Comments by "John Adam" (@johnadam2885) on "What is Russia's plan for victory?" video.

'"great russian empire which never loses wars" (it does lose them regularly by the way).' The Russians are not going to lose this one - according to the video. And Ukraine will not exist. Ukraine had one chance to be an independent country and you blew it by selling yourself to America. You have lost the war that counts for you, and all you can do now is console yourself that Russia has lost wars regularly. Ukraine should never have been made independent, you are unfit for self rule.
113
@ПростоОлег-и6м Just like Ukraine after 2014 coup cannot do anything without permission from US and UK. Like agree to a peace deal in Istanbul that both accepted. Ukraine had to withdraw from it because Biden sent his emissary BoJo. So why are you complaining and acting holier than thou ?
16
@attilaszekeres7435 ' he was all about territory gain' I remember the joker was talking about Ukraine winning due to Kursk.
10
@YuriiKW-g2b I agree. The WW 2 experience makes Russia do anything for its security. It is not about land, or as Anders say about political sphere of influence. It is as Putin says : Russia's security. That is all he asked for and the US ignored it deliberately.
7
@FindTheTRUTH337 I am able to say Ukraine is unfit for independence based on the result. If Ukraine was capable of self-rule, it would have realised staying neutral is the best considering its location. Inviting a far-off superpower to come and put bases in Ukraine to threaten a neighbouring superpower was not a bright idea. Get it ?
7
@ajaxamsterdam9095 'Look what Russia lost. '... Look at what you lost. Russia's natural gas and oil sales have shifted elsewhere. India buys Russian oil, refines it, and sells it with a mark up to Europe. You have replaced Russian gas with American LNG which costs 4x as much. As a result, Germany is deindustrialising, BASF has shifted some plants, Volkswagen is closing factories. So who is the loser ?
7
@MasterBot98 In Istanbul, Russia would have demanded to keep Crimea, but would have been willing to return much if what it took in exchange for Ukrainian guarantee to abandon NATO entry. Now the terms are worse : Ukraine has to cede more land AND accept no NATO. Besides, Ukraine has lost a massive amount of people since 2021, and now it has over $ 1 trillion worth of damage. Get it ?
6
@Tuck213 Don't put on holy airs. Who pushed NATO expansion after Warsaw Pact was dissolved ? Why ? And who staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 that brought Ukro Nazi groups to power ? You had an imperialist urge and Russia checked it. Russia has ended western hegemony. BoJo said if Putin wins, it is end of western hegemony. So who is imperialist ?
5
@MasterBot98 'deal in Istanbul was not an effective capitulation by Ukraine? Boris disrupted it by providing military support to Ukraine so they don't have to capitulate. ' What Ukraine is facing now is a bigger capitulation which even Anders can see. Can Boris do anything to reverse it now ? Russia is not going to agree to any western peace proposal like freeze the conflict, it is going to force unconditional surrender. Ukraine had much better terms in Istanbul, and Boris sabotaged it.
5
So what is it that Anders revealed about Russian strategy. All he said was Russia is not seeking land, it wants a political sphere of influence in Ukraine. The Americans tried to do the same by arrange a coup in Ukraine in 2014. Actually, Russia was only seeking a security guarantee that Ukraine will not be used to put US missiles and naval bases targeting Russia. Anyhow, it does not matter what Anders thinks was Russian strategy, he recognises the war is lost and Ukraine will be abandoned by the US.
4
@Tuck213 Why did you expand NATO to Russia's border ? Why did you carry out a coup in Ukraine in 2014 and encourage Ukraine to fight Russia ? That shows an imperialist mindset.
4
Russia's plan for victory is to force unconditional surrender. The Ukro Nazis will be forced to surrender like the German Nazis in Berlin.
4
@Bob-nd2mr You did not live in a country struck daily with hypersonics and drones. Ukraine should have stayed neutral. It has lost its nationhood due to western interference.
3
Anders new line is 'Russia wants political control over Ukraine to prevent Ukraine joining the west as it would become prosperous' ! The joker pretends this is a very profound understanding that the west has not realised. All he is spouting is the western superiority complex. Ukraine has been defeated, but the explanation is it is because the west did not understand despite its superior system. Anders does not admit that when the US arranged the coup in Ukraine in 2014, it too was seeking political control over Ukraine. Ukraine was not allowed to sign a peace deal with Russia in Istanbul. Biden sent his errand boy Boris to scupper it. But now that US political control of Ukraine is thwarted, he has discovered the Russians seek political control of Ukraine. All Russia had asked Ukraine for is that it did not allow NATO bases in Ukraine. It is unfortunate that small countries become victims of big power rivalries. Unless small countries become neutral and avoid taking sides, they will be torn apart. Ukrainians did not have political maturity to tread carefully and not take sides.
2
What is the crucial information that Anders has revealed ? That Ukraine and the west have lost the war ? Many knew that long ago, but Anders deluded you.
2
@HR_8035_YEA Russia has a govt. that defends its security. Ukraine has an implanted govt. that fights a proxy war for US interest. How dumb can one be ? Numskull !
2
@Tuck213 Nobody invaded Russia. You can threaten Russia without invasion. Russia has eliminated that threat.
2
@dankengine5304 'Ukraine was neutral until Russia decided the EU was somehow a crime. ' Don't make up stories. Russia had said it will not allow Ukraine to join NATO as that will bring US naval bases which will shut Russia off from the Black Sea. In the early stages of the war, Putin had said Russia had no objection to Ukraine joining the EU as it is an economic alliance (that might have changed now as the EU has functioned like it is NATO). Ukraine and Europeans are talking about negotiations as they have lost the war, but they want NATO peacekeepers. Trump says 'use European peacekeepers'. Neither is acceptable to Russia. In fact, Russia does not want negotiations. Russia did not seek land, it sought Ukraine to be neutral in terms of NATO (and not the EU). Don't lie. Now the situation for Ukraine is it cannot join NATO AND it has to cede land. After spurning neutrality and trying to get US to set up naval bases in Ukraine to threaten Russia, and after being defeated, it has to cede land. Such punishment and resettling of borders has occurred in the past to Germany and others. If Ukraine had remained neutral, it would have had all including Crimea. Ukraine walked away from a negotiated agreement in 2021 at the behest of BoJo. It attempted a counter offensive in 2023 with NATO tutelage, which failed. In 2024 Russia is taking more. If Ukraine does not accept the current terms, the Russians will take back areas that were historically Russian like Odessa and Kiev. Ukraine will be made landlocked. Land was not what Russia was seeking. But Ukraine's folly and US mischief means it loses land. Get it ?
2
Anders claims that Russia is after geopolitical influence, but does not mention that the US is also after that. NATO expansion was that only. He seems to have the arrogant western conceit that the US sought geopolitical influence in Ukraine to make them a prosperous western nation ! It is typical western conceit. The oligarchs of Ukraine, mostly Jews like Kolomovsky, Zelensky, Zaluzhny, were sucking out Ukraine's wealth with their Jewish brethren embedded in the US. The Russian oligarchs, also Jews were doing the same in Russia till Putin came and stopped it. The US was not interested in making Ukraine prosperous. Let us say Anders is correct that Russia is not after land, but geopolitical influence. How is this new understanding that Anders discloses going to change the outcome, which is defeat for the west ?
2
Whether Russia is out for land or for political control, neither Ukraine nor west can stop it. You tried to stop it, but you lost the war.
1
@petunized Anders arguments are feeble, they are born out of sense of defeat. Indeed the west has no negotiating power. Some of them think that Trump will offer Russia the land that Russia has taken, in exchange for Ukraine being in NATO after 20 years. They hope if Russia turns this offer down (which it will), then Trump will throw his weight behind Ukraine and give limitless support.
1
@AG-mz7vm So you think Ukraine is in a glorious position. Even dumb Anders is changing his tune.
1
@humanieryt Childish reply. You cannot refute anything I wrote.
1
@gamer228r I am an American living in Afghanistan.
1
mksln Your buddy Zelensky will be migrating to Israel to serve in the IDF with his benefactor Kolomovsky. He knows the war in Ukraine is lost.
1
@thomasdracup8403 Hitler was a defeatist also. He had to commit suicide as the Red Army approached. Zelensky will commit suicide or will be airlifted to Israel where he can engage in another war.
1
@Anekantavad 'Geopolitically, the Russians have already "lost this one".' How ? Just because you stated so. Russia's achievements go beyond Ukraine, it has neutralised NATO, it has created a new world order, started de-dollarisation and ended western hegemony. Get it ? 'Putin almost certainly regrets ever having ordered his army into Ukraine.' Ukraine regrets fighting a proxy war for the US as it now realises it will be ditched. That is why people are avoiding conscription. Get it ? Numskull.
1
@michu6777 That is an effort to claim diminished responsibility. Why was not NATO disbanded when Warsaw Pact was dissolved ? NATO expansion has brought war, caused the demolition of Ukraine, and wrecked European economies, and brought insecurity to Europe. Yet, you tell us we need more NATO to defend us. Numskull !
1
@borisgurevich5504 Oh right, you think Ukraine is winning because Zelensky announced a Victory Plan.
1
@trytwicelikemice3190 The problem is the Baltics and Poland have become belligerent, and they are living dangerously because they think they have US support. Ukraine also thought the same, and tried to misbehave with Russia, and it got beaten into a pulp. Look at Lithuania. In 2022, it tried to show off by organising a blockade of Russian trains to Kaliningrad, piously stating it was enforcing EU sanctions. Lithuania's independence was based on giving Russian trains to Kaliningrad a land corridor. Two weeks later a Russian politician said it was time to reconsider Lithuania's independence. The media reported Russia can seize the Suwalki corridor and cut off the Baltics. Within a few days, Lithuania climbed down and abandoned the blockade. If it had not, Russia would have seized the Baltics regardless of Article 5 - and the Lithuanians would have found the US would not come to fight for it, and the rest of the Europeans are useless. As for Poland, it acts like America's attack dog. Putin reminded that Poland was a gift of Stalin. If it had been left to Germany, there would be no Poland. The Poles were unable to free themselves from the Germans. If they had waited for the British, they would have been waiting a long time. It was the Red Army that got to Auschwitz and freed the Poles. Stalin could have incorporated Poland into the Soviet Union, but he did not. Stalin gave one of the Red Army's greatest generals, Konstantin Rokossovsky, a Polish officer who became a Marshall of the Soviet Union, to become Poland's defence minister. I would advise the Poles not to be ingrates. So don't put on self-righteous airs about the Baltics, Poland, EU and NATO. You want to bait the bear, then don't cry when the bear mauls you.
1
@HomeFromFarAway What is the point I missed in the video. The claim Anders makes is that Russia is after geopolitical influence, and it is not so much after land. That may be correct, but that was obvious. He makes out that very few people in the west understand this and he talks like he is a singularly wise man. What he does not say is that the US was also after geopolitical control of Ukraine, so much that it funded a coup in 2014, led by Ukro Nazi groups like Right Sector and Azov Batallion, which overthrew the elected government. The neocon Jewess Victoria Nuland and John McCain were in the crowd celebrating he overthrow. What are US government officials doing in a Ukrainian Nazi led movement ? Why is the US seeking geopolitical control so far from home ? If you watched the video and I missed something, you can correct me. You will not be able to answer the above.
1
@dankengine5304 Annexing land was not the primary aim. It happened as a corollary to Ukraine not accepting to go back to neutrality and choosing to fight. If you threaten Russia, and you fight and lose, the borders will be re-arranged. Just like Germany lost its eastern lands like Prussia, and Stalin rearranged Germany and Europe's map, Ukraine will lose its eastern lands and Russia will rearrange its geometry. If Ukraine had accepted to retain its neutrality, it would have all including Crimea. Instead, it chose to bring in the US which was seeking naval bases in Ukraine to cut off Russia. Ukraine fought, it lost, and the US is washing its hands off.
1
@dankengine5304 Ukraine of 1991 will not exist. That everyone understands including the Ukrainians. Ukraine will be partitioned, Russian areas will go back to Russia including Kiev and Odessa, and the remainder will be rendered into a wasteland; or Russia will take all of it, if Ukraine does not sign up for neutrality. There will be no NATO bases in Ukraine, a position the west now understands. Get it ?
1
@williamzk9083 The rejection of western hegemony disguised as the 'rules based international order' by the rest of the world burns deeply in your western soul. Russia, China, India, Brazil, Iran and Muslim countries reject it and that is causing burning. Here is the proof. In 2022, Boris Johnson said 'we must not let Putin win, as it would end the rules based international order' according to which the west sets the rules, and flouts them when convenient (as in Iraq). In 2024, Boris Johnson said that victory for Putin means end of western hegemony (that is the term he used). He was pleading with Trump not to allow a Russian victory. Clearly, from Boris Johnson 's words, 'rules based international order' means western hegemony. He knows what is at stake. You need to get real : Russia has created a new world order with BRICS, it has triggered de-dollarisation, and weakened NATO with a superior arsenal which the west cannot match. The west's main asset was its control of the financial system, and that is undergoing change too, and Russia and China are going to drive it. Ex Soviet states are irrelevant in the global importance of what Russia has done.
1
@MrAntonBaton 'Ukraine will become a puppet state without a foreign army on its soil' Ukraine was already puppet state of the US after the 2014 coup, even without the US getting bases. Ukraine could not even go ahead with the peace process it agreed in Istanbul, because the US and UK over ruled. Ukraine is clearly unfit for self rule. If you had been neutral, you would have been free and still had Crimea. But you blew it, thinking you could threaten Russia using the US.
1
@SnorriTheLlama The rest of the world has seen western duplicity in Afghanistan, Iraq invasion, support of Israel etc. That is why the rest support Russia as it breaks western hegemony for good. They can see the US was expanding NATO and threatening Russia.
1
@MrAntonBaton Ukraine could have remained neutral and could have retained all including Crimea. Instead the US came and interfered in Ukraine with a coup, and tried to get bases, Russia put a stop to that, and now the US wants to withdraw and forget about Ukraine. Net result : Ukraine will not exist. Get it ?
1
@MasterBot98 Crimea would also have been Ukrainian if the Ukrainians had not gone along with the coup the US foisted on it. Foresight is better than hindsight. Ukrainians were short on foresight.
1
@nigelgarrett7970 Russia is winning because it will dictate the terms of the peace. Ukraine has no say, and the west has come to accept that. Get it ?
1
Anders is at last being realistic - this is his first admission that the war is lost for the west ! He cannot go on about Ukrainian victory in Kursk. Anders is right that for Russia it is not a war for land. But he is not right that the war for Russia is for political control. Russia's number one motivation is security : it cannot allow US missile and naval bases in Ukraine. The US ambition was to cut off Russia's access to the Black Sea. Sevastopol in the Crimea is the HQ of the Russian Black Sea fleet, and if Russia had not retaken Crimea, the US 7th Fleet would be sailing from it. He proposes another type of devious western argument that if Ukraine joined the west, it would become prosperous and Russia did not want that. First of all, it is an assumption joining the west would make Ukraine prosperous. Ukraine was in the hands of oligarchs, mostly Jews, who sucked out its wealth - like Ihor Kolomvosky, who financed Zelensky (all Jews). And on the other side, you had Jews like Victoria Nuland, Black Rock, Blinken etc. Earlier Putin said he had no objection to Ukraine joining the EU, as that is an economic alliance, but NATO is a military alliance directed against Russia. Now Russia will not allow Ukraine to join the EU as lately the EU has acted like NATO. Hence, it is s devious argument Anders makes that Russia's aim is to prevent Ukraine joining the west and becoming prosperous - that is a typical western self image of superiority. It is like Bush saying the Muslims did not like America's freedoms, so they struck it; whereas it is related to US support of Israel. Russia wants to be prosperous, it has no objection to Ukraine being prosperous. But the problem is the US wanted to put missile and naval bases to threaten Russia's prosperity. That is is not on. Anyhow, despite Anders belief that the war is to prevent Ukraine from becoming prosperous, he now knows that the Russians will win. Ukraine has to cede what it lost and it cannot be in NATO - that is the starting Russian line now for negotiations. Earlier, Russia only asked Ukraine to be neutral. Now it cannot join NATO and it has to cede land. If it does not agree, Russia is in a position to continue and take more and decapitate Ukraine. And the west cannot stop it. Trump knows the US does not have the money and arms. And the Europeans cannot fight Russia. Ukraine is only a pawn. Boris Johnson stated that if Russia won it will end the rules based international order which was a fig leaf for western hegemony. Since Boris and Anders and their ilk now realise that Russia has won, the most important Russian achievement is they ended western hegemony. The rest of the world salutes the Russians.
1