Comments by "Ember Fist" (@emberfist8347) on "Overestimated: Ukrainian Army is it good? @TheChieftainsHatch" video.

Polish pilots were amateurs in a sense. They were used flying slow planes that meant you had to fight at far closer ranges than you needed to in something like an RAF Spitfire.
2
The NVA was losing in Vietnam and it was only the backlash at home that got the US to leave. We also spent most of the war fighting Victor Charlie instead of NVA. That plus the tit-for-tat strategy is why America lost.
2
@alexanderbarkman7832 Nope Status Quo ante bellum translation nobody wins.
2
Just a reminder that Russia rarely sends their best stuff when they first enter a war. Also they could nuke Ukraine if they really wanted to.
1
I think the Russian Army is holding back. They are not sending their best tech or best forces yet I suspect as that is Traditionally what Russia does they never sent their latest MTBs to Afghanistan for example to avoid the risk of them getting captured and NATO now having them to study.
1
Yep that is my take. The Ukrainians are limited by their size and their training. Not to mention equipment until recently as they were mostly using old Soviet tech and still do having brought some World War II IS tanks out of retirement.
1
I agree with Nicolas in this point. Ukraine’s military is a okay force with a hella lot of a top of the line equipment.
1
@alexanderbarkman7832 Because of a vocal minority of hippie morons plus frankly idiotic government depiction of the enemy. We spent most of the war fighting the Viet Cong instead of the NVA and back home the two were conflated by the public so they thought the NVA were nothing but farmers with AKs and RPGs. The Tet Offensive showed the NVA had tanks and jets among other things which shocked the public.
1
@alexanderbarkman7832 Nice straw man.
1
@thodan467 So you are ignoring the circumstances behind the US withdrawl being a negoiated cease-fire that every party agreed to? Your logic makes no sense.
1
@thodan467 No that was the result of a violation of the ceasefire two years later.
1
@alexanderbarkman7832 Why do you keep trying to shift the argument away from Vietnam?
1
@alexanderbarkman7832 Vietnam's strength is overplayed. They didn't beat China. The Sino-Vienamese War ended in Status Quo Ante Bellum. In Layman's Terms they just stopped fighting and everything went back as if the war never happened. You also ignore Al-Qaeda is a much stronger opponent because it isn't defined by the boundaries of a nation.
1
@alexanderbarkman7832 No the Vietnamese wanted to take out the Khemr Rogue which they did later. China also claims victory from the status quo ante bellum agreement.
1
@alexanderbarkman7832 No China started the war to give the Khmer Rogue some breathing space and they did.
1
@alexanderbarkman7832 No the Khmer Rouge fell after the Chinese signed the armistice so it is not a defeat for them. They did give them needed breathing room.
1
@alexanderbarkman7832 It was a punitive mission they only wanted to capture the territory to open the road to Hanoi to show they could invade the capital if they wanted to.
1
@alexanderbarkman7832 Yes because Ukraine isn't asking for status quo ante bellum. They want Crimea back too.
1
@alexanderbarkman7832 They just wanted to spank Vietnam for what they did to Cambodia which they did.
1
@alexanderbarkman7832 No they succeeded at their established goal of punitive action.
1
@alexanderbarkman7832 No status quo antebellum. Means you go back to how things were before and nobody gains anything. Did the war of 1812 establish the US as stronger than Britain?
1
@chaosXP3RT Khe Sanh, Lima Site 85 and Operation Rolling Thunder. That is if we are talking about just the NVA, the Viet Cong would significantly expand the list.
1
@chaosXP3RT The battle didn't end in April. The NVA took the base again later that July and got control of the entire region as a result. So no Khe Sanh was a military defeat we lost the base we lost the region, we lost ground.
1