Comments by "foil hat" (@foilhat1138) on "Retired general on why Bakhmut could be a symbolic defeat for Russia" video.

@dalecrocker3213 Did they want Kherson when they had their sham referendum then later lost it?
4
@dalecrocker3213 You said Russia didn't want the whole country remember? So why have the sham referendum then If they didn't want to keep Kherson? Putin said Kherson was Russia's forever and they would use whatever weapons necessary to keep it (aka nukes) They didn't use nukes though just got beat down and ran away. The Ukrainians said they were going to attack Kherson and the Russians believed them for some reason. You know, like idiots. So they redeployed the VDV from Kharkiv to Kherson, then Ukraine attacked Kharkiv folding Russia up like laundry (including capturing Iziu the main supply hub in the area and a mountain of equipment) Then they blew the bridges behind Russia at Kherson so they couldn't be supplied and they had to tuck tail and flee from there also.
2
@ivannisevic6685 close to ten months and tens of thousands of casualties to take 90% of a mid sized town a few miles from the border and Russians think its some grand victory. All while losing ground on either flank..
2
@dalecrocker3213 No they were incapable of holding the rest because Ukraine blew the bridges behind them and they were forced to flee. Kherson was the only major city that Russia had captured, losing it is just another humiliation in Russian military history. You can pretend that this hasn't been a disaster for Russia but the proof in the pudding is in the eating, and right now Russia is eating sht. Typically when you invade a country you don't want to get involved in trench warfare that never ends an hour across the border.
2
@dalecrocker3213 Well what Putin is getting is trench warfare that never ends along with becoming an international pariah and laughing stock.
1
@larryc1616 By that metric the US has thousands of hypersonic weapons as all ballistic missiles are hypersonic by definition.
1