Comments by "Sean Cidy" (@seancidy6008) on "Anders Puck Nielsen" channel.

  1. That sounds like a call for enforcing conformity. Like the Dems did.
    19
  2. In 1994 Mearsheimer published an article in which he opined that Ukraine would need their own nuclear deterrent to Russia. You can judge for yourself how 'pro Russian' his' nonsense' analyses was
    13
  3. ​ @anderstorger3211  Denmark has the most economically equal population of any country in the world America's population is extremely unequal. The political polarisation is something to do with these facts IMO.
    13
  4.  @rmdomainer9042  The Ukrainian general staff who authorized the cross border raids (one of which came within striking distance of a thermonuclear repository) must be very pleased with the Russian reaction. They will be indubitably be getting a congratulatory phone call from Zelensky requesting more of the same, eh?
    11
  5. Ukrainian anticipation of the reaction to their raids is not discussed. It almost seems like he is saying Ukraine does not need plans, because can rely on Russia to react in a way counterproductive to the interests of the Russian army.
    10
  6. So the fighting to take Bakhmut has stopped now that Wagner is no longer a worry?
    9
  7. We don't know what the ratio of attrition is but Russia mounting a another Bakhmut type operation suggest that they are willing to accept whatever that ratio is because there are a lot of casualties in this stalemate, which is purely positional. As it would reduce consumption of human resources and arms if running low on them, I surmise that Russia is not running out of men, missiles, or shells in the foreseeable future. America seems to be happy with Russia obtaining a limited victory
    8
  8. He understands the American people.
    8
  9. But at the end of the day Soviet equipment could be incorporated into Russia adaptations on the battlefield.
    7
  10. What Anders seems to be saying is the logistics determine the strategy
    7
  11.  @kiheiarima6164  Most Americans who voted disagree with you.
    7
  12.  @ayo8323  Anders does have areas in which he is the go to guy, but he cannot be an authority on everything.
    6
  13.  @duncansmith7576  Nah, Russia lacks the technology to even properly exploit its own oil and shale reserves. The massive investment required to develop a lithium mining industry is completely beyond Russia
    6
  14.  @squireson  When has he ever given the Russians credit for doing anything right? More than once (eg the Kremlin dome flagpole strike), he has said something cannot be a Russian false flag because the Russians are not competent enough to carry out such an operation. Or even focus the camera equipment to film it.
    5
  15. Not in Russia it isn't. Historically, democracy is not so much unknown as uncomprehended in Russia. As for whether the majority supports Putin, you are a naval expert. Zelensky has become more popular as a war leader; both boats rise in that tide. Putin felt secure enough to hold an election during a war.
    5
  16.  @jasft9746  He is genuinely popular among Russians, and now he can announce some low cost territorial gains and boost morale. The cross border raids were never going to discredit him, and have backfired spectacularly.
    5
  17. Pretty much as one might have expected.
    4
  18. Russia is most unlikely to use them because nukes are for those losing conventionally.
    4
  19. He is constrained, he cannot be positive about anything Russia is doing. Not that he wants to say the Russians are managing anything well, but he couldn't anyway.
    4
  20.  @garethamery3167  It is very clear to me, as it was intended to be, which war Anders is talking about, and which platform. It just so happens that Denmark was instrumental in getting newly independent Ukraine involved in peacekeeping and other military missions all across the globe, and Denmark did that in order to speed Ukraine's path to Nato membership.
    4
  21. Anders seems to genuinely believe Ukraine will win this way Not 'can' in theory but actually will. What makes him think so?
    4
  22. In WW2 the German army overperformed massively, and that was the problem. The Russian army is far worse than anyone expected. So Europe can quite easily defend itself; they just don't want to spend the money.
    4
  23.  @Soupertrouper  Thirty years ago Mearsheimer told Ukraine they would need their own nuclear weapons to deter Russia bullying.
    4
  24. Bakhmut was an extremely long battle with different stages in which the focus and methods altered, at least on the Russian side, so it is not amenable to a single encompassing narrative. We are not talking about Hostomel airport
    4
  25. The US's reactions seem calibrated more to keep Russia from panicking that help Ukraine to win in a meaningful sense.
    4
  26.  @balaclavabob001 The Chindit raids were followed by, and may well have been caused by, the Japanese trying the same trick, just as staff officers warned Wavell it might. Ukrainian Special Forces command orchestrating the Belgorod incursions, especially the last one that got uncomfortably close to a non conventional depot, ought to have predicted there would be a response. Anders seems to be saying this, like everything they do, has predictably gone wrong for Russia and Ukraine could (and will continue to be able to) count on that always happening.
    4
  27. If European countries are not willing to spend 5% on their own defence then why should US taxpayers foot that bill? Free ride is over.
    4
  28. "What Russia lacks more than anything else is soldiers, and it cannot afford lose people at the rate it has since the beginning of the war." So we are told but then we were told they could not afford to start the war, yet they proceeded to do just that. Russia has no other invasions in hand apart from the one of Ukraine so I suspect Russia is not going to worry about losing troops. In fact, soldiers are the one thing that the Ukrainians are not going to be given by the West, so wring down Ukrainian manpower is a viable strategy for Russia even if the Russians have to accept an unfavorable kill ratio.
    4
  29.  @julianbrelsford  What the Russian are mainly doing all along the line now is a scaled up version of what Ukraine was doing in Bakhmut, according to Anders, eh?
    3
  30. Does everything have to be about limitless Western support for Ukraine or the lack of it?
    3
  31.  AndyWoohoo666  If Ukraine had them now it would use them. 'Nuff said.
    3
  32.  @ciarandoyle4349  Russia built trenches and laid mines opposite Kharkiv. That was planning for a defensive contingency. The Ukrainians seem to have not dug in, and so lacked proper trenches, which explains why they had to fall back .
    3
  33.  @nozhki-busha  Is the Ukrainian defence line protecting Kharkiv so ideally placed and well fortified that they are sending good units as reinforcement to mediocre ones already on that line? Is Kharkiv, previously an area safe from enemy artillery and a useful supply hub for that reason, now in danger of being exposed to Russian fires because the defence line, such as it is, was built just right?
    3
  34. "The idea that a Russian victory is inevitable is prolonging the war". The Russians think that they'll win eventually; I am not sure that has anything to do with what opinion in the West is. You can tell them they won't win but unless they believe you, the war will not end even if they are pushed back inside their own borders, where with more infrastructure they can continue fighting and firing missiles. So what is Ukraine's plan for ending the war? You cannot be a winner unless you are the one that decides the war is over.
    3
  35. Denmark has had a lot to say about Ukraine. Time the Danes got some reality therapy.
    3
  36. Ukraine was hardly formulating its strategy with the idea of causing Wagner to mutiny, otherwise they would have been ready, waiting and able to take instant advantage of it.
    3
  37.  @antimatters6283  Almost three years and hundreds of thousands of casualties later RUSSIA is doubling down and it seems to me the considerations Mearsheimer has been talking about for decades explain why. How does Anders explain what Russia is doing?
    3
  38. Good, but too much of a Russia versus Ukraine zero sum game analysis. Russia losing is not a win for Ukraine, it is a win for America that Ukraine is paying the price for. The Ukrainians may well be paying to much of a price for the land on the western side of the Dnieper. I suspect the Ukrainian military professionals wanted to wait until the Russians attack from that bridgehead towards Odessa, because so far Russia fights badly when mounting a swift offensive. Some people are saying the Russians deliberately give ground all the better to defend with artillery when under pressure.
    3
  39. Comparisons between Russia and countries like Germany, France and Britain are inconclusive. But more important than the absolute size of their collective economies is that Western Europe has massive and inexorably increasing social spending. It is unrealistic to think it politically feasible for European countries make very substantial increases to their defence budgets. Nato countries are already objectively strong enough to deter Russia, which in three years of war has been unable to capture a city that is 19 miles from the Russian border, and this in a part of the world where Russia has huge advantages in ethnic and geographical propinquity. Absent an outbreak of mass insanity in the Kremlin, they will not even toy with the idea of invading a Nato country. Europe needs to invest in projects for economic growth, not raise taxes for futile military consumption.
    3
  40. Russia did win a victory in Bakhmut they took it, and Prigozhini complained ceaselessly that Wagner were starved of artillery taking Bakhmut. So the type of fighting in Bakhmut suited Wagner in a way that it would not have done elsewhere. Surovikin designed the Bakhmut operation, maybe he thought it was a good use of a traditional Russian use of convicts that had been made available for some time (ie they were not an innovation or recruited for Bakhmut specifically). Philips O'Brian is more of a naval and airpower expert, and I don't think the Russian artillery advantage being big enough to win in in a set piece like Bakhmut and fight elsewhere is obvious to him. I think it is quite telling that Wagner Group is gone yet Ukraine is still trying very hard to take Bakhmut . The city would seem to have a special military value to both sides beyond tying up enemy forces or attritiing them. Wagner were unlike the Russian army in fighting as light infantry rather than as part of an artillery centric force using bombardment for everything.
    3
  41. Congrats to Denmark for them pushing Nato enlargement in the Baltic, it has made us all significantly safer, and now pays off big time by allowing savings on Danish defence spending.
    3
  42. You mean Ukraine ignoring Mearsheimer's advice?
    3
  43.  @andrzejbarcelonafrlk6416 He talks about how many Ukrainians soldiers have been killed, and how great the trained reserves of Russian manpower are. Those things favour Russia, but only if it goes all out to win and the US continues holding back the longer range missiles for HIMARS. What the US's objectives are is the main determinant of what happens. So far they are being cautious about what they give Ukraine, but so far Russia has not been drawing on its full potential strength. I think the American objective is to thoroughly discourage the Kremlin by demonstrating that only the most Pyrrhic of victories for them is possible, while at the same time never quite enabling Ukraine to sweep the Russian forces away. By my way of thinking Macgregor is about as good a guide to what happens as General Ben Hodges. Macgregor does not take into account how effective new US arms could be for Ukraine, and Hodges does not seem to understand why the US will not want Russia to be so hammered with ATACMS it might panic
    3
  44.  @andrzejbarcelonafrlk6416  If Ukraine drives the Russians back, they will accept they have lost fair and square? Hmmm, people who thought like that would not have invaded in the first place.
    3
  45. The British supported the US's strong urging that Ukraine join ASAP. Most counties were willing to go along with that . The only real objection was by Merkel. Ukraine did not give up and there was increasing military cooperation with Nato, which anually reiterated the official NATO conference statement of 2008 that Ukraine would join Nato at some point in the future Was Putin supposed to wait until Ukraine was admitted to NATO and then invade?  @justmy-profilename 
    3
  46. Why do you think that is?
    3
  47. America could give Ukraine the wherewithal to push the Russians back (100 HIMARS and limitless rockets), the US apparently thinks pushing the Russians back is too risky. Because in the final analysis Russia has options that America doesn't want to Russia to start seriously considering. Isn't it rather contradictory to say Putin is not going to be overthrown, but a new leadership might reverse his policies. If not overthrown he will choose his successor. The Russian masses would have to be educated up to the necessity of accepting their country had been defeated by a medium sized country using conventional weapons. Even with new leadership, that process would take many years, because there is no Russian DeGaulle awaiting the call with his already existing prestige for abandoning a region; new leadership would consider remaining in power their first priority and a withdrawal from Ukraine would be politically risky. Even were Russia to withdraw, it is so distrusted now that its relationship with the West would not be significantly repaired anyway, and other energy supplies having been found the gas sales would not restart . The only incentive to the Kremlin would be to halt the deaths of Russian soldiers. Yet those deaths are being presented as being patriotic: for something . A withdrawal would make it look like what by then will be tens of thousand of deaths were for nothing
    3
  48. Ukraine attacks across the border causing the Kharkiv limited offensive worked out well for Ukraine? Hmmm.
    3
  49. Ukraine has had six cities destroyed. Any it takes back will be in ruins. That's the big picture.
    3
  50. The wedge between the US and its European freeloaders allies long preexisted the Ukraine conflict, it is that the Europeans just won't spend the % of GDP on their own defence they agree to do. Even Britain has been steadily raiding the defence budget to avoid raising taxes and Germany is now suffering deindustiralisation, but it really is a bit much to say Europe with its industial and economic power cannot support two wars, one of them completely indirect, so it would have to prioritize one, Indeed, were Russia to attack Nato counties in order to choke off the supply of weapons to Ukraine , it would only be logical for the West to give Ukraine a deluge of weapons in order to make the Russians see that their plan was not working.
    3