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

  1. Of his successor Eden launching the Suez debacle (invading then withdrawing under pressure in the terminal folly of the Empire), Winston Churchill said : “I would never have dared; and if I had dared, I would certainly never have dared stop". After Suez Britain ceased to be thought of as an Independent Great Power, even by British establishment insiders. Putin surely understands he made a profound miscalculation in launching the SMO, but that barely touches the nasty reality that Russia's credibility as a country willing to go (not merely conventionally) to the final extremity is in grave peril if it accepts anything Ukraine can accept as a win for them. An occupant of the Kremlin who withdrew would have to face questions about the cost in blood and treasure already sunk into the war: 'was all the sacrifice of our boys for nothing?'. Ukraine's leadership has a clear motive to inveigle America 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; I speak of targeting , which is certainly something Ukraine needs America to provide the coordinates for. Maybe Kiev has the idea that eventually they can provoke Russia into doing something silly by using Western weapons and intel for deep strikes on highly sensitive targets. However, at the end of the day no one is going to attack Russia whatever it does to Ukraine. The weapons supply to Ukraine ought to continue in a measured way to make the conflict pyrrhic for Russia, but Ukraine should be disabused of the idea that escalation would be in their interests. No more strikes on the Russian early warning ICBM radars please.
    1
  2. But Ukraine signed up to the international non proliferation convention and renounced them forever, so it would be in violation of its obligations were it to try and develop them.
    1
  3. You have to bring some to get some. In other words Ukraine was tying down its own units too and those troops needed resting and refitting after the battle ended. Also confidence building training because hiding un bunkers from mass effect artillery was not much of a preparation for swift mobile advances.
    1
  4.  AndyWoohoo666  Nato doctrine in the Cold War was LOL
    1
  5.  AndyWoohoo666  Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons for 'assurances' , that was LOL.
    1
  6.  AndyWoohoo666  FAB bombs
    1
  7. I think some of the Ukrainian generals thought the battle initially made sense but the returns on the investment of manpower rapidly diminished as Russian tactics evolved towards the use of ex con expendables to bear the brunt of Ukrainian firepower and mines.
    1
  8.  @lancehilt7536  The announcing of Bakhmut to be such a symbol was a dangerous thing for morale especially if it was in fact lost after an appreciable loss of good troops KIA defending it. Surviving defenders would hardly be sharp in the skill set for combined arms attack of be psychologically ready for participating in a mobile offensive. Russian troops on the other hand must have gained in from their first victory in over a year, be it ever so hard fought.
    1
  9. It is good that you learned your lesson from getting completely fooled by the Ukrainians' destruction of the NordStream pipeline (you clearly thought it was a Russian operation). Denmark was an early supporter of Ukraine joining NATO; Danes may comprehend Russian slapdash methods, but Russian anxieties are a closed book to Danes.
    1
  10.  @antimatters6283  Which country's leaders ignored Mearsheimer, took money from the West and put it in their personal Swiss bank accounts to leave their country dependent on empty promises from Nato? Not Russia. If the Ukrainians had listened to Professor Mearsheimer there would not have been an invasion of Ukraine. It really is a bit much to BLAME him for a war he tried to prevent.
    1
  11.  @williamrobin2638  I don't think that Mearsheimer failing to predict the decision of Putin as an individual to go ahead with the invasion he had prepared invalidates Mearshemer's theory about states.
    1
  12.  @morongovalley940  Mearsheimer has not influenced Russian policy. Or US policy. He has tried to explain Russian actions in Ukraine and the Kremlins determination to not lose there as something other than a outbreak of mass insanity. Russia has came in handy for fighting Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler. In all likelihood they could be an ally against a future mega power China, as long as Russians don't see the West as the enemy that defeated them in Ukraine. Using Ukraine to indirectly inflict a total defeat on the Russian invasion and force their withdrawal would be great for Ukraine, but not so great for Europe in the final analysis. Europe is a fading backwater in the eyes of America you know; yet Europe is still a very valuable ally.
    1
  13.  @rmdomainer9042  No reason to stop the border raids and cause the Russians to stop needing to enlarge the buffer zones right along the border then.
    1
  14.  @MarcosElMalo2  Defence in depth is having to be used because the continuous concrete fortification line is lacking. Does Ukraine have a shortage of cement or troops?
    1
  15.  @pseudonym745  The Rissians are so predictable Ukraine ought to have been able to predict the effect of Ukraine trying to join Nato on Russia. Russia's job was to prevent Russia from being invaded; Ukraines job was to keep Ukraine safe. The Kharkiv offensive WAS anticipated, it is just silly to think only Ukraine can have sucess in that open terrain.
    1
  16.  @noahway13  Standard Soviet tactics a la Kursk.
    1
  17. Ukraine likely shook down the US for the halt, It is prolly fear that Ukraine will try to repeat the extortion the got Austen complaining about the attacks.
    1
  18. Ness never met Capone, who was convicted because years before his lawyer had made admissions to the IRS about Capone's income during abortive negotiations about regularising his tax liabilities
    1
  19. Let say in early 2022 Ukraine was given any arms they wanted and permitted to hit inside Russia with them. A million Russian soldiers would have been killed and injured. Anyone saying s they know how the Russian would have reacted is making bold assertions. The rules are simple the better the Russians are doing the more the US gives Ukraine effective weapons, but it is never going to be enabled to hit the Russian army really hard.
    1
  20. In the real world you cannot always get rid of a bully.
    1
  21.  @andrzejbarcelonafrlk6416  America has painted itself into a corner with statements about how Putin cannot be allowed to get any result he can consider a win. Putin has burnt his domestic political bridges by making territory captured and since lost back to Ukraine deemed part of Russia, and even making territory never occupied by Russia and still controlled by Ukraine in Russian law officially part of Russia. The Russian army has no problem retreating; that makes them difficult to destroy, impose prohibitive attrition on. All indications are that even if they strategically withdraw back to the borders of Russia they intend to end the war only when that have much more territory than they have so far occupied. The workarounds for a country of Russia's resources and technical infrastructure will be many in the medium term My feeling is to get the Russian's to accept they are in a stalemate will take several years; we are going to be still discussing this in a year's time.
    1
  22.  @malcolmgibson5088  So Ukraine (Makinder's Heartland of the World Island) is not vital to Russia's status as a great power like Zbigniew Brzezinski said, but some heron nesting ground in inner Mongolia is?
    1
  23.  @kevinwarburton2938  We have been told that Bakhmut is strategically unimportant but I would point out the staunch Ukrainian defence of it suggests otherwise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du8IaRJWDsE Retired Major General Tim Cross, a British logistics expert. allows that even although the Russian high command were not told about Putin's order to invade Ukraine until very late and had no opportunity to plan properly for it, the Russian army has been exposed as woefully weak. However he says trying for negotiation and a settlement in the next 3 to 6 months avoids whatever danger there is is loudly announcing that the boot we have on the Russian neck will be pressed down harder until they quit. A Russian winter offensive that might improve their positions so greatly that Ukraine will be forced to negotiate is far from impossible according to Cross.
    1
  24. Absolutely
    1
  25. Anyone who thinks Ukraine is going to be open endedly backed ad infinitum by democracies is kidding themselves.
    1
  26.  @paulgibbon5991 . The Ukrainians are being backed and it makes sense geopolitically to do so. However the deep strikes against the ICBM defence radar of Russia by Ukraine is the sort of thing to be nervous about. It's all very fluid and totally unlike the static Warsaw Pact NATO confrontation, which was posturing. Anyone who says they know how Russia will perceive a campaign of such strikes by Ukraine is being bombastic.
    1
  27. When Trump said the Pandemic came from a Chinese lab the biggest social media banned mention of it as fake news.
    1
  28. I don't think ensuring Ukraine wins the war with Russia is an obviously proper priority for Western countries to set themselves. Important yes, but supreme objective over all other considerations no. And Ukrainians have not even drafted their young men yet for fear of a mass exodus, so Ukraine has other priorities over winning the war too.
    1
  29.  @ComradeOgilvy1984  They cannot compete in innovation or enterprise anyway. Their strong point can be seen is how they are taking T55s out of storage and sending them to Ukraine, and criminals from prison. I think the Russian way is to drag things down to a level where individual intelligence is superfluous.
    1
  30. Logical_if_ there was a strong line of fortification for the Russians to be attrited on.
    1
  31. I'm sorry, Bakhmut was a Russian victory. Pyrrhic perhaps, but a victory boosting Russian confidence and morale nevertheless.
    1
  32. I think the lack of large scale swift maneuvers is not because of weather but rather as the Ukrainian military commander said the other day because modern surveillance capabilities mean surprise is no longer possible and both sides have realised how to get real time targeting and easily destroy the other's attacking formations before they have made much headway. Anyway, it is barely useful to use the word "win" without stating what borders Ukraine would have were Russia to 'win', but just the other day Mearsheimer assured us that Russia is not going to be allowed to win. Let us define a Russian win in the sense of Ukraine officially conceding it has lost forever after the currently occupied territory and capitulating on terms favourable to Russia; no matter who is in the White House, the US's protégée Ukraine making any concession to losing the easternmost parts of the country in return for peace would be such a shattering blow to America's prestige that no president could possibly acquiesce in it. True victory might have been attained last year but Ukraine failed to follow up its successes in a timely manner, and now the Russians are, if not skillful, stubborn in defence. A Korean war type ending without an official peace treaty is the most likely outcome and that will let America and Russia retain the status they enjoyed prior to 2022. It would be a mistake to think that anyone in the White House (or the Kremlin) will see their country's status in the world as not worth battling to almost the last extremity for.
    1
  33. When the idea of Russia being driven out of Ukraine by the Ukrainians seemed far fetched it was fine for him to backhandedly scoff at the Kremlin' daring to chose a nuclear option. But that Russia loses conventionally seems a real possibility now, and nuclear weapons may well have utility for the Kremlin in rapidly developing losing endgame for them. Anders is trying to have it both ways with his talk of uncertainty and fear being part of a Russian psychological stratagem. There are some things, such as what the Kremlin would do with its theatre thermonuclear weapons in such an increasingly likely losing endgame for them, that have uncertain yet nonetheless credible outcomes it is wise to fear.
    1
  34.  @harmless6813  The new Ukrainian minister of defence Budanov predicted in an interview the other week that there will be a revolution in Russia and it will break up. Putin's system and the existence of the country will be in doubt if Russian army just goes home making all the losses for nothing. There are obvious parallels in the Russia Japanese war and WW1so I have no idea why you have no idea of what I speak.
    1
  35.  @harmless6813 Bad as using a nuke would be for Russia any alternative would be far worse from Putin's standpoint because it would (1) entail RusFeda being relegated from the ranks of great powers and (2) lead to RusFed breaking up. Zelensky' closest advisor Podolyak has just predicted the break of RusFed as a result of the coming defeats and casualties. Anders spoke of 'some people' who talked as if nuke us was a option for the Kremlin . One of those is Vad, former brigadier and German military advisor to Merkel, who is now predicting an inevitable Russian defeat by Western technology in Ukraine and a decision to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine rather than going quietly. Anders is a naval expert.
    1
  36.  @harmless6813  You are in agreement with Anders that what I suggest has a low order of probability, yet the Ukrainian success Anders is reporting is a clear pathway to Putin having to take a decision of what is the least bad outcome. Can't have it both ways, either Russia is heading for defeat or nukes are going to be completely redundant. In the doctrine of the US and as well as RusFed the purpose of nuclear weapons is to halt an enemy's successful conventional offensive, and the US is not giving Ukraine many conventional weapons such as ATACEMs even though Ukraine is completely dependent on US supply of the coordinates for HIMARS and would be for ATACMS too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC1_lpy8TVE That speaks for itself about the US worry that sudden reverses for Putin could lead to him seriously considering the option. At present he thinks he is winning, the US want to keep him oblivious to what is happening, but eventually he will realise he's going to lose. Is he going to have to accept that?
    1
  37. ​ @tokeherkild8038  A "units along the border" stance by Russia was politico military pressure, yet unconvincing as a threat because they would be outnumbered four to one on the ground and even more in the air if they crossed that border in an actual offensive Far forward and stationary mobile units are sitting ducks for surprise attack t so the Russian posture was sabre rattling, not defensive, as can be seen in Belarus right now. The present conflict between Russia and US led Nato is political/ hybrid. As I recall important US officials considered the electoral advances of the Italian Communist Party in the 70s/80s as a threat to Western security, so I expect that Putin is threatened by democracy in Ukraine heartening his Russian opponents and in a time of crisis contributing to by a colour revolution example. However, the simple fact is that Russia's accelerating relative technological backwardness means that in the future its going to become increasingly helpless in any real war, and any sabre rattling it does will be risible. Putin has foreseen this (his Munich Security Conference speech about the prospect of the US developing a complete defence to ICBMs and becoming the sole centre of international decision making), therefore he understands that US Patriot and anti ICBM bases on Russia's borders are bringing forward the day when Russian inferiority is so complete that no one pays any attention to waht the Kremlin says. Holding back that day is Putin's job as leader of Russia.
    1
  38.  @harmless6813  Russia is not aware it is destined to lose yet. so one would not expect them to think there could be a reason to actually use a nuke. that lies in the future IMO.
    1
  39. There are targets other than Kharkiv they could go for. The area where Ukraine took back all that territory in 2022 has a proven lack of obstacles to an offensive .
    1
  40. It is said the Russian "kill chain" was several hours long during the earlier stages of the war. I would say the lessons of the latest stage is that the Russians will eventually run out of mistakes to make. and get back to leading with their strengths, which are willingness to be profligate with their manpower and in the case of Wagner's tens of thousands of convicts, actually send them forward to be fired on by artillery, whereby enemy artillery reveals itself to drones and then be destroyed. Wagner in Bakhmut operates by constant rigidly planned reconnaissance in force infantry probes with lots of drones observing yet only a bit of artillery support, following which the Russian artillery (now having got its targeting info) opens fire in earnest.
    1
  41.  @Marvin-dg8vj  Such payments would be for technical specialist. Consider the cost of keeping a man in a high security prison for the rest of his life.
    1
  42.  @Marvin-dg8vj  https://youtu.be/Oxc9vtQJPsg?t=65
    1
  43.  @magikclown  I don't think Washington wants Russia to really lose in Ukraine.
    1
  44.  @pRahvi0  Mearsheimer is extremely controversial among international relations academics. He always has been.
    1
  45. Putin is not lying when he mentions that he tried to join Nato Multiple Western leaders and Nato officials have said he did. He was fobbed off of course (as Yeltsin was before him). That was when the scales fell from his eyes: Nato was not an anti Soviet alliance but an anti Russian one
    1
  46. Putin's job as leader of Russia i was to maintain and if possible increase its security. His duties did including no obligation to give other countries the benefit of the doubt about what their intention were or might become, let alone ignoring official Nato statement reiterated each year, to the effect that at some point in the future Ukraine would become a full member (so it was already more than a candidate). Was he supposed to wait and see if Ukraine became a full member and when it did start WW3?  @ABCBCNM 
    1
  47. So Russia ought to have done nothing; what makes you think so?  @ABCBCNM 
    1
  48. There is a way to avoid fighting and that is to not have different counties that can have conflicts of interest. Ukraine chose to become a separate country and it parted of friendly terms from Russia. Lo and behold, Ukraine then almost immediately began trying to join an anti Russian military alliance.  @ABCBCNM 
    1
  49.  @garethamery3167  Anders is talking about the changes at Twitter and Twitter changed because it was bought by a man whose has said he is going to destroy the trans virus because he lost a son to it. Well, I provided a link to a conversation between couple of reputable commentators whose talk was taken up by the NYT, and in it Michael Lind says that the same kind of damage done to Kamala by trans Tweeters and defund the police types in their heyday on Twitter is now going to be done by right wing autodidacts on Twitter to Trump. That is looking to the future but I think it is on topic.
    1
  50. It had no value as a springboard for a Russian offensive, which is proven by them not advancing beyond it, but I think Ukraine could have found it handy for mounting an attack from.
    1