Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "After Kherson: What's next in the war?" video.

@roqsteady5290 I agree. That doesn’t mean a push isn’t worthwhile if it gets them within easy artillery range of the coastal lines of communication. Yes, Russia still has other supply lines, but choking the coast constrains resupply. The Russians maintained supply lines in Kherson,right? But reducing supply by cutting the main ones while constantly harassing and interdicting the others were a major factor in the liberation of Kherson. If your artillery can fire 100 rounds a day, but you’re only getting 50 rounds, your artillery’s effectiveness has been reduced by 50% (more or less, other factors apply). The bottom line is that there is an argument to be made for a southern offensive, even if taking those big cities is out of reach.
6
NATO has been very clear that it will enter the war directly if Russia uses tactical nukes. Furthermore, Russia is well aware that using tactical nukes further unifies the West, not to mention the rest of the world which does not recognize the annexation as legal. I think there are still rational people in the Russian military. They understand that the consequences of using tactical nukes outweigh the benefits of a revenge strike with tactical nukes. Besides, how many Ukrainian soldiers are actually occupying the city itself? A few thousand? I agree that Russia might act irrationally and use such a weapon, but it’s low probability.
3
I’m looking forward to an accounting of the captured equipment. There are reports that very little was destroyed as the Russians left, and they haven’t been able to to move tanks and heavy equipment across the river for the last month and a half. However, I’m sure many heavy appliances were successfully evacuated.
3
@terrysullivan1992 Use of tactical nukes by Russia actually fortifies the Western alliance, whereas Russia wants to weaken the unity of the West, decrease cooperation, and drive wedges between the Western democracies. (I use “West” as an institutional democracy descriptor, not geographical.) Russia doesn’t want to face additional sanctions, nor does it want direct military confrontation with NATO forces, whether in Ukraine or other places of our choosing. Or at least we hope that Russia wants to avoid these consequences. So let us consider the tactical benefits of using tactical nukes. If used offensively, tactical nukes help with breakthroughs. If used defensively, tactical nukes are good for destroying troop concentrations. Tactical nukes are good against infrastructure targets. But in none of these cases will a tactical nuke deliver a knock out blow. So let us hope that Russia maintains some operational rationality, no matter how psycho its internal politics get, because there is no rational reason for Russia to use a tactical nuke.
2
@pacifist9805 It doesn’t hurt to hear a variety of opinions. 4 out of 5 dentists agree.
2
Oh, there was shelling of the retreating soldiers. They didn’t get away Scott free. We just haven’t heard how successful it was.
1
@Princip666 You didn’t read the entire Wikipedia article. Kasumi estimate is conservative. Only a dummy accepts official Russian figures, but even if we accept them, 1,900 soldiers of the assault force (an armored brigade and a motorized regiment) is around 50%. The funniest thing 😂 is that a good deal of the Russian casualties was from friendly fire. It’s not that Russians can’t fight in winter, it’s that they can’t fight, period. Even with a 5:1 advantage, they failed. Apparently a 12:1 ratio is needed. 😂 Once again, you don’t know what you are talking about and continue to spread disinformation. I pity you for your mental weakness.
1
Not quite, if you’re referring to tanks and other heavy equipment. If you’re referring to appliances that can be loaded onto a truck, then yes, they managed to escape with those “heavies”. The crossings via the bridges and barges was not really sufficient to support the weight of tanks and such. The traffic was mainly civilian trucks and cars.
1
@KasumiRINA you might be surprised by this, but oil is not included in the sanctions. European countries still buying oil are not breaking sanctions. Those countries that have reduced consumption of it or cut it completely (mostly Poland and the Baltics) have done so voluntarily.
1
@tamlandipper29 There’s never guarantees, but I have little doubt that the Ukrainians are at least capable of another one or two offensives, likely more if necessary. I think Crimea will be a very tough nut to crack, though.
1