Comments by "Andrei Lukyanov" (@andreilukyanov4286) on "Grid 88"
channel.
-
@billgere5293 Tell you what, I've been watching media since mid-90ees, and here in the former USSR (back when I lived there) we had the Radio Liberty, financed by USA. Since 90ees virtually ALL their information politics was to support litterally every single Ru immediate enemy or any anti-Ru movement. Kinda tells you what it is all about.
Now about USA. I personally love USA and have Americans in my immediate family. I wish USA to become prosperous and united as it was in 60ees. What it seems to me, that it all goes to hell. Republicans turned populist and rely on all kinds of fascist elements to get to power, the corporate Dems are completely supporting the holy cow of top 1% US economical elites and their interests and use FBI and deep state to undermine Republicans.
USA is divided than EVER: less and less bipartisan working together, and regular Americans blue and red aren't even talking to each other. In these conditions, the US foreign policies are becoming more and more erratic (basically turned for an internal consumer, instead of promoting peace and cooperation): latest idiotic visit of Pelosi in Taiwan, US has huge business interests in China, and Pelosi is pissing China off.
To me, the good guys in USA are Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren: these guys defend the real interests of the majority of regular Americans, but corporate Dems by all kinds of internal manipulations keep kicking them aside of the political life.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelcollins4338 I think that your comparison: German tank vs Soviet tank is very limited. It's tactically correct but strategically wrong.
You have 3000 km front, thousands of formations and millions of soldiers on both sides which you will have to equip with tanks. You don't have a Soviet tank facing a German tank like two knights. That happened but rather rarely. What was much more pervasive is German units (squads, platoons, regiments etc) facing Soviet units, were both are equipped with tanks.
Germany, having an industry more powerful than the Soviet one, made a choice to produce a better quality and more advanced tanks, but relatively limited quantity of them, because they are expensive, slow to produce and difficult to move to fronts. Soviets had made a choice to produce a very standardized, easy and fast to produce, but still reliable and effective tanks which are not match of a German Tiger, but can effectively accomplish a wide variety of battle tasks. As a result, you have all Soviet units on the very large front, equipped with a sufficient quantity of tanks, fighting German units, some of which aren't equipped with tanks at all (or equipped with very outdated tanks) and having Tigers and Panthers only on some strategically important places. And that's how you will create holes larger then Nebraska in your front. And get your asses wooped.
So 1 Tiger vs 1 T-34 the outcome is evident. But millions of your soldiers with 500 Tigers vs millions of enemy soldiers with 5000 T-34 on the 3000 km front? I don't know. The German industry was far stronger than the Soviet industry also Germany had virtually all Europe working for them. So how did they have their entire units having so small amount of tanks? Maybe a poor strategic choice?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billgere5293 "Second you do realize RU is losing this war thanks mainly to US weapons and tech right"
OK, how does Ru lose the war if:
1) They capture city after city in Ukr and are advancing, while Ukr is loosing ground? And unlike Afghanistan, resistance to Ru in these cities is virtually nonexistant.
2) The Ukr army was defending Mariupol FROM Mariupol (as well as many other cities). What the living hell on Earth did the Ukr army do in Mariupol? Weren't they suppose to fend Ru off the cities full of Ukr civilians, their houses and infrastructure? Why couldn't they just go in the field, face the Ru army face to face and defeat it, instead of hiding in civilian buildings, inside Ukr citizen's houses? Seems like they didn't do it because they couldn't do that. The Ukr army had gotten itself beaten up in the field and only THEN they decided that it's easier to stand your ground when hiding themselves among civilians.
3) Ru had captured most of the Ukrainian South and now is organizing referendums to incorporate all the South, chunk by chunk into Russia permanently. AKA cutting Ukraine permanently from Black Sea.
" RU is losing this war thanks mainly to US weapons"
I wouldn't be so sure. I may be wrong but that sounds like a US hardware corporate marketing (don't ever underestimate it). Not that the US weapon is not good, it is very good, but if you have a battle where 4000-10000 artillery are participating and US delivers 50 artillery, it will be a drop in the ocean. Absolute majority of weapons we see in Ukrainian videos are Soviet made.
The only thing I can say is NLAW or Javelins. But how strategic is their impact I don't know. You might say: these destroyed many Ru tanks and you will be correct, but how many out of all are destroyed by Javelins and how many by other means? Also nobody says that Ukr had lost just as much if not more tanks than Ru, without Ru having any Javelins at all.
Look at the Soviet war in Afghanistan. USA delivered Stingers. Up to TODAY, 40 years later, people cannot say how large was the effect of them. Some say serious, some say: purely political.
1
-
@billgere5293 "crazy leader who wants the former Soviet Union countries back"
I would like to discuss that in a separate post. AKA how crazy is Putin.
First, I'd like to be clear: I was born in USSR, but not in Ru and I had never been the Ru citizen. I had never lived in Ru.
Second, I'm not an expert, but don't you think that since the Cold War the whole intention of the West was to make the Soviet block collapse, then to make USSR collapse, then to make Russia fall apart on smaller republics to control its ressources?
It seems to me that after the collapse of the USSR, all what the West is doing is to methodically support every single enemy of Ru, first surrounding it from all sides, and then to support the forces inside the Ru to make some kind of a civil war inside it. Look:
1) Wars in Yugoslavia: the West collectively supported enemies of Serbs (Ru friends): Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnian Muslims, Muslim+Croat coalition, then Kosovo Albanians. Basically anybody but Serbs. Because they are Ru friends.
2) The War in Moldova, the West supports obviously Moldova cuz Transdnistria are Ru friends.
3) War in Karabakh: the West supports Azerbajan, because Armenia are Ru friends.
4) Both wars in Georgia: the West supports Georgia obviously because its ethnic minorities autonomous republics are Ru friends.
5) War in Ukraine: the West obviously supports Ukr vs Ru.
6) The West always supported the least "patriotic" and the most destructive forces inside Ru who were eager to sell out all to the West. Basically methodically supporting Ru own little trumps.
7) Finally both wars in Chechnya: the West heavily criticizes Ru for its actions to defend its own territorial integrity (just like today's Ukr does), tying its hands and putting sticks in its wheels.
Now, surprise: many of previously mentionned Western actions were made BEFORE Putin even came to power.
What it seems to me from what I see: since 1950ees all the West was doing is methodically acting against any Soviet and later any Ru interests EVERYWHERE in the World. With the agenda to make Ru collapse. I don't know why it is so, nor am I sure in what I'm saying. All I'm saying that IT SEEMS TO ME that it is so.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Is Putin corrupt? Yes. Is his circle corrupt? Yes. But even a corrupt leader at one moment will get pissed off when behind Western polite smiles and handshakes there is a methodical agenda to undermine your interests everywhere. Eltsin (the Ru pres before Putin) was democratic and pro-Western end EVEN HIM got pissed off at the West at the end of 90ees, when it became clear what the West is doing.
1