Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Ukraine’s Spring Offensive Explained" video.

It seems to me Mariupol might actually be an interesting target. 1) on that map shown there appear to be fewer defenses in that direction. 2) you'd cut off a much larger area that needs to be supplied by that one bridge, putting even more pressure on those forces and potentially more forces out of the fight if you can fully cut the supply lines (destroy/damage the Crimean bridge). 3) Melitopol might be pretty unscaved with how quickly it fell early in the war. Attacking it directly might cause Russia to turn it into a defensive hardpoint, like Ukraine has been doing, likely causing huge destruction to the city and difficulty for Ukraine. A siege is ofcourse possible, but also manpower intensive and time consuming. 4) Driving a wedge there might also directly threaten the Donbas, forcing Russia to divert even more troops there and potentially opening other opportunities in the north like what happened with Kharkiv. Obviously I am not fully aware of the sitation, it might be that logistics will be a problem, or that the defenses are greater than it seems or ... but it might also be more unexpected than the currently discussed options (obviously).
120
@hiufgterde Except we generally heard the opposite, with Russian recruits having poor equipment (even needing to buy a lot of the basics themselves), with Ukrainians getting better supplied. Likely it will be about even, though if Ukraine get a lot of basic necessaties in regards to equipment from the west, it could be better than old soviets equipment.
10
@festekj (1) Ursula saying more than 100k in November (2) high ranking Ukrainian official who said 200K These are total casualties, ie. killed and wounded. Around the same time of these mentioned numbers, the estimation of Russian casualties was of a similar number. (3) Russia artillery superiority 10-1 Russia hasn't held such an advantage in a long time, not it is barely 3/2 to 1. This is confirmed by essentially all sides, even high ranked people on the Russian side complain about that decrease in artillery power.
6
@festekj It was corrected later and part where she said 100k killed was taken out. She was meant to say 100k killed and wounded. So no, she didn't say 250k total.
5
@festekj It was corrected by a statement from the EU later. There really isn't any argument about this. Von der Leyen acted as a spokeperson from the EU, she made a mistake and the EU corrected this with a later statement and edited out the wrong part. I don't know why you keep hammering this point, it doesn't support what you said.
4
@hiufgterde Russia is of the biggest arms manufacturers in the world This is complete bullshit, Russia isn't even in picture in this regard. Maybe in the soviet era, yes. The US arms manufacturer is around 3 times bigger and while Russia is 2nd, France and Germany together already equal it. There is only 1 Russian company in the top 15 arms companies, and it is at the bottom of the list. but somehow we say they only have old crap Yep, because Russia hasn't really been creating "new" stockpiles of modern equipment, mostly keeping their old soviet stockpiles. So if they want to quickly equip many new units, they need to grab that older equipment. The current Russian arms industry is focused on export and limited modernisation, while for example the US is mainly focused on keeping it military modern and exports are just an extra addition. They watched NATO sending in weapons to Ukraine for 8 years. NATO barely send any weapons before 2022. Only Lithuania send military equipment to Ukraine in that timeframe. That is one of the main miscalculations of Russia, they didn't expect that NATO nations would react so unified in coming to Ukraine's aid after the 2022 invasion. Russia never starts a war it cannot win Except they have in the past. and they knew they'd also be fighting NATO. Not at all, since Ukraine isn't a NATO member and NATO's response to the annexation of Crimea and actions in the donbas in 2014 was very weak and completely disunified. We said they only have old missiles and they would run out soon. Well that was a lie. People also said Ukriane would fall in days and her we are. You can be wrong about some things. Though Russian missiles attacks have been decreasing in the past few months and them resorting to using Iran made suicide drones isn't promising about the size of their missile arsenal. Not to mention using anti-air defense missiles to strike ground targets instead. and the ones they have using so far are only the basic ones. Yeah, because they don't have many of the more expensive/special ones, which they need to keep on hand just in case. Not wasting it on some pretty meaningless infrastructure bombardment. They have missiles we cannot match over in Europe. That is a claim from Russia, yes. However there isn't any proof that they have those, definitely not in meaningfull numbers. If they wanted to they could level every Ukrainian city easily Only with nuclear missiles, which would completely isolate them on the worldstage, even China would be in complete condemnation and think about joining sanctions. No one wants to allow nuclear weapons to be normalised. They have the best air defense system in the word as well, a 3 tier approach copied by many other countries. One the Ukrainians have now repeatedly got past, though obviously not with big numbers or such. Also pretty useless having the best air defense system against an oppenent with essentially no usable air- or missileforce Brand new tanks, brand new armored cars etc etc. The manufacturing capacity of Russia regarding tanks is pretty well know, it isn't even enough to replace a fraction of what they already lost. Most "new" tanks are formerly mothballed tanks put back in operation. It's not for free. Most equipment has been, though some loans were also given. And in any case these likely will either be dismissed or the seized Russian assets might even be used to repay it. we said HIMARS was a gamechanger It truly was. It hampered Russian logistics greatly, destroyed a lot of shells otherwise used to bombard Ukrainian lines, took out several command posts and troop concentrations and especially in Kherson it was instrumental by damaging the bridges in such a way Russian units on the west side couldn't be properly supplied anymore. then it was the Patriot system Never really was a gamechanger, at best it helps protect vital area's against missile attacks, but it would never have changed the course of the war. The game changer in this was only that it formerly was rejected, so supplying it meant another step towards pledges of other equipment, like tanks and maybe eventually planes. now it's the Leopard tanks again. It is a gamechanger in a certain perspective. It is more modern tanks than what Ukraine currently has and its addition can help in the creation of a stronger offensive force, whereas Ukrainian tanks currently are used to keep the line. Moreover it again is the step towards further aid. If the US wishes (and prepares Ukraine) it can send hundreds upon hundreds of (pretty) modern Abrams to Ukraine (it has around 3000 in storage). Russia has the same if not better equipment 🤣 that is a quite naive comment. Russia has destroyed their equipment 4 times over already Do you not realize how that sounds? How can Russia already destroy their equipment 4 times over? Not to mention doing so without making any real gains. We're trying to prolong this war, not actually help Ukraine to win it. Then we should do much much more. Yes and no. We are definitely helping them first with keeping their ground, but also definitely to win. Though we can do a lot more to speed up the process towards Ukraine winning. This is even a complaint at the highest political circles, but as always things are a bit more complex than one thinks.
1
@J-IFWBR Russian shelling has decreased heavily overtime, even causing more and more Russian soldiers to complain about it and them having to do better recon before shelling a place. This is a clear indication Russia too can't keep up with the usage and this while they should still have huge stockpiles from the soviet era they are using up. Meanwhile the west is starting to look into increasing their own production and can buy from other nations around the world with significant stocks and production (like South Korea). It just needs some time to get all supply chains and budgets going.
1
@shwabb1 Correct, didn't consider it was already part of Donbas, I was more thinking of the important central area of Donbas that was in non-government hands since 2014 😉
1
@leighharveycabatic8791 1. To get to melitopol you also will have to punch through strong defences, in fact that likely is the case over nearly the entire front now. But often the defense lines don't seem too deep. If that is the case, once you punch through you could quickly take a lot of ground if you can move fast enough (which is where western mobile equipment (like the bradleys, tanks, ...) comes in. 2. Obviously breaking through established defenses isn't easy, but you'll need to get through it eventually else we're just in a stalemate. Not sure what you are pointing at regarding Tokmak. 3. The partisan movement can be a help and a reason to focus on melitopol, however the presence of these civilians can also be a hindrance, with Russian troops potentially using them as human shields. The distance between the existing frontlines and Melitopol and Mariupol is more or less the same, though Melitopol has more roads going to it (but also heavily defended and potentially dangerous for advancing). But yes, both have advantages and disadvantages. If that wasn't the case, the best target would have been clear to everyone know.
1