Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "The Collapse of Empires" video.

Well no the Bronze Age collapse involved a number of factors such as invasions into the civilizations present by "Sea Peoples" as well as a number of other factors. The reason why we wonder how it happened is because the main writings we're able to gather and translate are so sparse with the details and so we're left with bits and pieces. This really has no analogy.
2
Not necessarily. They might be able to false flag but losing this badly as the aggressor I'm not sure he has the political capacity to actually properly escalate. And the war will not get any easier on Russia this way as the longer the war lasts the more time the west has to ramp up production and give material. On top of this, single largest transfer of equipment more than that which has been transferred over 6 months turns a military which has been running almost exclusively on manpower into one that's suddenly injected with the equipment they actually need to conduct a war. Remember the Ukrainian military is a RUSSIAN military. Equipment, tactics, etc. They're post Soviet but they were part of the core of the Soviet Union. So they did inherit that style of fighting. They've basically been mixing in western things as needed to comply with their equipment use or what's just seen as more useful doctrinally but they're primarily a Russian army. It's also worth noting that the mobilization will still favor the Ukrainians due to the time it takes. I highly doubt with the state of its military at the start of the invasion that it really does have the capacity to mobilize millions of men in a few weeks. And even if they do, they still need to occupy Ukraine. It really doesn't look good.
2
I really can't see how this is at all American exceptionalism. Problems are thus: Russia is DECIDEDLY losing right now. Russia is requiring the pulling back of all troop commitments regionally and globally. This clearly has consequences with regards to the quiet alliance structures which has made up the world post 1991. And most importantly, he didn't even start with the American consequences but those closest to the area in question. And then moved on to what the US cared about. There's nothing here about the US being the greatest. In fact the US was mostly out of it except for a leash on Isreal which may no longer be held and the ability to probably clear the western hemisphere of that influence.
2
No that would require him to actually win first. If he's still at war where he's trying to win and can't even use troops from that border anyway then it really isn't something he can do anything about.
2
@Danishpolice-potatogod Not necessarily. In real terms the Lukashenko regime is not that of the Russian regime. They are a significant loss but they're not one that either can be defended right now or one which actually endangers the Russian state.
2
this sounds like HOI4 type ambitions lol
1
@wolfsblutgraumond7530 lol just look up HOI4 Turan
1
That's not what defines a superpower and the term came into being in roughly 1950 when the soviets had only been 1 year into the bomb.
1
I kind of doubt it's just tanks. As of September 7th Ukraine had captured 1500 pieces of vehicles (range of MBTs and SPGs to Supply Trucks). Btw those were visually confirmed so that's a floor. And that was near the start. We're another week in and the logs are starting to catch up. On top of this I can't actually find anything that says 350 tanks were transferred over. 230+ T-72 variants were sent by Poland and other allies along with a batch of PT-91 Twarty which hadn't been disclosed. So it seems highly unlikely that it's gotten to even 300 tanks. Thus, 350 captured tanks is very much higher than 6 months of shipments.
1
Can you point the other things?
1
@logman72 A: No it actually wasn't. We've gotten numbers of 1500 vehicles visually reported as captured. And around 350 tanks captured. And the offensives aren't even done yet with the forces across the Dniepro about to be encircled. B: They were not "militarized police" and even if they WERE, it does not matter since they still had all of the equipment and stockpiles from the troops who were meant to be only temporarily reinforcing the South and on top of that the Units who were still there and meant to defend against what was meant to be a decently thin line and not a buildup for an offensive. C: He's not "happy" about it beyond the idea of what was considered a threat to the USA starting to no longer be such. And the things which demonstrate that. Unrelated but I'm a libertarian who's realistic about things. War is necessary. War is important. The idea of there being no war is idealistic nonsense that appeals to the idea that we're post-history and thus it's unnecessary bloodshed. It's a state of mind that is the childlike default of "killing bad thus war bad" as well as the cultural trauma from the world wars that the west is still dealing with. Some bloodshed now can prevent more later. Because a lot of times bloodshed cannot be avoided. And the best way to avoid it is to avoid total war with more limited warfare. It's going to become the norm very soon as well. Make sure to watch.
1
I understand the issue but frankly they're starting to be tallied the stockpiles and they're really big
1