to make. The most expensive part was to create the prototype and so on. If they would have to buy it from another country, sure, but producing it is very cheap.
    1
  203. Don't get the surprise. When you look at investments in rebuild, you see massive investments in the south and just nothing in the nort, given up area. So what's the surprise about Russia giving a fuck about that area? At least at the moment. If they would care, they would have build up defenses and rebuild the infrastructure and alike.
    1
  204. Nazis need more weapons. Reminds me of 2.WW, in which USA also supported Hitler for a very long time during the war (and of course Hitler's whole rise).
    1
  205.  @chamberpot969  Money is general worthless.
    1
  206. There's a quote (it's from a game) that I like because it's so on point. The character talks about demons there, but when you look at faith, demons are often just seen as evil people anyway. It goes like this: Whatever a demon says will either be a lie, try to cover up another lie - or is something even more dangerous: a halftruth. People think that the lies from the system are just as black and white as the picture the system wants to paint ( we good, they evil), but it's a giant net of lies in all directions even fighting each other, but that too is part of the system.
    1
  207. I mean, they are kind of right, the NAzism spreads throughout the whole army, so it is indisginguishable. When you mix pudding with shit, the shit doesn't become edible, all of it becomes shit.
    1
  208. Western propaganda became better at hiding the emblems. Funny enough they now often enough run around without any emblem, as they just took it off for the PR video.
    1
  209. Tweet of that Ukrainian guy simply shows he got not clue what he is talking about. It's the same stupidit as the idea of some westerners, that Russia would need and use chips from NATO countries for their military. Yes, Russia had been a bit naive regarding the evil in the west, but it's not THAT stupid.
    1
  210. What would even be the point? As usual, it makes no sense, same for all the murders they try to blame on Russia. Would be more likely that Abe was sacrificed to push Japan further into escalation.
    1
  211. What do you mean with 'barely'? What do you want them to do? The usual US genocide to just slaugther around with massive dead civiliansa and the country just ruined?
    1
  212. Still not know a single number from Ukrainian side. But they cry for more weapons, many more weapons (whoever will pay for all this expensive shit alone, not even talking about the damage - they clearly don't are about human lives at all). Just some bullshit numbers, that they conquered mor tanks than were destroyed, what is absolute absurd - even more because you pretty much never see one of the drive around in a tank - but quite some videos of them driving with civil cars or even inside ambulances...
    1
  213. Always insane, how Ukraine is more and more a military black hole that just keeps on sucking in military hardware from whole NATO, just for it to vanish.
    1
  214. Seems there were some Joint Military Exercises of NATO in North Macedonia, but they just look ridiculous, fighting against an enemy, who is doing absolute nothing.
    1
  215.  @ObeyNoLies  And what point do all these points havge, when the enemy can destroy you at 50km range while you got 5km? Yes, of course you can have extreme where the enemy runs out of ammunition - what will reduce his range to 0 and yes, in that case YOU will have the range advantage with your 5km. Of course you can take extreme example like one army with 10 1000km bulllets and the other side got 1000 10km bullets. But that's purely fictional. We don't have that situation on the ground, in reality.
    1
  216.  @stuglenn1112  And their losses were still horrible and of course they didn't sneak up with tank, but used the environment and tunnelsystms for that. Of course you can go for sneak attacks and alike. I mentioned that by telling, that todys surveillance does not allow you to do that with a tank.
    1
  217.  @davidjames1063  Well, that's why NATO is mainly slaughtering thrid wold countries - and use proxy wars against Russia and China. They DO know that.
    1
  218. I mean, that "Orcs" thing alone proves, that they are Nazis. Dehuminization is the very first think fascists do.
    1
  219. That one truck bomb killed seven civilians. Meanwhile that massive missile barrage of Russia killed how many civilians? And what I've seen from hits, it doesn't look like actual hits (far too little destruction for that), but either not working air defense missiles or one video that looks like an intercepted on, first crashing into ground then exploding, so overall a terrible interception that led to such a hit right inside the city. Why ever you place anti air defense right in the middle of the city anyway, epecially such short range ones. Of course this will lead to such problems (and of course anti air missile aren't made to dodge buildings and alike - and not sure how good the radar is to not get problems with buildings, too, leading to hit buildnigs or simply not working missiles going down elsewhere...) Not really a surprise the Nazis use the little air defense they got only for themselves (and that badly), not for the cities.
    1
  220. Those long range missiles are single shot and way longer in the air, so overall easier to intercept than a barrage of the smaller ones Russia is shooting down all the time. Nazis will just use them to shoot at the cities anyway.
    1
  221. If they would have done anything to that NPP, Russia would likely have declared war on the Banderas Regime and do a Grozny on Kiev...
    1
  222.  @vanlalvena1003  1. Majority of people in Israel are part of the army and by Israel logic are legitimate targets no matter where they are at that moment, see pager attack. 2. Of course IDF hides behind civilians. What about looking up where many of their military buildings are.
    1