Comments by "Miriam Weller" (@miriamweller812) on "Russia Closing Bakhmut Cauldron, Belarus Rejects Ukraine Offer; West Escalates, Sends Kiev Tanks" video.

Jamieray Z The fuel will quickly become the quickets problem. Tanks burn a lot of it and Ukraine has massive energy problem including fuel and to transport it. Overall Russia can just focus to push that further and NATO could send 2000 tanks, they simply lack the ability to move them.
2
@jiridrapal7512 Humans are harder to see and a less wortwhile target. You can also take cover and let some dirt protect you from most but a direct hit, while a tank can't do any of that.
1
@jiridrapal7512 Mobility is a point, but it's not like you use tanks to transport troops.
1
@JimCOsd55 Peopel still come up with that year old meme, eh? You do get that the numbers of the coup regime are utter bullshit. If they were true, even without any NATO help, Ukraine would have a bigger army than they started with. Instead even with the hundreds of tanks NATO alread sent in and all the other units, they still beg for more, more, more and with all the PR videos they make you never see any giant tank army or alike.
1
@JimCOsd55 They went into Kharkiv because Russia went out of it - that's the sole reason. See; when your Nazis are so superior, how don't they take Donezk for example? It's right at the front an they got by far the highest soldier concentration there. Should be easy for an invincible übermensch army to stomp those meager rests of the stupid and weak Russians, no?
1
@andrew30m I literally here that 3 day PR bullshit solely from you Nazi lovers.
1
@JimCOsd55 Uh, child, Ukraine had MASSIVE losses around Lyman trying to take it all day and simply were not able to. Your magical HIMARS system mainly shoot at civilians in the cities and sometimes at a bridge and barely manage to destroy any of them, Just a little reminder of the bridge by Kherson city they tried to destroy over weeks. Russia destroyed it at the end, those HIMAR firecrackers did close to nothing. You come up with social media stories and fantasies about superior NATO tactics. The NATO tactic is to bomb the shit out of third wolrld country, then simply fail on the ground because there is simply no plan after "just burn the country down". What Wagner is doing is their thing. If you really believe these human waves tactics, you look to many bad war movies and think those are real. Reminds me of that 2.WW game , that of course pushed that idea, that the Soviets were just wasting the lives of their people for the lols. Good old fascism PR.
1
@JimCOsd55 Useles in regard of the war and it got ZERO to do with Lyman and Kherson city, both a MASSIVE deaster for the coup regime with brutal losses. Russia does not care go give up some territory. War is not about territory. Not as number. Even the falling towns and cities now are not the point. They simpl show, because the are the CORE DEFENSE LINE of the whole coup regime, that it is collapsing, even with all the billions NATO had pumped in and the regime wasting a whole generation of young men for its insane fascism. Russia went out of Kharkiv because it had not defense there and with the small numbers of soldiers they had went in, it's not about holding any little place on the map. You retetreat from there, not risking the lives of your soldier for nothing and instead use that badly fortified territory to pound the enemy when he occupies it. That's not even some super special tactic or strategy, it's actually very standard. Kherson City was a bit different, since many civilians lived there, so Russian and East Ukrainian soldiers accepted the bad position with a giant river in the back to defend them. But when the Nazis started the try to blow up the damn and that with NATO support, the risk got to high, so the civilians had to be evacuated anyway. With them gone, it was pointless to hold that bad position and instead they went some km south to massively improve it. Even befoer they caused brutal losses to the coup regime troops, now its even worse. Not even the "victories" of the Nazis are good, even those are a desaster. War is all about your military. You got no military left = you lose = you also got no territory left. All the territory is for the winner to take as he pleases.
1