Comments by "PNH 6000" (@PNH-sf4jz) on "Ukraine Strikes Again! Volgograd Refinery in Flames!" video.

  1. Absolutely agreed and supported. 🇺🇦 👍 🇺🇦
    2
  2. Closing the border means blocking an immense amount of trade and commerce that crosses the border in each direction. Simply closing the border completely would have huge economic consequences that would blow back on any person or party instituting such action.
    2
  3. You sound like a typically deluded "Trumpist".
    2
  4. That is quite normal in the case of naval assets that are attacked and sunk. The same applied to the Moskva, and also the Russian landing ship Novocherkassk, that was in port at the time it was attacked and sunk.
    1
  5. Fake Russia, but both the real and fake putins and fake Russia are still dangerous.
    1
  6. Would you care to be more specific with precise details of the "charity program" to which you are referring? No statement in your comment puts you at risk. If your request is genuine, which I doubt, you have no reason not to give those details. My guess is that you are a shill attempting to cast disparaging information, assertions and unsupported innuendo against Jake and some nebulous and probably non-existent charity. {"wesley allen" "Ten Shot Perfect Enterprises". "Shoot Safe, Shoot Straight" Channel details www.youtube.com/@wesleyallen1173 1 subscriber Joined 27 Sept 2018 This channel doesn't have any content"}
    1
  7. Nominal effect. Given that other more significant events, such as the destruction, by Russia, of the NordStream Pipeline have not had more than very short term impact on oil and gas prices. There are sufficient producers in the market to ensure constant levels of supply and therefore price stability. Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, have actually purchased Russian oil for storage. This has artificially reduced supply of Russian oil to the wider market. In this way, costs and returns to different countries can be manipulated. {How do you stabilize oil market? Security of demand must go hand-in-hand with security of supply as a means of achieving market stability, since, without the confidence that predictable, reliable demand for oil will emerge, the incentive to undertake the necessary investments can be significantly reduced.} {The kingdom (of Saudi Arabia) has ramped up fuel oil imports from Russia this year following the European Union's ban on Russian products. Saudi's Russian fuel oil imports hit 2.86 million metric tons for the first half of 2023, exceeding the 1.63 million metric tons for all of 2022, the data showed. 12 July 2023}
    1
  8. In the general sense of Europe funding and paying for their defence, I agree. However, there are two other significant considerations with regard to the US. Those being: 1) the existence of the NATO Defensive Alliance and 2) the assurances given by the US, in conjunction with the UK and Russia, to support Ukraine under the provisions of the Budapest Memorandum. I believe that the US will come through on those assurances and, at the same time, will maintain their integrity within the NATO Defensive Alliance, of which the US was a founding member. Yes, the current political impasse, within the government of the US, has meant that European countries have had to reconsider their own independent and collective positions. That is a question and position that European countries may not have had to, or would possibly not have chosen to address, if the US delay in provision of arms had not occurred. A favourable outcome, I believe, from a rather negative US political situation. "It is an ill wind that blows no-body any good". "Out of adversity comes strength". "Adversity tests our resilience, and with each challenge, we become better equipped to handle future obstacles. By developing resilience, we cultivate a sense of inner strength and confidence that enables us to face adversity with courage and determination. Adversity often acts as a catalyst for personal {and collective} growth. 4 July 2023" Another aspect is that the current political situation in America has given Russia the opportunity to "show their best cards", since the pressure that US provision of arms, would otherwise have imposed, has been reduced. In this respect, the Russians have not faired well against Ukrainian ingenuity, in conjunction with the continued support provided to Ukraine and received from European and other countries. Consequently, in a best case scenario for Russia, Russia has still continued to lose significantly higher numbers and quantities of hardware, including tanks, towed and self-propelled artillery, ships and planes, than the Ukrainian losses. In addition to these land-based, sea-borne and aircraft weapons, the Russians are continuing to lose their economic infrastructure in the form of oil refinaries and other military production resources on Russian territory. These Russian losses are being continued by the use of imported and Ukrainian manufactured drones. The Ukrainians have not simply relied on other countries to supply military hardware and equipment, but have established industries for production and, at the same time, skills in the use of innovative means of response to the overt Russian aggression. These losses, even at a time when the US support is stalled {not stopped}, demonstrates that Russia is far weaker than had previously been supposed. And Russia is becoming weaker by the day, while Ukraine is gaining in strength, in human resources as well as produced military hardware and equipment. Had the WAR, waged by Russia against Ukraine, been fought more quickly and "hotter", it is my belief that far more Ukrainian lives of civilians and military personnel would have been lost and far greater destruction {though that is difficult to imagine} would have occurred. References from which I took general information: -- history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/nato -- NATO Deterrence and defence
    1
  9. Yes you are !!!
    1