Comments by "Sean Cidy" (@seancidy6008) on "Preston Stewart " channel.

  1. "Russian didn’t strike countries who provided weapons to attack Russia territory". Those countries are part of a nuclear armed alliance. Ukraine is not.
    22
  2. You cannot 'cede' what you do not control. Ukraine has 80% of what it had before it tried to join NATO (despite all the warnings), and Ukraine put itselfin that position. The domino theory has a proven ability to produce catastrophic misjudgments. Whatever its values, , there are certain risks that a country will take only if it believes they are an existential necessity. Suggesting a deal that involves Russia handing back territory that it already controls would be accepted by the Kremlin is a literary fairy story. The suggestion that Russia could be overwhelmed conventionally in Ukraine with without any well founded fear the Russian commanders would successfully request the use of theatre thermonuclear weapons to rescue the situation is strictly an armchair opinion. Thousands of Western volunteers who have actually been to the front have decided to leave Ukraine. They know what is coming.
    4
  3. Total bluff by Ukraine. Russia was chastened and now is grimly determined; they have the people to figure out technical answers to anything the US gives Ukraine. There is no long hanging fruit left ("thinly held Russian lines"), the drunken incompetent Russian generals and colonels have been dismissed and command and control are less concentrated and easily located; there are defenses in depth artillery and supply are dispersed and out of range of HIMARSand double the number of troops manning a much shorter line. It is by no means obvious that successful combined arms mobile offensives under current conditions are possible for either Ukraine or Russia. Kursk is the model of a successful Russian battle. Any major Ukrainian attack will run into Kursk2.
    4
  4. But the wolf did come.'
    3
  5.  @zeni104  Nato is not going to directly fight Russia over anything Russia does to Ukraine. It just isn't.
    3
  6.  @samsam828  Who is gong to attack Russia to save Ukraine?
    2
  7.  @Chevy64w  When it comes right down to it what country is going to fight Russia to save Ukraine?
    2
  8. The American observers said the Ukrainian offensive failed because they were not doing ground reconnaissance, Ukraine is trying to do everything with drones. The Ukrainians are in a Western mindset where the individuals' have a mindset of developing their particular potentialities. That not so great when what are needed are expendables.
    2
  9. Sometimes fighting back against a bully does not end well.
    2
  10. They are. But a path to victory for them is begining to be discernable.
    1
  11. If they were storing them then they thought they might need them, and they were right! You can hear artillery', mortars and grenade launchers firing before the round hits you. But that's not true of a tank gun darting forward to shoot at a line of sight target hundreds of yards away then backing into trees ect.
    1
  12. Half of the population of Gaza are kids. Literally.
    1
  13. The Western way of war taught to the Ukrainians is completely unrealistic, and they have said their instructors have no clue . In Ukraine you cannot just go around Russia minefield and they are too deep to clear a way through without being targeted. Supposing they did do it , the Russians are going to accept their defeat by Ukraine and just go home; not a chance!
    1
  14. Russia is going to have reservists called up and trained non stop, and I expect the Russian army in Ukraine will triple before they go on a major offensive. A farther quarter of a million will be in training to serve as replacements. This is a minimum.
    1
  15.  @drewmalesky9869  Like Georgia
    1
  16. Israel is not a country bound by Western norms, and this response makes that obvious.
    1
  17. General Lapin is going to admit he is incompetent? Not a chance. Lapin is going to tell Putin the Russian army cannot defeat Ukraine now. At least not by continuing to use conventional means.
    1
  18. Ukraine's leadership has a clear motive to inveigle American and the rest of the West into less and less indirect conflict with Russia. From Ukraine's point of view the worse they are doing, all the better to pressure the Americans to help with deep penetration strikes against key installations.
    1
  19. Not every World War started like WW2, WW1 didn't. The mindset that stopping Russia gainin anything at all in Ukraine is necessary to prevent it keep from going West and invading into actual Nato members countries even though it would be fighting an actual Nato army whereby Russia would be outclassed technologically and outnumbered 4:1 in forces on the ground even in Poland is far fetched. They would not do it because they could not possibly hope to win. Good grie,f they can barely get even a draw in this war against puny Ukraine. That through defeat by Ukraine Russia ought to be schooled in liberalism, whereupon its civilisation an societal organisation must become different to what it has been for half a millennia is no less unfeasible than any Russian idea of Nato being undermined and divided. Attrition strategies depend on what the opponent is willing to accept, and it is now apparent that whatever its deficiencies in military science, Russia has been widely underestimated in regards to its reserve of stubborn persistence. If battered to its knees (this is a hypothetical) Russia, will issue a very unvague and unmistakably specific threat, and that is why the Ukrainian caprice that they can get back Crimea by using the unlimited arms and money from the West is being backpedaled in the West. So don't be too sure what the quickest path to WW3 is.
    1
  20. If that deal was achievable it would be a solution. But it involves Russia handing back territory that it already controls.
    1
  21. What the retired Winston Churchill said about Britain's Suez debacle “I would never have dared; and if I had dared, I would certainly never have dared stop". After pulling out of Suez Britain ceased to be thought of as an Independent Great Power by anyone, even British establishment insiders. Putin surely understands he made a profound miscalculation in launching the SMO, but he that does not alter the fact that he or any successor cannot withdraw from Ukraine
    1
  22. The cost to Russia of continuing with the war is being spelled out, but the cost of quitting is not being given mention of, as if only Putin's pride will be affected. That Russia has been unable to take Kharkiv only 20 miles from the Russian border is bad enough. Its status as a country of consequence would not survive and it might as well give up its armed forces including its nuclear weapons if it lacks the will to go to the bitter end and attain its objectives against a medium sized country right beside it like Ukraine. No one would ever take it seriously again, not potential enemies nor prospective friends; would China consider Russia a worthwhile ally if it quit? So the war is from the standpoint of the Kremlin really believed to be sort of existential for Russia. If Ukraine is going to be supported open endedly by the West the largesse is without strings such as a say on whether Ukraine will negotiate, the Russo Ukraine war will go on for a very long time. I think that selfless attitude being sustained is possible, but not particularly plausible in democracies.
    1
  23. Russia's fragility is their ace in the hole. If Putin goes all in to win the SMO then beating Russia in Ukraine will entail breaking Russia as a great power, which Washington does not want to do.
    1