Comments by "jeppen" (@jesan733) on "HistoryLegends"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Also Javelins and Stingers after stocks run out: cricket noises"
Russia still can't use mechanised brigades, they just get destroyed. Ukraine has plenty anti-armor: mines, nlaws, javelins, at4, stugna-p, excalibur and more.
"Also adience after Ukrainian loses all bayraktars: cricket noises"
Sure, but Bayraktar did important work early on. And the song was epic!
"Also audience after Russians are adapting and shooting down HIMARS missiles: cricket noises"
Nah, Russians can't do much about them, but sadly the ammo is a bit scarce so Ukraine has to ration it and use only for really high-value targets. But it does still make Russian logistics far harder because they can't concentrate assets within range.
"Also audience after these missiles don't achieve more than 1 success because the Russians can outsmart them: cricket noises"
Yeah, Russia outsmarted Neptune by keeping far, far away in the Black Sea. HARM missiles are still good but for now, I guess the air dominance of the R-37 makes it hard for Ukraine to use them. But they did good work and still makes Russia deploy S-X00 further back, which is good. Other long-range missiles: Storm Shadow still does very good work.
"Gepard, NASAMS, Hawk, Patriot"
These are all good. They aren't being destroyed, they're shooting down almost everything Russia throws at Ukraine.
"Old western MRAPs, APCs, IFVs, MBTs, Also audience when Ukraine loses hundreds of these vehicles: cricket noises"
Well, those are destroyed in the hundreds in Russian propaganda only, as far as we know. Normal people understand that there are losses during offensives, but only captives of Russian propaganda jumps to conclusion based on very little evidence.
"See a pattern?"
Yeah, I see a very clear pattern in your bias.
2
-
2
-
@Seasails-w4q the argument has always been "Russia couldn't allow NATO to place missiles in Ukraine," with the reasoning being the closeness to Moscow shortens the missile travel time. However, the Baltics is roughly as close, so that argument doesn't fly.
I find it bordering on nonsensical that Russia was worried about land invasion. At least before this war, Russia had both the largest artillery arsenal in the world and the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world. So it could stop any invader both through the same artillery lockdown of enemy forces as is in play now, and through nuclear deterrence.
Add to that, that NATO countries have been disarming themselves since the cold war, with even big NATO countries having miniscule armies and as we've seen, too little ammo to even fight a decent war. The US also withdrew almost all assets (both nukes and troops) from Europe and halved its total military since the cold war.
Add to that that NATO is a bunch of complacent traders, not warriors. They want their comfy lives built on trade and democracy to continue, they don't want costly and risky major wars. Germany and continental Europe deliberately made themselves dependent on Russian gas to prove friendly intent.
Also, NATO and the US refused to give Ukraine heavy weaponry before the war to not provoke Russia. Furthermore, Russia could keep blocking NATO membership forever by just keeping Crimea. (NATO would refuse to let anyone join who has territory occupied.)
In no way does Russia's neighboring countries have "extreme" NATO military bases. US/NATO force commitments have been low.
So the idea that Russia felt threatened is completely wrong. It attacked Ukraine out of disdain for Western weakness, not out of fear of Western strength.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2