Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "Anders Puck Nielsen" channel.

  1. Yeah, 110B by US alone. Was not enough. What did they expect, 330B?
    1
  2.  @aaronbaker2186  not sure these latest patriot systems were on the way out. As well as a lot of other air defense. Same with AT weapons, US is making the same ones now for itself. Some equipment, yes, older. But a lot no, not old. Also a lot of it was cash transfers. No one know where these went.
    1
  3.  @wallingnaga6563  US command would be wrong. Part of the problem in this war is that the enemy sees everything. If Ukraine used their forces in one spot they would be spotted and destroyed - in this war you cannot have too many people that make a nice target. Ukraine correctly spread Russian forces and stretched them - the problem is that Russians had too many troops and it was not possible. Ukraine sure wanted to attack early - but the forces were not ready - heck Ukraine big problem is under trained troops - sometimes less than a month in an emergency. So attacking early may have been better or worse - who knows. Ukraine has next to now air force so it could not stop Russian air power nor its drones. The main problem was with well prepared, well trained, well equipped Russian army supported by a lot of artillery that prevented Ukraine from moving forward - Russia was simply way too strong. Offensive was the last push - Ukraine now is in total defense and is being pushed off... Best thing Ukraine can do now is start negotiations.
    1
  4. Russia will not give it up - this is their getaway to rest of Ukraine and to Odessa.
    1
  5.  @cethironwood  Nah, they have multiple bridges and now worries about supplies. They have few ferries as well. There is zero danger of Ukraine taking Kherson this year or ever.
    1
  6.  @13thmistral  you do know Turkey and Greece are enemies, do you? It is far more likely Russia would come to Greek aid than Turkey. If US stops its police Greeks need to be nicer to Russia to gain some protection.
    1
  7.  @michaelmather7352  nope. Not at all. There is only weak article 5 that does not require any help be given.
    1
  8.  @mmdoof  LOL, Greece and Turkey are enemies - Greeks and Russians used to be allies ;) LOL!
    1
  9. They won. But UK wants to attack Moscow. So Russia said London will burn more.
    1
  10. But they are winning militarily! Ukraine offensive is failing in spectacular fashion.
    1
  11.  @bernardvc5820  But no longer in 1944 - Ukraine is like Nazi Germany in 1944.
    1
  12. #5 was total win for Soviet Union. They got all territories they asked for. This was solution for Ukraine, but Ukraine refused. Fins were smart. Ukraine is not. Ukraine lost the war already - we just need to see how bad is the loss. Is it total (no more Ukraine) or partial.
    1
  13.  @henrik8812  It is simple. THEIR MAIN AIM WAS TO GET THAT USELESS LAND. Clearly for Russians / Soviets it was not useless. War is about objectives. That was their objective. They gained objective and won the war! Once Russia controls all of Donbass, i.e. its objective sometime before September, then we can look into negotiations with Ukraine and proposed peace. Even if Russia gives good terms to Ukraine I bet they will refuse. Thus, Russia will have no choice as to removal of Kiev regime.
    1
  14.  @henrik8812  No, not at all. If Soviets wanted all of Finland there was not much that could have stopped them from taking all of it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Armistice Also one has to point out that Moocow was not interested in say Austria post WWII - once direct military rule ended, Soviets simply moved out. Thus it is not true that Russians wanted everything. Some things, they simply did not want.
    1
  15.  @henrik8812  Of course nothing was stopping the Soviets - you are looking at the wrong war ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War
    1
  16.  @henrik8812  What is your point? They won OK? They gained their aims. Everyone sees it as a WIN. Soviets lost more troops then Germans but they did win WWII. Now in Ukraine, if be some strange act Ukraine won and lost 5x as many troops it still a win.
    1
  17.  @henrik8812  They did not need to go 3rd time - they won on the 2nd time in continuation war. Everyone recognizes it as a win. Fins lost the war. If Soviet wanted to push for all of Finland there was little Fins could do. But in difference to idiots in Ukraine, Fins were smart and agreed to a LOT of punishing terms, anything to appease and don't give pretext for Soviets to absorb them. Russia won in Ukraine. Full stop. War is won and Ukraine lost it. Now we are just determining terms of that loss. It feels Ukraine does not want to exist. Finland - smart. Ukraine - stupid. Finland is still here. I am not so sure about Ukraine being around in the future.
    1
  18.  @henrik8812  Why - to me it feels exactly that. No sane country would do what Ukraine is doing if they still wanted to be on the map later on. This is why Ukraine lost the war. Their existence as viable entity is more or less no longer possible. Its not just about current lost land (which has least meaning) - its lost people, destruction, no future prospects.
    1
  19.  @henrik8812  Lots of reasons - main deal with Russian security.
    1
  20.  @henrik8812  LOL, no, most is simple logic based on facts confirmed by both sides.
    1
  21.  @henrik8812  Why did US push Ukraine after 2014? Before 2014 all was nice and cool. Ukraine was total pile of garbage with pro and against Russia governments but things never got too bad. Then in 2014 with some unproven US help both nationalists and Nazi got into power. Their main goal was to eradicate minorities, create "clean" state and as a nod to US join NATO. Ukraine is probably the very first nation on Earth that wants to join "defensive" alliance in order to have a war. They know Russia cannot allow this and it means war. Anyone whom loves their country would not allow such a step. Finally, if a large portion of your country was a bit different it seems Canadian model would be preferable. Sure Canadian model means two languages and more or less slavery to the French - but at least it does not lead to civil war (which more or less was close in 1970s). What do you mean what kind of logic it is that they were scared? US uses same logic - why was US scared of a little Soviet base in Cuba? Big powerful US scared of a little tiny base??? At least Fidel loved his country and did not want to go to war over this tiny little base! It goes even deeper then that - no one can have a military base within like 1000 miles of US. So I guess US is far and wide more scared then Russia and more then willing to go to war over this "scare".
    1
  22.  @henrik8812  Sure, you look it up as well, maybe while at it see whom supported current president of Ukraine. You are the one that is deep into propaganda.
    1
  23.  @henrik8812  In Ukraine half were moving west half were moving east. The problem after 2014 is moving neo Nazi. Who do you think sponsored Zielinski? Look it up.
    1
  24. No they cannot. War could spread to Asia and NATO would loose it.
    1
  25. What dilemma? Why the idiots in the west think there is one? Putin has clear path. Advance in Donbass. It is now enabled by foolish Ukrainian move.
    1
  26. Well, Russian claim is as believable as UA claim without any proof. So this week Russia lost 5 aircraft and Ukraine 4.
    1
  27.  @twirlyturd4364  Of course its a lot of cope - especially on UA side as they are loosing the war now. So we will see more news of UA victories during the winter as Russians continue their advance. What else can UA do? They cannot report "today our forces fought hard but had to retreat in 8 places". Instead they say "Our forces stopped 20 enemy attacks". They cannot say "Today we lost Marinka and suburbs" instead "Today we downed 3 enemy aircraft".
    1
  28. Even this super pro Ukraine guy cannot see how flooding so much land and their own troops benefits Russia. It benefits Ukraine only a little bit. Since neither is really benefited a lot, most likely it was simply a dam failure as shown on sat photos. Or Ukraine did it - after all, they have more to gain and they do strange things when they loose - to draw attention to failed offensive. They drew attention from Bakhmut defeat by invading Russia proper. They blew up the dam to draw attention away from failure of offensive.
    1
  29. Russia is probably calling more then 500k troops. The 300k is for public. No issues with weapons. No issues with troops. No issues with logistics. Who ever though that weapons are an issue for reds??? Why logistics? Come on - rail network is bigger then in WWII and troops numbers are much lower! Ukraine lost the war. Now we are seeing how much the actual loss will be. Current main issue for Russia is that mobilization is stressing administration - huge lineups of people called in to fight! Putin knows there will not be a quick win as it takes time to use all mobilized soldiers - at least two months till Russia can employ them and probably at least another month before they can do an offensive.
    1
  30.  @keithmorgan3295  But it is HONEST. Its TRUE. You may bend into a pretzel and it still will be true. Accept it as truth. Why pp imagine things?
    1
  31. He be a savior.
    1
  32. Spot on. They have like zero feeling and are approaching it from "western view".
    1
  33. Eh it will be probably 2/3s professional troops and 1/3 conscripts. Even if by some miracle losses were even - which they clearly are not with Ukraine losses much higher, Russia can afford it. Ukraine cannot loose these troops as they don't have anything to replace them with.
    1
  34.  @Maxcom-r8i  I am from Earth - obviously video author and you are from some different planet.
    1
  35. Fight to last Ukrainian?
    1
  36. Cost for Russia is low - for Ukraine huge.
    1
  37.  @christiandollerup8088  Evidence from BBC - Mediazona now shows Ukraine is loosing 4x to 5x more troops. Not the other way around. West also admitted that Russian army was fully restored to its pre-war strength - not after decade but already (!!!) Russian losses are per Mediazona are now super tiny - lowest during the entire war - while they are on positional attack (!!!) This is BBC - so heavily pro British stuff. You can check it yourself - they have plenty of graphs, charts etc. And they are BBC sponsored.
    1
  38. No, use it for comedy!
    1
  39.  @Driver2724  Well, for the author of this video its a joke. Is he in a mental institution? If yes, do they have access to the internet to post videos?
    1
  40. If NATO attacks Russia warns it would use nukes to defend. As simple as that. West was warned.
    1
  41. But they cannot withdraw. That is the problem - Crimea is Russia. Donbass is more or less Russia as well. They cannot "move back home" - they are home. So even if this war last 100 years we still be at war 100 years from now! Attack on other EU countries is possible even today if that means the Baltics - they are severely discriminating Russians there - far more then the Serbs did in Kosovo. I expect soon to see massive expulsions of population (i.e. driving people to the border by force). We already see people "loosing permanent residency permit" and other antics. Note two out of the three countries did not give citizenship to "ethnic Russians" after fall of Soviet Union so they have far more "non citizens" then say USA. Its a mess but they are "friendly countries" so EU / US ignores this clear violation of both EU laws and UN rights. Similar to Saudi Arabia.
    1
  42. ​ @thoughttransmitter5555  You do not understand - in 100 years there will be Russians (or Ukrainians that do not like Kiev) willing to defend their homes as well! You cannot be on moral high ground when you say to people that they need to move out of their homes and they cannot decide their future. Using you British example, the UK is wise enough to allow referendum for Scotland to leave. If Scots vote yes, do you expect tanks to roll in - if yes, then you are pro Ukraine. If you expect UK to give these people freedom, then you are pro Russia. Pick one. Baltic states were independent nations and have a slim majority of say Estonians in their country. Their treatment of Russian minority is starting to look like treatment of Jews before holocaust. Yet no one in EU points that out. Guess lessons of Nazism did not stick too well with the west. How can "Russia withdraw" - you assume these pp will leave their homes so occupying Ukrainian army can march in? Really? Would you leave your home??? As for IRA conflict - again, this is an example HOW TO SOLVE THINGS. Maybe you should print it out and send it to Kiev huh? Look how well UK solved the issue - if they were like Ukraine or Estonia they would terrorize Irish even more and send even more tanks. But UK was wise to figure out a solution. UK is an example of how "we can solve it at home" but God forbid others can solve it - we do not support. Or US "we do not support democracy other then at home" idea.
    1
  43. As Putin said, they fought Sweden for few decades, they can fight at least that long.
    1
  44. I think there is little exit now for Ukraine - they should have negotiated their way out after first 30 days or better yet simply fulfilled Minsk agreement and left Crimea question open. No war, Donbass back in Ukraine, Crimea question open. Excellent. It is now clear that chances of Putin loosing power or pp like him are far lesser then that of Zielinski.
    1
  45.  @ImperialDiecast  What is clear since 2014 that the will of the Russians is equally strong and will not break - for 10 or 20 or 30 more years. On Russian side its same way - its the will of the people, not one or two or ten men.
    1
  46.  @ImperialDiecast  But it is their country in their view. So the will of the people of Russia in Russia. A country is nothing without people - its just a concept. People make a country not country makes the people. Thus people living in these areas should be able to decide. Plain and simple. Your view is totally hypocritical - you view yourself as someone living in democracy - but applying same freedoms to others is a crime! After WWI land was divided by the will of the people on that land - league of nations did referendums and based on these and some usual interference from the west land was divided among countries. Same concept was totally omitted after fall of Soviet Union and this is causing dozens of small and some large wars.
    1
  47.  @andrzejbarcelonafrlk6416  Sure there are - you do know Poland got Slask that way, do you? Or history is no longer "hot" in Polish schools? Do you need more sources or what? Or maybe you are so strong headed you want to give Slask back to Germany? What Chinese parts of RF - there are no areas of Russian federation - including these you imply they gained from China - where it just happens that ethnically they are... 95% Russian? It would be similar to point out that Alaska should maybe go back to RF - after all same rules apply. Maybe with the exception that Alaska is far more Russian today then Amur is Chinese - no really, check it out!
    1
  48.  @andrzejbarcelonafrlk6416  I did answer the question about former Chinese territories. I said it was a transfer similar to Alaska or Spanish territories. What else do you want me to say? At all three transfers the owner knew that their hold on the land was weak and it would be better to give them away vs. fight a loosing war over them. Neither Russia, Spain or China are questioning the transfers.
    1
  49. Nope, not trapped at all - this was very well done. The regions were added but NOT their borders ;) So borders are free to be changed in any negotiations. Exception is Crimea. Russia army has shown in the last two weeks that Ukraine army is not even close to being better at anything.
    1
  50. Why?
    1