Comments by "Ante Bratinčević" (@antebratincevic6764) on "Anders Puck Nielsen"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The West underestimated Russia, first expecting a collapse after the introduction of sanctions in 2014. The West armed Ukraine thinking that the Russians were ignorant. The Russians knew that according to the plans of the West, Ukraine refused to implement the peace agreements from Minsk, and that the West prepared Ukraine for an attack on the Donbass. In February 2022, it was concentrated about 110000 soldiers in the Donbass from each side and a frontal attack Ukrainians to Donetsk would have ended with many more dead soldiers on both sides and with many more victims among civilians in the city of Donetsk, which before the war had more than a million inhabitants.
The Russians did not make the mistake of WWII and Operation Barbarossa when it was obvious that the German army would enter Russia, but the Russians in February 2022 struck first and created an opportunity for themselves to shape the battlefield.
With these maneuvers, the Russians managed to stretch the Ukrainian army across the south and north of Ukraine and easily occupy certain areas north of Crimea, around Kherson, Kharkov and Kiev.
When the front lines throughout Ukraine were stabilized, negotiations began in Istanbul, which caused the Russians to withdraw from the vicinity of Kiev as a stimulus to the negotiations, which failed due to the cancellation of the Ukrainian side. After the conquest of Mariopol in the spring of 2022, the Russians no longer had the strength to maintain the front and before the Ukrainian offensive they retreated from the right side of the Dnieper and from the city of Kherson and from the vicinity of Kharkov, which means that the Ukrainian offensive in the fall of 2022 was largely successful.
With the end of the Ukrainian offensive, the front line stabilized in the southeastern part of Ukraine, some hundred kilometers from the Russian border and about 1,000 kilometers from the Polish border, where most of the NATO logistics for the Ukrainian army came from. In a few months, the Russians built three lines of defense, the so-called Surovikin line, and the war of maneuver replaced the war of attrition with a much better position for the logistics of the Russian Army.
The Ukrainian offensive in the summer of 2023 completely failed and the war of attrition continued with a smaller advance of the Russian army in the Donbass.
Russians are not that dumb.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelmeenan5522 I don't lecture you, I just asked why you write nonsense, because for me it's nonsense to meddle in other people's wars, that is, to fight for others, because it never ends well. My warfare ended 30 years ago in the former Yugoslavia and don't worry, I know the technology of propaganda before, during and after the war.
My ancestors went to war against the Russians three times in the last 200 years and left their bones in Russian land.
When you talk about the invasion, don't think that the Russians don't know what the invasion is, which they experienced from the Europeans for Napoleon, Austria and Germany in WWI and Hitler during WWII.
Only fools could think that the NATO invasion of Russia would go smoothly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Timrath You blatantly lie.
The embargo on arms sales to Yugoslavia was introduced on September 25, 1991.
The war in BiH means the first killing of Muslims or Serbs or Croats in BiH appeared in 1992, so it is a pure lie that the embargo was introduced so that Serbs or Croats would not kill Muslims. BS. Everything is easily verifiable.
Who are you to judge who was a criminal and who was not in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. What are you, a deity or what?
As I wrote, at the beginning of the war, the US did not allow Croatia to acquire weapons, as, for example, the US actively armed Ukraine from 2015, and that is why the war in Yugoslavia differs from the war in Ukraine.
Furthermore, the US armed Croatia only in the fourth year of the war in 1994 and only after Croatia handed over the Croatian Central Bank to the global mafia. Without American political, intelligence, logistical and financial support, Croatia would not have won the war and when the war in Croatia ended in August 1995, several hundred Serbian civilians were killed months later who had not left their homes where they had lived since birth. These were mostly old and infirm men and women.
That was also a proxy US business, because in 1995 the US had full control over the Croatian Army, just as it now has control over the Ukrainian Army, and this is, for example, one of the similarities between the wars in Yugoslavia and Ukraine.
I do not justify anyone's crimes, those who fought and those who committed them are guilty of that. What is also important is that the Americans and Brits intensively added fuel to the war conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were the ones who brought the Mujahedin to BiH. And then the beheading began in BiH.
I'm not writing this for you. You have no help from the propaganda and false history that has taken over you in order to sell your brains to us who lived through the hell of that war, regardless of which side we fought for.
1
-
@Timrath The borders within the republics of Yugoslavia were determined by the communists (Bosnia and Herzegovina did not even exist as a federal unit in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia) as well as the borders of Ukraine where, for example, in 1954 the Ukrainian Khrushchev administratively annexed Crimea from Russia to Ukraine.
Consider those facts then you can go further.
I was waiting for you there. Nationalities existed even before Yugoslavia and Ukraine. True. And if peoples who belong to their own nations have some rights in Yugoslavia, why shouldn't they have the same rights in Ukraine.
You came to Putin's claims, where Russians are in the majority, that is Russia.
Serbs were the majority in Yugoslavia and they wanted a unitary Yugoslavia, and I don't think that's right either. But why would it be okay for Ukrainians to have a unitary Ukraine as if Russians did not exist in Ukraine.
The Russians only asked for autonomy in Donbas, Ukraine without Crimea, which is Russian anyway and which Khrushchev administratively annexed to Ukraine in 1954, and they agreed to it in the Minsk agreements. The Anglo-Saxons did not allow that to the Ukrainians.
Now the Russians are looking for Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. If the Anglo-Saxons do not agree, the Russians will ask for Odesa and Kharkov.
Going back to the history of warfare and negotiations with the Russians, the first Russian offer was always the best.
1
-
@The_Touring_Jedi I know that the question was not addressed to me, but I will answer you when I am here.
The disintegration of Yugoslavia should be seen in the context of the changes that took place at the end of the 1980s, when the USSR collapsed and the balance of power was disturbed, and then the existence of Yugoslavia was no longer necessary for anyone. In the beginning, the West, or if you want the EU and NATO under the leadership of the US, wanted to swallow Yugoslavia all at once, but it didn't work for many other reasons. When the West saw that it was not going well, it decided to democratize republic by republic, conducting parallel relations with the federal and republican authorities until the point when the west began to finance it, read to control the republics separately. That led to war as West planned.
The West manipulated, when the Serbs had more weapons than the others, the West did not help those who had no weapons until the moment before they were defeated, and only then would the West give them weapons in exchange for obedience. Like in Ukraine today. No one tells Zelensky what to do, but he is given more or less weapons, so he obeys exactly as much as he gets weapons, because without weapons from the West Ukraines only alternative is capitulation. Blackmailed in this desperate situation, Zelenski is ready to do anything, even mobilizing soldiers without limbs or people with Down syndrome.
The West is not the main one who should be blamed for the breakup of Yugoslavia, but also the peoples in their nationally disordered republics. However, the main culprits are the peoples of the nations who all drank the fraud of democracy that they drank through nationalism.
Very similar to Ukraine, where democracy was driven in on the vehicles of Nazism. I must admit that in Ukraine it is as bad as Nazism is worse than nationalism, because nationalism does not necessarily have to be bad in order to be balanced with globalism.
Ukraine failed to be democratized despite George Soros who publicly stated that since the mid-1980s he organized and financed his own open societies in Ukraine. In 2014, Victoria FEU Nuland also publicly stated that since 1991, the US has invested 5 billion dollars in democracy in Ukraine, and we have seen that it was not successful either. The first colored revolution in 2005 failed, but the colored revolution in 2014 succeeded and the coup or regime change succeeded. I am convinced that there would be colored revolutions in Yugoslavia as well until one succeeded, and the uncertainty that Ukraine had from 1991 to 2014 only hindered the development of Ukraine and generated greater and greater corruption. It would be similar in Yugoslavia. We should not mourn for Yugoslavia, because Yugoslavia would also be robbed and betrayed by the same people who did it in the Yugoslav republics. Literally the same people who are ready to lie, steal and kill.
There is a saying in our country who lies, steals, and who steals kills.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinu.k.7042 I didn't write anywhere that I don't want comments on what I wrote. I just want to say how it looks from my environment. If you live in the UK, you can comment on events all over the world, but I don't accept someone telling me what is better for me. Just that.
In the previous comment, I briefly presented the whole picture, and you took one sentence out of the context of what I pointed out to you. That was a remark, and by no means a refusal to accept the comments you are imposing on me.
I also take into account the difference between your mindset and mine.
Again, without qualifying what NATO and the EU and Russia actually are, I can state the bare facts to explain why I am writing what I am writing.
Croatia, where I live, lost fewer inhabitants in the 1991 - 1995 war than in the time since joining NATO and the EU, when it has lost 600,000 inhabitants, both due to a lower birth rate and due to emigration for economic reasons. From around 4,400,000, the number has decreased to 3,800,000 in the last 15-16 years.
Croatia is not the only one, Lithuania is the first country in the EU in terms of population decline after joining the EU. In terms of population loss after joining the EU, Croatia is second only to Lithuania, where there was no war.
I wrote all that because what you wrote is not correct, I am quoting from your comment;
"Also, your part of the world has enjoyed considerable economic benefits from being in the EU and that your country joined NATO and that gets you security and a voice in NATO along with obligations."
The question arises as to what kind of progress and security this is for any country that loses up to 15% of its population in peacetime.
For me and for many people here, the EU and NATO are questionable. It's strange to me that you tell me what I should see and feel.
I will repeat, I can listen to what you have to say, but I simply do not accept all your qualifications and you are free not to accept mine.
Each of your next comments is welcome, if mine passes the censorship of the yt algorithm.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1