Comments by "PNH 6000" (@PNH-sf4jz) on "Anders Puck Nielsen"
channel.
-
I agree with your comment and have supported it. Yes, I believe that there is a degree to which the US wants Europe to be more accountable for each country's own defense and adequate resources for defense of the whole European theatre. Though I do not believe that desire is based on malicious intent. The current political impasse in the US may even be useful to that end, for as long as required.
I also believe that the coalition/conference of ~60 countries has a plan mapped out. There is no point in Ukraine initiating full scale offensives with only half the resources required to make such offensives successful. It is my belief that once "all the ducks are lined up", that all the resources, including the air support provided by F-16s and other land-based and airforce elements are "on the ground" and ready to go, that we will then see a coordinated offensive using the full complement of resources available through the NATO Defensive Alliance and other countries assisting and supporting Ukraine.
The present situation is not one of "Russia winning", though they may gain ground from time to time. Rather, the Ukrainians are aiming at holding ground, with the fewest possible casualties, until preparation has been completed for a full-scale offensive. In the mean time, Russia has gone from fresh troops and more than four times the quantitative and qualitative firepower advantage, two years ago, in terms of land and airforce resources, combined with an "invincible Russian Black Sea fleet", to almost parity on land, loss of more than 20% of their "invincible" Black Sea fleet and and a significantly reduced airforce capacity. So the time is not being wasted by the Ukrainians. All this despite Ukraine having virtually no navy assets and a significantly smaller airforce.
A "hotter" WAR, fought more quickly would likely have caused many more deaths of Ukrainian military personnel and civilians and a great deal more destruction cause by the Russians. The Russians would likely have retained far more of their weapons than they have as a result of a slower attritional WAR. Despite not everyone being pleased with progress, I believe that Ukraine is accomplishing its goals and objectives in a methodical and purposeful manner.
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Presumably, you are referring to pro-Russian sources, such as the following which I believe to be far less credible than those used by P. A. Nielsen:
You would probably recommend reading and listening to such illegitimate characters and sources as the Russians and pro-Russians that present the classic lies, "Russian vranyo", that are presented by so many of these shills and trolls for the Russian political and military establishment. Many present their ideas and disinformation in slickly presented videos and in comments under videos. All this can be referred to as the "Russian fire-hose of falsehood".
People such as Solovyov, Skabeyeva, Mardan, Simonyan and others. Alex Jones may appeal to you, Richard Medhurst, Max Blumenthal, Garland Nixon, Matt Ehret, Tucker Carlson, Eva Bartlett, Scott Ritter, Patrick Lancaster, Gonzalo Lira, if he is still around, Douglas MacGregor, Aaron Mate, Sonja ven den Ende, and John Meersheimer, The Duran with Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris, The New Atlas with Brian Berletic, Redacted with Clayton and Natali Morris. Alex Jones, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone.
Media sources may include TASS, RT {Russia Today}, the Hindustan Times, WION, the Timur Tribun ........ So, there is plenty of scope for finding the type of garbage that these people spew out and spread on behalf of the Russian establishment. Disinformation that will appeal to the pro-Russian scammers in their carefully nurtured little echo chambers.
Thanks all the same, but I am aware of these so-called proponents and sources and I strongly believe that I am in the company of the right group of people. They sure ain't perfect, but neither am I. However, I believe that "we" are a heck of a sight better than the alternative Russian brand.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
A few more thoughts that you may consider.
Alternatively, the Russians have massive underground or 'in the side of mountain' caches, like other countries, such as Iran are said to have, of military and air-force weapons that they have accumulated over the previous recent years, and can bring out at the "last minute" and spring a very unpleasant surprise. While I do not believe that is necessarily so, I believe that at least some attention must be given to the possibility, so that if the trap is sprung by the Russians, the Ukrainian military will be adequately prepared.
I most certainly hope that the Russians are reduced now, to using older, almost antiquated weapons and transport, such as T55s and T54s. However, I find it difficult to believe that Russia would have allowed their weapon stocks to be reduced to that level. That is particularly so, when the one area that the Russians should be least concerned about is the defensive alliance of countries in NATO. Surely, simple logic would not have allowed them to rely, as a last resort, on their nuclear weapons. That should be especially so, given that, if any of the Russian nuclear weapons were to be fired, Russian targets will receive a barrage by conventional weapons, that will annihilate the targets at which they would be fired. That would occur before the US, the UK, France, Germany or any other country fired any nuclear weapons.
As I was thinking about the possibility of Russia ending up requesting NATO for assistance in their defence, another possibility occurred to me. Such a situation could occur if, ten years ago, Russia decided that taking Ukraine was an all or nothing gambit. They realised that the oil and gas was only going to be a profitable market commodity for a limited number of years, given the push to "go green". So with an ever decreasing income, ageing manufacturing capacity and limited sea ports for distribution of their products, the acquisition of Ukraine, with it resources and the means of distributing products by sea, might have seemed to be a way of solving their dilemma. This situation would mean that they could attempt to take Ukraine and, if unsuccessful, could throw themselves on the mercy of what they refer to as "the west" and I prefer to call the "free world".
In the situation that I have outlined, the Russians could step right up to the point of using nuclear weapons. They would know that there would be no chance of other countries striking their territory. They would also feel safe and assured that no nuclear weapons would be fired unless they did so pre-emptively. At the point where they saw that their weapons had been exhausted and their bluff, in terms of a nuclear weapons attack, had been "called", they would then have to concede defeat and rely on the "free world" for their protection. The Russians would also know that the "free world" would not want to see the uncontrolled collapse of the Russian Federation. The "free world" would then, in some ways, feel bound by their own concerns to support Russia. This could be accomplished by something akin to the "Marshall Plan" that was instituted following the second world war. In this way, the "free world" also has a positive outcome. However, during that time, Ukraine will have had to endure the agonies of war.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Your assumptions, as are those of many other commenters, are that advances on any given days are indicative of the potential outcome of the WAR, which are not necessarily valid propositions.
In the first three years of WWII, who would you have bet on winning. But the results during the first three years did not foretell the eventual outcome of that war, either by the Nazis or the Japanese. That was partly due to the resistence of partisans, the resolve of the British, and the success of the Russians and the Chinese, with the assistance of the original Lend-Lease Act under which the Russians, Chinese and other countries including the UK, were afforded subsequent support from the USA. Many other countries were supported under that same Lend-Lease program. However, the Russians appear to continue to believe, or to be convinced by their government, that they won WWII all by themselves.
It is amazing how the world has changed since then.
It seems to me that the vocal and raucous out-pourings of the noisy pro-Russian camp constitutes mearly the loud chorus of the "punters" from the sidelines cheering on the side on which they have placed their bets or with which they are in the employ.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-allies-and-the-role-lend-lease-wwii-the-russian-view
"The Great Patriotic War, as Russians call World War II, claimed the lives of more than 27 million Soviet citizens. When Putin traveled to Normandy, France to celebrate the 60th VE Day anniversary, he took with him two WWII veterans. Those veterans were members of the organization that ultimately helped to open the Museum the Allies and Lend-Lease. Shortly after Putinโs return from Normandy, the Museum of the Allies and Lend-Lease was given approval to open. The greatest contribution to the museum from the Russian government, according to Borodin, was Putinโs statement at Normandy, where he encouraged citizens to celebrate the aid the U.S. gave to Russia and to move beyond the Soviet practice of denying the importance of lend-lease."
โThe process of establishing and opening the museum was difficult,โ Borodin explained. After WWII, high level officials in the Soviet government prohibited discussion about the aid the U.S. provided. As a result, few knew what the museum was for or why such a monument existed."
https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/
Totaling $11.3 billion, or $180 billion in today's currency, the Lend-Lease Act of the United States supplied needed goods to the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945 in support of what Stalin described to Roosevelt as the โenormous and difficult fight against the common enemy โ bloodthirsty Hitlerism.โ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
China fought Japan with aid from the Soviet Union, United Kingdom and the United States. After the Japanese attacks on Malaya and Pearl Harbor in 1941, the war merged with other conflicts which are generally categorized under those conflicts of World War II as a major sector known as the China Burma India Theater.
https://history.army.mil/html/topics/apam/chinese-americans.html
In 1943 the Army Air Forces organized some support units for the China-Burma-India theater, including the 14th Air Service Group, composed predominantly of Chinese-American personnel. Other Chinese-Americans trained as pilots and aircrew and fought in Europe and the Pacific.
๐บ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฆ VICTORY for UKRAINE ๐บ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฆ
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Rapid End to WAR & Attrition of Military Resources.
It may be that a quick victory may not be as useful or desirable as it might seem.
There will be no military stalemate or frozen conflict "at close to the current lines". Neither will there be a ceasefire before the RuZZian military and administrative personnel have been ejected from internationally recognised Ukrainian territory. Those who have been charged and found guilty of crimes, including war crimes will be sentenced appropriately for the crimes committed.
The current conference/coalition of nearly 60 countries will continue to support Ukraine until the primary objective has been achieved. There will be no peace in this world until those goals have been achieved and Russia is, in some way, restrained from attacking other countries.
Many people are saying, "We could have ended this WAR last year, if Ukraine had been given all they needed". What people seem to forget, or simply do not know, is that:
#** February 2022 Russia had nearly 3 times as many tanks as Ukraine had prior to Feb 2022.
Russia 3,400 tanks Ukraine 1,400 tanks {60% advantage to Russians}
July 2023 Today, Ukraine's tank inventory is believed to be considerably better equipped and have greater capacity and firepower than the Russians and they now have more, outnumbering the Russians by ~50%.
Russia 990 tanks Ukraine 1,500 tanks {50% advantage to Ukrainians} #+++
#** February 2022 Russia had 14% more heavy guns and artillery in Feb 2022
Russia 2,200 Artillery Ukraine 1,900 Artillery {14% advantage to Russians}
July 2023 Today, the Artillery and heavy guns inventories are:
Russia 773 Artillery Ukraine 1,100 Artillery {42% advantage to Ukrainians} #+++
#** February 2022 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems {MLRS}
Russia 1,100 MLRS Ukraine 840 MLRS {25% advantage to Russians}
July 2023 Today, the numbers of MLRS are:
Russia 354 MLRS Ukraine 427 MLRS {20% advantage to Ukrainians} #+++
Had an all out WAR been fought in the early months of 2022, Russia would have had an advantage of more than 3:1 against Ukraine in terms of military hardware. That may well have been greater, for Russia, because of respective levels of training of military personnel on the various platforms being used, and the elements of logistics and supply.
Today, Russia's inventory of military hardware is believed to actually be less than that of Ukraine in all the categories above. Ukraine has depleted Russia of much of its land-based hardware, probably most of the best of the Russian troops and massive amounts of ammunition and also a lot of the infrastructure; railways, roads, bridges and fuel stocks and storages, that Russia relies on for movement of troops, hardware and ammunition. That depletion of Russian military assets continues.
The figures above do not include the areas where Russia retains superiority; jet fighter air-craft, Su-95 heavy bombers, ships and submarines in the Black and Caspian Seas. However, since February 2022, Russia has lost; 315 air-craft, 310 helicopters, 18 Ships and boats, including the flagship, Moskva.
By this gradual process of attrition of the hardware, equipment, ammunition and {unfortunately, from a humanitarian perspective} Russian military personnel, I believe that many lives, particularly of Ukrainian civilians and military personnel, have been saved.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A few more thoughts on a similar theme to yours, Tord Steiro.
It is possible that the Russians have massive underground or 'in the side of mountain' caches, like other countries, such as Iran are said to have, of military and air-force weapons that they have accumulated over the previous recent years, and can bring out at the "last minute" and spring a very unpleasant surprise. While I do not believe that is necessarily so, I believe that at least some attention must be given to the possibility, so that if the trap is sprung by the Russians, the Ukrainian military will be adequately prepared.
I most certainly hope that the Russians are reduced now, to using older, almost antiquated weapons and transport, such as T55s and T54s. However, I find it difficult to believe that Russia would have allowed their weapon stock to be reduced to that level. That is particularly so, when the one area that the Russians should be least concerned about is the defensive alliance of countries in NATO. Surely, simple logic would not have allowed them to rely, as a last resort on their nuclear weapons. That should be especially so, given that if any of the Russian nuclear weapons were to be fired, Russian targets will receive a barrage by conventional weapons, that will annihilate the targets at which they would be fired. That would occur before the US, the UK, France, Germany or any other country fired any nuclear weapons.
As I was thinking about the possibility of Russia ending up requesting NATO for assistance in their defence, another possibility occurred to me. Such a situation could occur if, ten years ago, Russia decided that taking Ukraine was an all or nothing gambit. They realised that the oil and gas was only going to be a profitable market commodity for a limited number of years, given the push to "go green". So with an ever decreasing income, ageing manufacturing capacity and limited sea ports for distribution of their products, the acquisition of Ukraine, with it resources and the means of distributing products by sea, might have seemed to be a way of solving their dilemma. This situation would mean that they could attempt to take Ukraine and, if unsuccessful, could throw themselves on the mercy of what they refer to as the "west" and I prefer to call the "free world".
In the situation that I have outlined, the Russians could step right up to the point of using nuclear weapons. They would know that there would be no chance of other countries striking their territory. They would also feel safe and assured that no nuclear weapons would be fired unless they did so pre-emptively. At the point where they saw that their weapons had been exhausted and their bluff, in terms of a nuclear weapons attack, had been "called", they would then have to concede defeat and rely on the "free world" for their protection. The Russians would also know that the "free world" would not want to see the uncontrolled collapse of the Russian Federation and would then, in some ways, feel bound by their own concerns {of the "free world"} to support Russia. This could be accomplished by something akin to the "Marshall Plan" that was instituted following the second world war. In this way, the "free world" also has a positive outcome. However, during that time, Ukraine will have had to endure the agonies of war.
2
-
So, it appears that you would prefer to have no comment or discussion of the ideas about current events, including those in Ukraine ?
It amazes me when people object to something, such as channels making comment on current events, yet, then participate in those discussions themselves. It is like someone who objects to newspapers because another person or persons actually profit by the publication of newspapers, and then buying the newspaper to confirm their objection. They might then write to the editor to complain about newspapers that "profit by the misfortune of other people".
If a person does not approve of drinking alcohol, I do not think it is appropriate to go into an hotel and tell everyone about what that person believes to be the faults and failings of others with regard to alcohol consumption. Likewise, I believe that it is inappropriate for someone who objects to YouTube videos, that do not appeal to them on the grounds of content, morality or any other reason, to join a comments page for the purpose of criticizing the presenter or the audience, of which you, #burakcaner8361 happen to be a participating member.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2