Comments by "Edward Cullen" (@edwardcullen1739) on "Alexander Mercouris" channel.

Because it has become a house of cards and they can't stop without the whole thing collapsing completely. Someone characterised it as "stealing the silverware from the Titanic". Sums it up perfectly.
31
Perfect summary.
15
I am on "no one's side"; this fighting is senseless and I'm glad it's looking like it's coming to an end.
10
@КрисДосс 💯!!! Modern combined arms against a static defence can be utterly devastating. Anyone who naively parrots the "attacker always loses more", clearly stopped their study of military history at 1918. 🤦‍♂️🤷‍♂️
7
@gtengineer1967 people are probably not aware that the average UK + Commonwealth daily casualty rate during WW1 was around 525. Given that the mid-range (best between Ukrainian and Russian figures) estimates already had Ukrainian casualties at or above that figure, if the casualty figures are now CLOSE to 800/day for even a few weeks, then that is truly horrific, unforgivable and history will judge the West and their Ukrainian lackeys VERY harshly for their pointless waste of men. I say pointless, because, for all the "victories" the Ukrainians are scoring, there is still ZERO appetite amongst the general populace to start WW3; the West will not save Ukraine. Ukraine has been used and - like EVERY puppet before - abandoned as soon as the situation looks like it will escalate. It's really hard to tell who is worse - Putin for his aggression or the Western/Ukrainian leadership for their cynical waste of Ukrainian men.
6
I forget who (Willy OAM? History Legends?), but as soon as it happened, they were calling it "Battle of the Bulge". Not exactly difficult to see how it would end, but their prediction is coming true. Kursk WILL be seen as the end; the great and predictable folly, even if "victory" was impossible after the Autumn of 2022.
4
@Vikramsingh-jm1uu Doesn't work that way. Falklands: professionals against conscripts. Argentina had a 3 or 4:1 numerical advantage - far more guns (and planes) than the British - but still lost ~3:1 casualties (and the conflict). The "maths" behind casualty figures is never simple and is, generally, conflict-specific - the calculus from one conflict rarely applies to one that follows.
4
@ronron2312 ? Is this the first Duran / Alexander video you have watched? There are no prepared positions between Bakhmut and Kiev - or at least, not of the robustness of those around Bakhmut - so the ability of Ukraine to resist a concentrated push is highly doubtful. Given the casualty figures involved, while not certain, I believe a general collapse of Ukrainian resistance is more likely than not. My prediction is that Bakhmut falls, there is rout with what's left of the Ukrainian strength being wasted in a futile attempt to halt the Russian advance on Kiev. As soon as forces are withdrawn from other areas to defend Kiev, the Russians will apply pressure across almost the entire front. Zolensky will flee - or be replaced - within 2 weeks of the fall of Bakhmut.
1
@firstnamerequiredlastnameo3473 😯 No, you don't say!
1
@donaldhysa4836 Really not sure this is the case. If you understood how the US does procurement, you'd appreciate why HIMARS will not be replenished for quite some time.
1
@tonysargent3852 Nominal possession of land area is pretty meaningless. The simple reality is that Ukraine lost the war in April, when it became clear NATO would not start WW3. Western economies are on the verge of a collapse on par with the Great Depression and even if they were, they do not have the infrastructure to fight a conventional war of attrition - and Ukraine doesn't have the men. By contrast, Russia has demonstrated that it has both the reserves of men and the economy to support the conflict. What the end result will be, I can only guess, but if you think this will end with Ukraine "defeating" Russia, you simply have no idea what the reality is.
1
@Bobfett1982 ???? BUT THEY WEREN'T!!! "We only lost because they were better!" Do you realise how idiotic you sound?
1
@hmldjr 🤣 No one serious believes that. At worst, there would have been a peace treaty that restored the borders to 1914, but the general consensus is that the war would have ground on for about another 6 months, with a German surrender coming in mid-1919. By early 1918, the Germans were already a spent force, primarily due to the British naval blockade and were on the verge of economic collapse. The offensive of early 1918 was only possible due to the withdrawal of the Russians in late 1917; the 1918 offensive was the last that the Germans were capable of. Without the US, the Germans may have taken more ground, but would not have broken the British and French. The US troops in theatre in early 1918 were fresh, enthusiastic, but as green as they come and TERRIBLY led. They were valuable in blunting the 1918 offensive, but this was more through personal courage than organisational merit; it wasn't until the Summer that they were truly "effective". So no, we didn't "need" the US forces, but they did shorten the war - even though that came at the cost of 1 million dead due to the "Spanish" flu. History is more complex - and interesting - than Hollywood presents.
1