Comments by "PNH 6000" (@PNH-sf4jz) on "Russia Can Do NOTHING as F-16s Announced for Ukraine" video.

  1. Normally those wars were fought against people who were, as the Russians say, fighting with picks and shovels. Probably, not literally, but the opponents had no military resources of their own that were a match in terms of the relatively overwhelming capacity and firepower of the Russian weapons against their own. Indeed, it appears that some countries may be reviewing their orders for new weapons, following this WAR waged by Russia against Ukraine, that would have been manufactured and supplied by Russia. The Russian weapons may still be appealing to countries that have significant financial constraints to their budgets and expenditure and, or they expect the weapons to most likely be used to quell internal opposition and uprisings.
    4
  2. Some people, particularly those cheering for the Russian position, are claiming the relinquishing of Bakhmut, by the Ukrainians, as a significant victory for Russia. However, I would offer a few points for consideration in order to bring this "capture" of territory into some sort of perspective. The capture of the place where the city of Bakhmut stood has been referred to as a pyrrhic victory; that is, a victory with little or no value to the "victor" and at a an immensely disproportionate cost in terms of the lives lost to the "victorious" army. "A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Such a victory negates any true sense of achievement or(, it) damages long-term progress. Wikipedia" Perhaps, as said elsewhere, Bakhmut has, in this way, served the Ukrainians well from a military perspective, and protected other towns and cities further away from the front lines. When viewed in relation to the retreats, withdrawals, and routs of Russian forces from Kyiv, Sumy, Kharkiv and Kherson, which some seem to have conveniently forgotten or deliberately overlooked, the location of Bakhmut was always of relatively little value except, possibly, to the people who once lived there. There certainly appears to be nothing of value to the victors where the city of Bakhmut once stood. In fact, it may even be considered a liability and a sponge for resources. All these retreats occurred despite Russians and their insurgent and insurrectionist, so-called "separatists", holding Crimea and much of the Donbas region since 2014. POPULATIONS: Bakhmut Population: ~70,000; Kyiv Population: 2.884 million ‎(2017) Kharkiv Population: 1.419 million ‎(2017) Kherson Population: 289,697 (2017); Sumy Population: 264,753 (2017) ** KYIV, ** 4 April 2022 With heavy losses and the inability to make further progress, Russia withdrew its forces from Kyiv and Zhytomyr oblasts in April 2022, and Ukrainian forces retook control. Kremlin officials have announced plans to withdraw troops from the Kyiv region in what is widely being seen as tacit recognition of Russia’s failure to seize the Ukrainian capital. The Russian retreat from Kyiv is the strongest signal to date that Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine War is not going according to plan. Speaking on March 29, and in an apparent attempt to spare Putin’s blushes, Fomin said the move was aimed at “increasing mutual trust, creating the right conditions for future negotiations, and reaching the final goal of signing a peace deal with Ukraine.” What an absolute parody of the real situation that Russia had created and continues to pursue. ** SUMY, ** 4 April 2022 The Battle of Sumy was a military engagement which began on 24 February 2022, during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, as part of the Northeastern Ukraine offensive, and ended on 4 April 2022 when Russia withdrew all of its forces from Sumy Oblast.] ** KHARKIV, ** 13 September 2022 Russian forces have been 'ordered to retreat' from Kharkiv and the advancing Ukrainian troops, as some Russians leave weapons behind in ‘apparent panic’. The Russian troops are to focus instead, on defending their position in the eastern Donbas region, according to western intelligence sources. Ukrainian forces have reclaimed more than two thousand square miles of territory as they continue their counter-offensive, the country’s president Volodymyr Zelensky said on Tuesday, regaining key locations in the Kharkiv region. ** KHERSON, ** 9 November 2022 After Russian troops seized Kherson in March, they were ordered to retreat from Kherson in face of Ukrainian advance. Loss of the only regional capital captured by Moscow since invasion began will come as significant blow to Vladimir Putin. The retreat occurred only weeks after a high-profile ceremony in Moscow in which he announced the “forever” annexation of the Kherson region, along with three others. Even before they pulled off their jaw-dropping counteroffensive in the northeastern Kharkiv region, Ukrainian troops had thrashed Russian forces in the Kherson region 600 kilometers to the southwest, aided by powerful and precise Western weaponry. The powerful and precise weaponary, that Ukraine has in inventory and available within other countries, has increased massively in quantity and qualitative value since November last year. While I do not think it is possible to accurately evaluate what is Russia's present military strength, their strength is, most likely now, significantly less than it had availavble in the fourth quarter of 2022. While Ukraine's capacity is increasing, I believe that Russia's capacity is decreasing at an unsustainable rate. 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 VICTORY for UKRAINE 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 A short hypothetical essay. The Russians may 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. It may be intended to bring this military hardware out at the "last minute" and spring a very unpleasant surprise. While I do not believe this 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 and their supporters will be adequately prepared. I most certainly hope that the Russians are reduced now, to using older, almost antiquated weapons and transport, such as T55 and T54 tanks. 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 about which the Russians should be least concerned, in reality {not their imaginations}, 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 military targets at which they would be fired {as distinct from the civilian areas that the Russians attack with air and ground launched missiles and artillery rounds}. That conventional weapons barrage would occur before the US, the UK, France, Germany or any other country, apart from Russia, ever 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, about ten years ago, Russia decided that taking Ukraine was an all or nothing gambit. They realised that their 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 its 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" which I prefer to call the "free world" {More inclusive}. In the situation that I have outlined, the Russians could step, militarily, right up to the point of using nuclear weapons. They would know that there would be extremely limited chances of other countries striking their territory. They would also feel safe and assured that no nuclear weapons would be fired unless the Russians did so pre-emptively. At the point where they saw that their conventional 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 {possibly from the Chinese}. The Russians would also know that the "free world" would not want to see the uncontrolled collapse of the Russian Federation. Those “free world” countries 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, in Europe, 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. 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 VICTORY for UKRAINE 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
    1
  3. Presumably, "Ls" means "lessons".
    1