General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Black Cat Dungeon Master\x27s Familiar
Anders Puck Nielsen
comments

Comments by "Black Cat Dungeon Master\x27s Familiar" (@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311) on "Anders Puck Nielsen" channel.

If you believe that, you should invest everything you have in Ukraine. When Ukraine wins you'll be rich.
37
Sure. If you believe that you should sell everything you own and buy property in Kharkov because right now it's really cheap. When Ukraine wins you'll be rich beyond your wildest dreams.
10
@TankandDimples There's zero evidence for this. If you actually believe it, it's obvious you don't follow the fighting closely. Even pro-Ukrainian maps don't support this claim.
10
@eddiemarten3381 LOL. "Putin is brittle". So NATO soldiers cross into Ukraine and Russia just hits them with Iskandars. What then? WWIII? Or NATO backs down. Russia isn't going to back down so escalation either means WWIII or NATO backs down. You really haven't thought this through have you?
8
In reality, Russia has very low debt and a positive balance of payments - the exact opposite of most Western countries despite that Russia is fighting a major war.
7
@Rammbukk I'm not talking about total debt, Russian debt to GDP is low. There is a huge capacity to borrow either overseas or off their own citizens. This guy's theory that the Russian economy can't sustain this for long is implausible. He's a serving NATO officer producing propaganda.
7
Not really, European militaries are in an appalling state.
6
@TorianTammas It looks like that but that's not the whole picture. Ukraine is getting weaker, Russia is getting stronger day by day. Remember the 1914-1918 war, in France/Belgium there are many similarities. In 1914 things were very fluid, there were rapid advances (like the first month in 2022). Then in the West at least there were years of stasis. Then in 1918 the weaker side tried a desperate and costly assault that put the stronger side under pressure (the Ukrainian counter offensive). After that failed, the weaker German side had used their best reserves. We're now at the June 1918 stage where the British and French started pushing back the German army. It's starting to become obvious to everyone the Ukrainians are weakening, even the Western media is starting to admit this. In 2024, the Russians will have the option to take the four oblasts they have already annexed or if they are prepared to pay a heavier price, advance further into Ukraine.
5
@marcoobin4571 Where do you get your info from? Russia expanded 4.10 percent in the second quarter annualised and that's with a declining population. Is this what you call a collapsing economy? Most of Europe is in recession!
5
@umjackd The USA has the same attitude towards small countries. Look at how they bombed Serbia and then seized the province of Kosovo. Look at how US forces are still in Syria despite the Syrian government wanting them out and the UN confirming they have no right to be there. Look at US missile strikes all over the Middle East including in Iraq and Syria.
5
LOL have you already forgotten Ukraine switched to small squad infiltration tactics soon after their "counteroffensive" resulted in hundreds of destroyed Western vehicles?
4
@Panj0 Can you give me an example anywhere of any time where a society collapsed because it had full employment?
4
@allanmason3201 Russia heavily subsidised the rest of the USSR during Soviet times. Much of the periphery was economic dead weight, especially the central Asian republics which was part of the union due to ideology rather than economic advantage. Most of the seriously productive parts of Ukraine are populated by Russians and mainly in Russian hands due to this invasion - most of the coal, much of the gas fields and the most fertile farmland.
4
62 of 73 shot down is implausible. We know there have times Ukraine has claimed almost every missile was shot down and yet there were multiple explosions and electricity knocked out for hours. A Ukrainian military official recently admitted in an interview they've never shot down a single hypersonic missile even though the Ukrainian government has claimed many shot down.
4
@utrian4148 LOL if you follow neutral channels you'll see Ukrainian claims are full of contradiction. Sorry to burst your echo chamber bubble.
4
Ukraine is winning the meme and propaganda war. Russia is winning the artillery and economic war. Comparisons with Vietnam or Afghanistan are misleading unless Russia is stupid enough to occupy the north west of Ukraine. The territory Russia will take is populated by people who speak Russian and mainly prefer to be part of Russia. There's no reason to think Russian consolidation of Kherson, Mikulayev, Odessa and Kharkov will be less successful than it's consolidation of Crimea and Donetsk.
4
When Putin took over, Russia was disintegrating, it had suffered a massive drop in GDP, life expectancy was plummeting and oligarchs were looting the country. Under Putin, Russia has become stable, much richer and the oligarchs have been reigned in despite the endless hostility of the West. I think more neutral historians will be more favourable about his legacy than Taylor expects.
3
@velvetmagnetta3074 Same cause, same solution. AFVs are too vulnerable to use in large concentrations and you can spot concentrations building with satellites. Large troop concentrations are vulnerable targets so both sides move to small unit infiltration for the same reason. The narrative that when Ukraine does something that's smart but when Russia does the same it's incompetence is so blatant especially on this channel.
3
@markbryant4641 Yep. It's pretty interesting the monthly profile of Russian losses as tracked by Mediazona. There's big peak around the Bakhmut operation time but it was mainly convicts dying. And Russian losses dropped off after this.
3
No because nobody with a brain takes Macron seriously.
3
@georgethompson1460 1) The Ukrainian army is suffering severe attrition. The Russian army is not. After the Russians pulled back from Kiev, the balance of forces was quite even. Over time, the Russians built up greater forces and the Ukrainians lost their experienced veterans to greater Russian artillery. When the Russians moved on Severodonetsk and Lysychansk, it all collapsed quite quickly, two or three weeks. The attrition continues every day and will presumably speed up rapidly now Ukraine is on the offensive. 2) Currently, the Russians are extremely casualty averse. They only take a position when there's no opposition left and an infantry patrol notices vacated Ukrainian defences, we don't see aggressive assaults any more - so their gains are very slow. However the Russians have amassed large air mobile reserves. If it suits them and they want to pay the price in casualties, they can move quickly. Quite likely they'll do this with an airmobile strike because of the thick minefields all over the front now. 3) The Russians currently judge that time is on their side. Diplomatic opposition is gradually crumbling. It could be they want to avoid panicking the West with rapid moves. It could be that they're waiting for ongoing Ukrainian casualties to weaken the opposition. In any case they've got the capacity to fight a lot more aggressively than they currently are.
3
How do you think what the Russians are doing is any different from the Ukrainians in Robotyne? Except the Russians have more firepower to cover their advances.
3
"That Russia is about to lose the war" - obvious sign this guy is full of s**t
3
@buck4490 Not how I read it at all - he's not hysterically anti-Putin like some Western commentators but he's definitely hostile. The only famous Western commentator I can think of who is sympathetic to the Russian position right now is John Mearsheimer - who has been warning about this war for years. And maybe Peter Zeihan who thinks it's all about geography and nothing else.
2
@simonbucci1041 Western countries are geopolitical rivals of Russia therefore almost every commentator and scholar in Western countries has an anti-Russian bias. A deferral to the number of people holding a position rather than the merits of particular arguments is the sign of someone who is incapable of independent or original thought.
2
@apacheattackhelicopter8185 What does it matter what the people of a region think? Well do yo believe in democracy or not? Because if you do, how can you deny the people of Crimea the right to decide which of the two countries they're members of? Why was Crimea part of Ukraine anyway? Only because Khrushchev wanted to buy the Ukrainian communist leadership in his own bid for power. Crimea was part of Russia much longer than it was part of Ukraine. Most of the people who live there are Russian. Apply your same logic to Kosovo if you can. Who gave NATO the right to break up Serbia? There was some violence but it was heavily exaggerated in the Western media. After Maidan there was quite a lot of violence in Ukraine too. Dozens of anti-Maidan people were murdered in Kiev and Odessa and in the south and east. Actually let's go back further. If borders are set in stone regardless of the realities of the preferences of the people who live somewhere, who gave the USA the right to rip Texas from Mexico? Personally I've seen too many videos of Ukrainian soldiers in places like Lysychansk and Mariupol complaining about the locals who hate them. I've seen convincing evidence of atrocities by Azov in particular against the locals in places like that. If you care about the Serbian army's brutality against the Albanians of Kosovo, don't be a hypocrite and admit how the Ukrainians have behaved in the east is no different.
2
@57thorns The Crimea referendum wasn't perfect but Western observers agreed it was generally run ok. A few Tartars didn't get voting papers which isn't ideal but there's no doubt about the overall result. See also the polls run by Western polling companies before and after the referendum showing a heavy majority in favour of annexation by Russia. Ukrainian elections have also had serious fraud BTW.
2
It wasn't Russia that destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Serbia, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It was the biggest "bully" of all.
2
@Jeroen_Maes Ukraine has also used blocking detachments behind the line to shoot retreating soldiers.
2
@TomTomicMic US and Israel have attacked a lot more countries than that. Why aren't you upset by Israel's recent land grab in Syria?
2
@marktrotter8971 In the Robotyne/Verbove area, not it really is hundreds of AFVs. Dozens is a massive understatement. There were around 50 destroyed in about three days alone. it's not called Bradley Square for nothing.
2
@yohanannatanson4199 Yes, certainly, Allied airpower over Normandy was fundamental to the Rundstedt and Rommel debate. In Ukraine, I don't think air power is quite as important as most people do, even though the Russians have a huge advantage - because they can't use that advantage by safely flying sorties over Ukrainian lines.
2
@wlhjr77 I'm curious. How can anyone still be claiming Russia has lost? Are you following the same war as me?
2
No, there will never be thick enough ice that far south.
2
@marcoobin4571 Neutral projections are that the Russian economy will be growing nicely the next couple of years. An overheating economy is normal when you've got high economic growth. So is high employment and wage pressures. Jumping from the Russian economy is overheating to it's going to meltdown implies no understanding of economics.
2
@marcoobin4571 Of course war is expensive but the idea the Russian economy can't sustain this for long just isn't plausible. In case you haven't noticed, Ukraine is in serious trouble.
2
@LutherusPXCs And if you believe a general's claims in war time about enemy casualties, you've never studied history. Everyone lies in war time, if you don't believe Gerasimov's claims about Ukrainian deaths, why would you believe Zaluzhny?
2
@enpakeksi765 Theti Mapping, Defense Politics Asia, Weeb Union. Another good channel is Military Summary, pro-Russian bias but best for detailed twice daily updates/analysis of the fighting. Also see History Legends, not frequent updates calls out propaganda from both sides.
2
Back in the real world, Russia already got the Finnish border it wanted in 1944. The idea that it's going to risk a major war to attack Lapland where it has no strategic interest is beyond ridiculous. Probably Nielsen doesn't seriously believe this, it's just typical war hysteria to feed the NATO gravy train.
2
@ABCBCNM Yeah I understand the narrative but please, turn on your BS detector
2
@ABCBCNM I think I've been shadow banned. I answered that already and I can't see my answer.
2
@aaronbaker2186 Not really, the parts of Ukraine which Russia has taken is mainly Russian speaking, settled by Russians and mainly pro-Russian. Look at how successfully Russia assimilated Crimea. And whereas Vietnam didn't matter to the Americans, Ukraine really does matter to the Russians.
2
Look at the big picture. Russia is not going to accept being pushed out of Crimea. It would use nuclear weapons if it had to. NATO leaders know that or the smarter ones do. Nobody except maybe Zelensky wants a nuclear war.
2
@ForOurGood The difference is Russia has more firepower, ammunition and an air force. What's the same is both sides use small squads to infiltrate.
2
LOL It's a CIA approved channel
2
@untubus The US hasn't annexed territory recently but it has invaded or otherwise regime changed literally dozens of countries in just a few decades. If you want an example of a sovereign country being ripped apart by the US look no further than Serbia: Kosovo was taken from Serbia by force and made a US satellite.
2
Yeah the stalemate narrative is ridiculous. Every day the war continues results in a worse outcome for Ukraine.
2
You're talking as if Russia can't retaliate.
1
@LoneWolf-rc4go Completely false that British soldiers at the Somme weren't fully trained. Also false that Russian soldiers now aren't fully trained. It's Ukrainian officers complaining about receiving guys who have barely fired a rifle.
1
@apacheattackhelicopter8185 "paid Kremlin propagandist" - no I'm a patriotic Westerner who calls out BS from either side. Russia now is vastly richer than when Putin took over - look it up. Disintegrating - under Yeltsin the whole country was dysfunctional. Chechnya got close to breaking away. Dagestan would probably have followed. Putin sorted out the military and sorted out Chechnya. Now, Chechnya is solidly behind the Russian state for the most part. Like Gorbachev and Yeltsin, Putin was popular in the West to start with because Western leaders assumed he'd follow Yeltsin in allowing continued Russian decline and NATO expansion. He only fell out of favour when he stood up against both. Ukraine and particularly Crimea are crucial for Russia. He couldn't safely ignore the Maidan coup. Forward thinking Western politicians should have foreseen that. Instead people like Victoria Nuland encouraged a Ukraine hostile to Russia. Now we see the result. And it was foreseeable. People like Putin himself and John Mearsheimer predicted this would happen.
1
@simonbucci1041 Actual scholars - as if you actually read any. Take John Mearsheimer for instance - he saw this coming and warned against it almost twenty years ago.
1
@apacheattackhelicopter8185 The Crimean population is mainly Russia and overwhelmingly wants to be part of Russia. We don't have to take the referendum result at face value, we can look to opinion polls run by professional Western organisations before and after the Russian annexation. That logic was good enough for Kosovo. Yeltsin at the time warned the West that detaching Kosovo from Serbia set a dangerous precedent. So what did Russia do in Crimea that NATO did not do in Kosovo? As for corruption in Russia. It's not my job to defend Putin. Nevertheless, corruption in Russia is less under Putin than it was in the Yeltsin days. Ukraine is probably worse - at least it is worse according to some surveys. But Russian corruption is not really our business. I'm personally more concerned about growing corruption, censorship and authoritarianism in the West. One thing I do find amusing is that questioning the blatantly inaccurate and hypocritical Western media narrative on Ukraine gets me called a Russian bot/troll etc. Just shows how tight the grip of censorship is getting on the narrative about this war.
1
@apacheattackhelicopter8185 What difference does it make whether Kosovo is independent or joined Albania? The point is NATO broke up a sovereign country in Europe. What Russia did is no different. They just followed where NATO led the way. Check out the poll results for yourself. I can look up references if you want help. You should read Ukraine in the Crossfire by Chris Kasper de Ploeg for a more balanced understanding of Crimea and Russian-Ukrainian relations. When you've done that try Ukraine and Russia by Paul D'Anieri - certainly not pro-Russian but at least shows both perspectives. So far you're just repeating all the same double standards arguments that you'd consider contemptible if Russia used them against the West.
1
It's NATO propaganda. This guy is literally a serving NATO officer
1
@velvetmagnetta3074 The problem is, you think Russians are incompetent and Ukrainians are creative and resourceful because you watch pro-Ukraine channels in a medium controlled by American/NATO censorship (Youtube). The reality is, it's easy to cherry pick examples of incidents to make whatever narrative you want and that goes for each side. Yes of course there are examples of Russian incompetence, uncaring commanders etc. but there are 100% the same examples from the Ukrainian side. And whereas Russia is generally improving, things in Ukraine are generally deteriorating now. Really quickly. Just remember this guy is a serving NATO officer. It's his job to build this narrative. There are good neutral sources too but if you watched them, you wouldn't have the same assumptions you do have.
1
Yeah I know the narrative, only problem is that it's based on the very worst examples cherry picked to create a Russia is useless story. It's not typical.
1
Back in the real world, Russia already got the Finnish border it wanted in 1944. The idea that it's going to risk a major war to attack Lapland where it has no strategic interest is beyond ridiculous. Probably Nielsen doesn't seriously believe this, it's just typical war hysteria to feed the NATO gravy train.
1
@martin-cheers Yes that's the story but what's in it for Russia? Even without the USA, France and Britain have nuclear weapons. What is the advantage to Russia of a new war? What you have to understand is the reactive nature of Putin's actions so far. Imagine the best possible outcome for Russia. It shatters article 5 and reoccupies the Lithuania to create a corridor to Kaliningrad. So what? It takes over a whole lot of territory with no resources where the people hate Russians. The Russians already did that in 1945. It was just a big economic drain on resources. The main thing Russia cares about is pushing American nuclear weapons away from Russian borders. Why? for security. Fighting a war against any NATO country is not something Russia is ever going to do to INCREASE its security because anyone can see it results in a DECREASE in security
1
Who do you think just seized a big chunk of Syria and has murdered tens of thousands of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza? Which superpower has attacked around thirty countries over the past thirty years? Who do you think the bully is?
1
@markotrieste Not at all, why are you holding Russia to a blatantly higher standard than the world's biggest aggressor of the past forty years, the USA?
1
The recent anchor dragging looks pretty deliberate. Although compared to the US destroying Nordstream it's totally trivial.
1
The difference is, in 1944, the Allies had an overwhelming material and manpower advantage, the only German advantage was the difficulty of attacking a fortified coast. In Ukraine, the Russians have the material advantage and manpower is pretty similar. It's hard for the Russians to crush the bridgehead but it's also hard for Ukraine to break out of it. The Russians have nothing to worry about. The Ukrainians have Avdivka to worry about.
1
The Russians seized a fifth of a huge country in about a week. The narrative of Russian incompetence was a lie from the start. Almost everything in the media about this war has been lies from why it started to how it's fought to the nature of the current Ukrainian regime to who blew up Nordstream to who was attacking Energodar power station, to the silence about Ukraine attacking Donetsk city centre with butterfly mines and artillery to who blew up the Novakharkovka dam. The more dangerous narratives are about Russians intending to continue on to Warsaw and Berlin.
1
@The_Stef Not just too optimistic but outright propaganda merchants. Times Radio's coverage was unfiltered Ukrainian government disinformation. The Telegraph wasn't much better. Sometimes these guys were transparently lying.
1
The west has already tried escalating over and over, at some point Russia responds and then we have a real crisis, the potential for nuclear war. That would be a disaster for everyone. What is there in Ukraine you want to risk your country's future for?
1
@SnorriTheLlama LOL Chechnya already fought two wars against Russia and realised it's easy to just fight Ukraine.
1
@louiscypher4186 A better analogy is the Scottish Highlands after the 1746 war a generation later, the former enemies of the British state were their elite shock troops. The Chechens fighting for Ukraine are exiles who have left.
1
@wlhjr77 LOL ok when the fighting stops, see who is dictating peace to whom and who controls the Donbas.
1
@marktrotter8971 You guys are deranged. Russian controls more territory now than at the start of the Ukrainian summer offensive. Russia's advancing over most of the front. Putin's popularity is higher than when the war started. The economy is growing, the predictions of collapse were bollocks. Which ever side you support there's no excuse for ignoring reality. You've been lied to over and over and you never learn.
1
@wlhjr77 The claim that Russia wanted to annex all of Ukraine is wrong. There's no evidence for it. And it would be a nightmare for Russia to annex the West of Ukraine where the locals hate Russians. All they wanted at the start of the war was an agreement by Ukraine to uphold the Minsk accords and stay out of NATO. We know that for a fact because senior people from both sides have acknowledged the agreement.
1
Yeah that's why it will be impossible to break out of the bridgehead.
1
@tuehojbjerg969 Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Russian casualties are higher than Ukrainian let alone four times higher? Ukraine admits Russia has the ammunition, armour artillery and air power advantages, it must take some impressive mental gymnastics to believe Russian losses are higher. As for four times higher, how do you do it? Psychedelic drugs?
1
@The_ZeroLine You seriously believe that Russian losses were ever 10-12 x higher? Where are all the dead Russians? Mediazone can barely find 40,000 from teh whole war.
1
Ask Biden the same question, the USA pays more for their military than the next highest paying ten countries combined.
1
Where's the evidence Russia blew it up and not Ukraine? Is this another story like Russia shelled their own city, attacked their own Kremlin, shelled the nuclear power station they control and blew up their own multi-billion dollar pipeline?
1
"Ukrainian offensive actions" where are you getting your news? Russia is advancing faster now that at any time after the first month of the war.
1
Ukraine can't get equipment like HIMARS across the river.
1
@DIREWOLFx75 I mainly agree but claiming 20 to 1 manpower loss ratio is about as realistic as the NAFO guys talking about resuming the counter offensive next year. Those kind of numbers lose credibility for your overall argument.
1
@stream2watch If Russia has a stockpile of missiles from decades ago and is now fighting a major war, it would be strange not to use the old missiles. It doesn't prove they are running out of more modern alternatives.
1
@tomk3732 Do we know for sure that one dropped on that mall? Or did the mall catch fire when the huge armaments repair factory next door was hit? Video footage appears to show bricks thrown from the explosion are from the armaments factory rather than the mall. If the mall contained a thousand people as Zelensky claims and was in fact hit by this missile, why are casualties so low? The official Ukrainian story seems suspect.
1
Lithuanian wanted to do that earlier, Russia reminded the world that by treaty Lithuania's independence is conditional on Russian access through the Suwalki gap. Lithuania backed down pretty quickly. And that was a couple of years back when Russia was struggling. Say Lithuanian seriously decided to do that. And the Russians land a thousand missiles on every military base in Lithuania. What's any other country going to do? Do you seriously think the USA or Britain or France or Germany wants to risk a nuclear war to protect a country like Lithuania when they provoked the attack on themselves? If you seriously believe that why aren't they fighting in Ukraine right now?
1
@marcoobin4571 "burning reserves to generate wasteful economic war output" is exactly what the USA has been doing for decades now. It hasn't collapsed yet but yes, the US economy will collapse. It's deficit is out of control, debt is out of control. British debt to GDP just passed 100%. Europe is in recession and across he West, a lot of national leaders have the exact opposite of Putin's close to 80% approval rating. It takes a lot of wishful thinking to believe Russia will collapse before Ukraine does. BTW Vuhledar is falling right now after two years of fighting.
1
@marcoobin4571 Wars aren't won by wishful thinking and propaganda. The Ukrainians are getting pushed back all along the front and are running out of men gullible enough to fight for Zelensky.
1
Ukraine isn't capable of beating Russia. The effort of trying is destroying Ukraine. If you don't believe me wait a few more months and see what Ukraine has achieved through another year of fighting and tens of thousands more dead.
1
@monkeyboy9555 Sure. Russia would quite like that excuse to take back Lithuania. Remember that Lithuania's independence is conditional upon Russian transit access through the Suwalki gap. Deny that and 500 missiles hit every military base in Lithuania the next day. What's Germany, Britain and the USA going to do? Risk a nuclear war for the sake of Lithuania's suicidal idiocy?
1
It's not a fact and it's not true. Mediazona is the only reliable source for Russian casualties.
1
Flat, soft sand several km wide with no buildings, no forest to then attack prepared positions in the face of artillery and Lancet drones.
1
@Panj0 Full employment is normal in a country fighting a major war.
1
@toddinde Russian losses are tiny compared to the overall size of the Russian population. The Russian economy is not collapsing and the war is not unpopular in Russia. The Western media is full of wishful thinking.
1
@mariaf.6601 Stick to the facts. Russia is fighting a major war against one of the most powerful militaries in the world backed by NATO with auxiliary forces and volunteers. If you think Russia's economy is going to "collapse" then you should provide some evidence. Do you remember how in the first few days of the war we were told the rouble would collapse? How Russia was running out of tanks? How Russia only had enough missiles for a few days? etc. etc.
1
@mariaf.6601 17% inflation is not much higher than many Western countries right now. Energy inflation in Europe in particular is crippling. Russia has ample food and energy. High inflation of luxury goods in Russia like smart phones is less important than high inflation of gas an electricity in Germany where already the government is looking at energy rationing to industry. If you don't believe me you should take all your money and invest in German heavy industry right now while equities are cheap. The old T62s are being used to give extra fire support to the auxiliary forces on the Russian side particularly the DPR/LPR forces. In this role, the deficiencies of the older tanks are unlikely to be important ie. they're unlikely to be fighting more modern tanks directly. If your enemy is infantry and lightly armoured APCs without air support, any MBT even an old one is adequate. If the regular Russian forces start using these T62s then your argument that Russia is running out of tanks would become persuasive. Until that happens it's more like Western armies giving Ukraine their stockpiles of ex-Soviet equipment and obsolete Javelins. It doesn't mean that Western armies don't have more modern technologies - obviously they do.
1
@mariaf.6601 Here are some facts. Russia is running a budgetary surplus despite fighting a major war. No major Western economy is running a budgetary surplus in fact the USA has not has a surplus since 2001. Yet you believe it is the Russian economy which is collapsing. If you want to talk about high inflation, NATO member Turkey currently has inflation over 70%.
1
@mariaf.6601 I wouldn't say there are no problems with the Russian economy, that would be exaggerating but I have provided you with much evidence that your own position is heavily overstated. You haven't even engaged with that evidence. We have debated long enough that it's clear to me that you are obviously someone who bends evidence into your predefined ideas rather than someone who updates your understanding according to new evidence. You're welcome to your wishful thinking.
1
@mariaf.6601 What do you want? Your only evidence that the Russian economy is collapsing is high inflation there - about twice as high as inflation in the USA and much lower than in some NATO countries. Meanwhile much of Europe is making preparations for energy rationing. You object that the Russian surplus is "tiny" - totally missing the point that it's fighting a major war with a budget surplus at all! You don't seem to have serious arguments, you're arguing with me because I'm pointing out evidence that the wishful thinking narrative is wrong. I'm not learning anything from a discussion with you.
1
@Elbuarto Zelensky himself told the population that the Russians were going to invade just before ... the Russians invaded :) Ukraine certainly isn't about to fold but likewise, I'd say anyone who predicts Russia is going to lose has zero credibility. There's just no evidence whatsoever that Russia is even struggling much less losing.
1
@Eder-bk5mm You really need to look at how the First World War started. It was basically a game of chicken. Neither side wanted a general war but both sides took risks to get advantages i.e both sides escalated. And neither side backed down. The result is a devastating war which neither side wanted. The theory that Russia will always back down from red lines is stupid because this war only started by NATO crossing a red line for Russia. Russia explained over and over that Ukraine joining NATO was unacceptable, the Americans knew this (see wikileaks cable from Burns to Whitehouse) and the Americans were pushing Ukraine towards NATO anyway. Did the Russians back down? No. They went into Ukraine. If NATO keeps escalating in Ukraine, either Russia backs down which only an idiot believes will happen - or there's a hot war between NATO and Russia - which will probably turn nuclear. Further escalation is hugely dangerous. The smart thing to do for both sides is negotiate, let Russia pocket a win and whatever is left of Ukraine keeps out of NATO. The alternative is either world war killing billions or an eventual Ukrainian collapse which NATO can't do much about. Take your pick.
1
@hedgehog3180 Russians captured dozens of military vehicles in Lysychansk. There are plenty of videos online. Likewise of Ukrainian infantry escaping on foot because the only road out was under fire control. According to your logic an advance which isn't rapid is embarrassing. What would you recommend the Russian generals do? A massed tank attack across minefields into towns where a poorly trained territorial can fire a cheap anti-tank missile? That's just stupid. Rommel fought much of WWII in an open desert where there were no forests and few towns and in the days when infantry anti-tank weapons were only dangerous at short range and from flanks.
1
@ABCBCNM These guys keep trying to pretend Russia is going to stomp all over Europe. Why would Russia want to? There are specific reasons Russia went into Ukraine which don't apply to Lapland or Warsaw or even Riga.
1
@aaronbaker2186 Out of two and a half million population there are a couple of sabotage operations. Which have apparently now been shut down. So it's hardly a popular insurgency.
1
LOL yeah like when Russia attacked Serbia on the basis of lies and a few years later attacked Iraq... and then Libya and then Syria and funds the mass murder of innocent civilians in Gaza ... oh wait
1
@nigelgarrett7970 The Bosporus is a special case by treaty. It doesn't apply to any other sea channel in the world except canals.
1
@nigelgarrett7970 No blocking traffic through the Skagerrak would be an act of war.
1
@nigelgarrett7970 Here's a thought experiment. What if the Chinese allied with the Panamanian government and shut the Panama canal to US ships - what do you think the US would do?
1
@nigelgarrett7970 Shutting the Panama canal would probably be legal according to international war. It's Panamanian water. But we all know the US would attack the government immediately. Not like it hasn't done it before. If the Danes want a war with Russia, good luck Every Danish ship would be sunk within a month, every airbase turned to rubble and every other NATO country would find excuses to keep out the way. In fact, the USA would take over Greenland :)
1
Why is a Gael shilling for Washington, neocons like Nuland and the corrupt Zelensky regime?
1
@robbielad You believe Ukraine will prevail?? At what? Eurovision? Because they've lost millions in population since this war started, hundreds of thousands dead on the battlefield and millions left the country, 80% say they will never return. Their economy is destroyed, they're losing ground all over the front. If you think they can win this war you should check out some neutral sources because you've buying the propaganda.
1
It's deluded to believe this. Ukraine is struggling to replace manpower, Russia is expanding their army with volunteers only. The Ukrainian economy is destroyed and its surviving on foreign aid, the Russian economy is growing. The stale mate story is for morons.
1
You're talking as if Russia can't retaliate.
1
A lot of Russians were pretty outraged their government just stood back and let NATO squash countries like Iraq, Serbia and Libya.
1
He literally said if Russia starts losing the war. You hardly think he's neutral do you? He's a serving NATO officer.
1
@harmless6813 The Russians don't care, they know the Ukrainians can't break out and Ukraine has the high ground on the west bank so the Russians don't want to fight at a tactical advantage. Their main efforts are in the east of Ukraine especially Avdivka. After Avdivka falls there'll be plenty of resources freed up to deal with this bridgehead.
1
A lot like the argument that Russian casualties were higher in Bakhmut because the Russians were on the offensive and attacker casualties are typically higher. This argument disappeared completely during the Zaporozhye offensive when Ukraine was attacking. A major Ukrainian effort across the Dniepr is just so transparently stupid it makes you wonder whether they have any kind of strategy at all. They will never be able to break out of this bridgehead and they can't fortify properly, they can't supply it easily, they're taking high losses in troop rotations, it's just madness.
1
LOL if you believe nobody fears Russia you need to branch out to watch some neutral channels.
1
An "allied" country - Europeans are so naive.
1
Think about how this looks to the Russians - that NATO intends to arm Ukraine to fight a future war against Russia. This creates an incentive for the Russians to continue the war until either they can install a pro-Russian government or alternatively, take over most of the country so whatever is left is going to be too weak to be valuable to NATO.
1
@pjhgerlach The EU economy is a disaster right now though
1
Every country is vulnerable. there's been plenty of sabotage and assassinations in Russia.
1
Putin and other senior Russian leaders have been warning for over a decade that Ukraine joining NATO was a serious problem for Russia. Austin, Blinken and Zelensky were all pushing this hard in the lead up to the war. Economic explanations may contribute but it's obvious Russia would not accept Ukraine in NATO.
1
@matsfrommusic Before the war, Ukraine had a lower GDP than Russia and even more inequality. As for Ukraine becoming a democracy, its politics are controlled by oligarchs allied to nationalist extremists who murder their enemies. Its corruption is similar to Russia's. Whatever the reasons for Putin's invasion, jealousy is not one of them.
1
@matsfrommusic It seems clear your understanding is overly influenced by the Western narrative of Russia as backwards and Ukraine as progressive. You are almost certainly correct however that Putin would be concerned however about the Western desire to see him replaced. Neocons are openly calling now for Russia to be broken up. Imagine if Russia were calling for Biden to be replaced and openly working to break up the USA.
1
@matsfrommusic I don't claim anything is great about killing anyone. I agree many anti-government journalists and politicians in Russia have been killed. Many Western aligned countries act similarly. This is a problem for Russian society to solve for itself, Western interference would be opposed by the the vast majority of Russian society just as Russian interference in the politics of Western countries is opposed by Westerners. Political violence in Ukraine after 2014 was vastly worse than in Russia. I'd like to recommend a well referenced survey for you - Ukraine in the Crossfire by Dutch journalist Chris Kaspar de Ploeg. He is neither pro-Russians nor pro-Ukrainian, he criticises both sides. The West has a very poor record of replacing national leaders it calls corrupt with non corrupt alternatives. You will know some examples - Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know how much money Putin has stolen. When he assisted Sobchak, the mayor of St. Petersburg his position gave him the opportunity to steal millions as did many of his colleagues. He came out of that situation with a wooden house by a lake and US $5000. He couldn't afford his wife's medical care in Germany after a car accident. Perhaps you have concrete evidence that Putin has personally stolen billions I am not aware of.
1
Yes. That's why this river crossing is strategically useless and tactically unfavourable and the Russians have nothing to worry about.
1
@ludmilascoles1195 You can use them as assault guns though. They're not gong to survive in a one on one tank battle but they're still well armed and armoured.
1
It wouldn't concern you that you're donating tens of billions to the most corrupt country in Europe?
1
Or how about just admit that NATO's strategy of pushing up against the Russian borders was bound to back fire in a war as warned by Putin many times and US ambassador Burns and admit NATO has lost in Ukraine and stop the dying while before Ukraine gets destroyed completely.
1
NATO also promised not to expand eastwards from Germany. NATO also sponsored a violent coup in Ukraine to overthrow the democratically elected president. NATO also signed the Minsk agreements which both Hollande and Merkel admitted were never intended in good faith and were meant only to buy Ukraine time to rearm. That is the context in which Russia violated earlier agreements.
1
Sure. Russia would quite like that excuse to take back Lithuania. Remember that Lithuania's independence is conditional upon Russian transit access through the Suwalki gap. Deny that and 500 missiles hit every military base in Lithuania the next day. What's Germany, Britain and the USA going to do? Risk a nuclear war for the sake of Lithuania's suicidal idiocy?
1
Pity you;'ve spent the past few years demonising and antagonising Russia only to find out what was obvious to start with, the biggest predator and aggressor in the world is the USA.
1
The problem with calling Russia Mordor is it prevents you from understanding why Russia acts as it does (seeking its own security) by instead creating the idea that it's some evil, malign ,irrational entity. It's as childish as calling Russians orcs.
1
What makes you think the Russians are taking heavy losses? It's the Russian side which has an overwhelming air and artillery advantage. Most losses on the Russian side seem to be DPR/LPR or auxiliary forces rather than the Russian army. Meanwhile some Ukrainian regular units are reporting that few of their pre-war members are still active due to casualties.
1
@spacecanuk8316 Sure, Russia is trying hard to recruit. But get this - they're not even using conscripts or reserves. The Russian army is still fighting with volunteers. Compare that to Ukraine where they're drafting conscripts. Literally serving papers to guys on the street. I agree the Russian army took high losses in the first month of the year but there's little evidence they have been since. There are some failed river crossings but that's untypical of most of the fighting. You say that you can't replace professionals in a couple of months with guys of the same quality. This is an even bigger problem for Ukraine than for the Russian army. The Russians are rotating their units in and out of Ukraine giving them a chance to integrate replacements. Ukrainian units are stuck in the line for months without relief in some cases. They're the ones getting pounded by artillery and aviation. That's how the Russians just made their big advance and the Zolote encirclement - a Ukrainian regular unit retreated without orders after taking high casualties, leaving neighbouring the Zolote pocket to be surrounded.
1
@spacecanuk8316 Yeah the Western media repeated NATO press releases saying they redeployed too quickly. Maybe it's true, maybe it's the usual propaganda. In any case, what's been happening for the last few months is there's no evidence the Russians have been taking heavy casualties. There's a lot of evidence the Ukrainians have been. The Ukrainians are getting badly beaten in the place where the fighting is heaviest. The Russians are taking thousands of prisoners, the Ukrainians are taking very few. Not saying it's good or bad, that's just what the evidence shows.
1
@spacecanuk8316 Here's a link to an example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81PRbWC9dgo
1
LOL this isn't Lord of the Rings you clown. If the Ukrainians couldn't create more than small salients at the cost of hundreds of armoured vehicles and tens of thousands of men over the whole summer, they're certainly not going to be able to break through next year when the Ukrainian army is weakening and the Russian army is getting stronger. Ukraine has lost the war. Even the Western media admits it. Try to keep up.
1
@yurilytviak9066 No but let's not pretend to be shocked when great powers act like great powers always have. And let's not pretend Russia is worse than the USA.
1
@OlleSundblad It's normal to accuse the enemy of genocide if you want to start a war. Russia did the same in Ukraine. there was no genocide in Kosovo. As for the UN, the UN has demanded the US leave Syria and Israel leave the Golan Heights - both just ignore the UN.
1
@OlleSundblad Are you confusing the Serbian army in Kosovo with ethnic Serbs in Bosnia? There was a real genocide by ethnic Serbs in Bosnia but the Serbian state was not responsible for that.
1
@Inkling777 How can it be a parallel when Russia hasn't been defeated? I don't see the Russia army collapsing. I see it holding Ukrainian territory and repelling Ukrainian attacks. I see low inflation in Russia and the Russian economy growing. You seem to misunderstand who is winning this war.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD LOL the cope from you guys is awesome
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD It's not easy to clear for Russia for the same reason it's not easy for Ukraine to break out of it - geography. And unless Ukraine can break out - which they can't - it's a really stupid place to keep pouring resources into.
1
Every day there is no peace, more men die and Ukraine gets weaker. Russia isn't getting weaker. Its economy is growing and even a US general admitted its army is now stronger than when the war started. If (actually when) the Ukrainian offensive fails, the Russians will start grinding westwards again. Eventually, Ukraine will collapse. What is to be gained by further fighting?
1
@StepDub For we westerners investing in Russia right now makes no sense because the EU is trying hard to seize Russian state assets and Russian companies are under all kinds of sanctions. Logically the Russian government will most likely take revenge on Western investors. On the other hand, it makes plenty of sense for Russians to invest in Russia given the hostility to Russians in the West now. Which is why so much money has been repatriated by Russian billionaires since the war started.
1
@Leo-ip9bv LOL before you spend all your money, spend some time watching neutral channels on how the fighting is going :)
1
Yeah it's a complete waste of men. It's hard to fortify and support, hard to supply and troop rotations across the river are too dangerous. Even though it's hard for the Russians to actually storm the beachhead, it's impossible for Ukraine to break out of it. It's actually in Russia's advantage to leave this bridgehead in place.
1
Bizarre how this guy thinks the Russians are in a weak position. Across most of the line, they're just sitting back and pouring shells on Ukrainian positions and waiting for the West to collapse economically and lose interest. The Russian army are taking very few casualties. Most of their front line fighting is done by DPR/LPR and Wagner mercenaries, the regular Russian army just gets rotated in and out, building up combat experience. The Russian population is solidly behind the war. The Russian economy hasn't collapsed like most Western leaders and media predicted it would, it's actually holding up better than European economies. The Ukrainian economy in contrast is on life support and won't survive the winter even if the Russians don't try to advance. The Ukrainians have just launched their first serious attack in weeks. All we know so far is they took heavy losses and captured a few villages. Impressive given their paucity of armour, artillery and air support but let's get real. The Russians have a huge air mobile reserve accumulated over the past couple of weeks. If the Russians really do feel themselves under pressure, it's available to plug any gaps. I'll personally be immensely surprised if the Ukrainians reach the outskirts of Kherson much less capture Kherson. More likely the Russians will wait for the Ukrainians to overcommit and burn their reserves before launching a major counter attack. This is the German spring offensive in 1918. The Ukrainians will capture some strategically unimportant territory but at high casualties to themselves of the best of their army. The effort will leave them vulnerable to a Russian counter strike which is likely to be sooner rather than later.
1
The war has swung in Ukraine's favour recently because Russia lacks infantry. How can adding hundreds of thousands of infantry not swing the war back in Russia's favour?
1
@anderspuck Is there evidence of a significant decline of Russian artillery capability? The third Ukrainian attack on Liman has just been repulsed with heavy losses. Even the Ukrainians admit their attacks on the Kherson front have resulted in heavy losses and little territory has been gained. The Ukrainian advance near Kharkov was successful because the Russian line was only lightly screened, in some places, only by Roskvadia. Along much of the front, the Russians have only one line of defence. Their telegram channels deplore lack of infantry, not lack of artillery.
1
@anderspuck Let's revisit in a few weeks when these Russian reinforcements have been deployed.
1