Comments by "Miriam Weller" (@miriamweller812) on "Real Reporter" channel.

Sacrificing your army for PR is even more stupid and f*** up than sacrifing your army for territorial gains. And that's already very, very stupid.
60
War is not about taking land, but who got an army left. The one with the army left just takes anything he wants. In war itself you only take land if you have to if it serves a purpose for tactical or strategical reasons. That's not special or new knowledge but very, very old. In earlier times it was simply overall more important to move, because you got pretty low fighting range, so to attack something you had to go there, because even cannons got an effective firing range of some hundred meters, bigger ones maybe something over 1000m - what is a joke in comparison to today. Today you can easily bombard things 10, 20, 50 or even 500 KILOMETERS and more away from you.
22
War should never have started in the first place. When NATO pushed the coup in Ukraine it was about mere police violence (while the actual shooting was fake and not coming from the police at all and the demonstrants weren't peaceful, you had right wing extremist there which threw molotovs at the police - imagine would police in all NATO countries would do to people who do that, while the police in Ukraine stoically took it...). Then the (illegal) coup regime not only instantly sold Ukraine out to the west (long before any elections), but started a civil war against the peopel in the east and south who - for very good reason - where against a coup that got rid of the government they had elected, attacking them not with police former but the military, including clusterbombs on cities and alike (even CNN reported that at that time, likely not briefed yet...). But instead stopping it, NATO did the opposite. That alone already tells you everything about this. The analysis how this would end with Russia at some point forced to intervene was done 2008. Could have been a warning. NATO saw it as a plan...
21
@mathewvanostin7118 Even Stalin didn't want to keep all those eastern european countries actually. Soviet Union was forced to keep them, because the USA as new Führer made clear, that they wouldn't end the war. Cold War overall is a continuation of 2.WW with the same goal: pillaging Russia/SU. Soviet Union tried for years to go for a peace deal after 2.WW, what is just the usual and includes retreating of all armies from foreign land. West under US leadership said no and when the USA not only created NATO but planted their nukes at the eastern border of it, there was no way for the Soviet Union to retreat. With change in technology the need for such buffers changed, but of cours Gorbatchov was indeed extremely naiv to think, that if he ends the Cold War one sided, that NATO would stop. it was created to get Russia mountains of resources and only for that.
11
You don't even know the words you use.
2
"The west only gives them a little bit every time" - the west sent them several full armies.
2
@JDubya123 It interevened to enforce Minsk 2 after the illegal coup regime that couped against the democratic elected government not only started a civili war against all Ukrainians who showed resistance against the coup but also denied to follow the peace solution of Minsk 2, even after the UN ordered them to. Master behind that is of course NATO/the west, for which again it is just another try to pillage the richest country on this planet, like so many times before. That's why you never see western media, military or politicias ever talk about the lives of Ukrainiane people, espcially not eastern Ukrainian or Crimean, it's always about conquering Russia, taking it down - so the west can steal its resources.
1
@i8Hardcore You can't compare warfar then and now. The range of weapon systems changed a lot as does logistics. What people most forget about earlier warfare was the massive importance of convoys who simply dragged all the water and food along, being pretty much another, civilian 'army' just to keep the fighters alive. In times were most of this was transported via simple wagons and horses, distance quickly became a massive problem. Today with trains, ships, planes and of course millions of trucks, this became a much lesser problem. And as said: today you got weapon system which can destroy things 100s of km away, so you don't have to send a massive army there to cause vital damage.
1
It's not even too much information, since majority is missinformation anyway. Even if you take the actual information, it's only a small glimpse, at best something around 5%, the other 95% simply give you no material. This is a war with on both sides around 2 million soldiers since start, maybe a bit less, maybe a bit more. How many of those have you see on video or fotos? A few thousands? It's the same with those "frontlines" on the map, those colored areas. That's not the front. People treat it like if those are some fortified walls and if you manage to overcome those, you have conquered that area behind. Those borders on the colored maps are simply empty. It's zero problem to run in there. The problem is, to survive, because you are now in firing range of pretty much all system, not only the high range ones. The real frontline, especially of the Russian army, is far behind that and does not move much.
1
@Roger-go6jc Called reality, but of course from the PoV of a fascist reality is the lie.
1
@rossevans1774 That doesn't even make any sense, child. XD
1
It's not even about those tanks getting destroyed or captured (for that some soldiers running away is enough). The real reason why the western tanks fail is, that you near to never see them do anything worthwhile. They are destroyed or disabled long before that. That a tank is getting destroyed/disabled sooner or later is pretty much part of its job, which is to draw fire - that why it is armored so much. For a tank to make it through all that and return when it's not going against some goat herders with AKs, that's a nice bonus.
1
McBeth just makes money for his alcohol, cigars, food and co with selling BS to idiots on the internet, like many do. He just here and there tries to mix it with facts to make it look more based - though in the end that's just the method of the worst liars.
1
@unamoloney5674 Sure, very free and indepenent after a fascistic coup followed by civil war of that illegal regime with NATO weapons against all the people who dare to be against something like that.
1
@martin-cheers Oh, 2008 was the first time NATO openly talked about their plan to regime change Ukraine, than push it into civil war to force Russia to intervene, of couse with the idea to sacrifice Ukraine to ruin Russia and steal its gigantic amount of resources. Nothing new.
1
That's as much a gamble as mexican cartells making a raid into south USA. That would work and the could cut deep, but how would it end? Of course mexican cartells are simply not stupid enough to do that.
1
@evilleader1991 Pretty sure Peter Griffin leads a much healthier life.
1
@heyhoe168 Not how it works. While our western media loves their propaganda, the majority of the world knows, that Israel is a brutal and murderous Apartheids regime. And while you can argue, that the way Hamas fights back against it is wrong and won't solve anything, Israel is MUCH MORE wrong. If you ignore the context, you could say that 2.WW was a gigantic, endless warcrime against millions of german civilians. Just ignore the violence from germany that led to that... Same thing. With the difference that Israel is comitting the mass murder against Palestina - not the other way around.
1
Weak currency is bad for import nations and good for export nations. Hell, germany killed of their "Deutsche Mark" and switched to Euro for just that. Deutsche Mark would have been MUCH stronger than the Euro, what would have been bad for germany's export. That's the whole thing behind it. Russia is no import nation. When they import something it's mainly to get something of actual value back than just money (which is overall always worthless), but they can easily produce that stuff themselves. With sanctions, it doesn't matter at all anyway, how good or bad the exchange rate between Rubel and western currencies is. If sanctions cancel any import from western goods, who cares about the exchange rate?
1
@joeylopez7978 This attacks ensure, that there won't be any peace talks.
1