Comments by "jeppen" (@jesan733) on "Ukrainian Assault Squads HUMILIATE Russian Paras in BAKHMUT" video.

  1.  @Pythoner  "Russia never tried to capture Kiev at all" I've seen you tell this lies several times before. You never tire of yourself? "Afterwards they barely captured anything. Not because they couldn't, but because they realized that destroying enemy manpower while preserving their own men is the greater priority." Yeah, keep coping.
    23
  2.  @ИванФурлетов-в5ы  "Nobody was going to take Kiev." Keep coping and making excuses.
    10
  3. You can dream, rashist, but you can't win.
    10
  4. It wasn't the first time, and Ukraine will just encircle it.
    9
  5. They did, and it's the truth. It's just a point of attrition, less mines and Russian prestige. It's not important in itself.
    8
  6. How do you know?
    5
  7. It's not.
    5
  8. That "victory of Bakhmut" just exists in the Russian propaganda. In the real world, Russia probably lost 3-5:1. For sure, it might have been worth it for Russia since most of its dead were true expendables, but still.
    4
  9. The AFU is bleeding Russia to death to get back Ukrainian territory.
    4
  10.  @Pythoner  as I mentioned to another guy: Everybody who has studied the Kiev offensive know it was for real and aimed at occupation. Russia wasted enormous amounts of VDV and also tried to send in lightly armed police to, well, police Kiev during occupation, POWs confirmed plans, as did tons of other intelligence and analysis of maneuvers. Your denial is funny and your excuses for and rationalizations of Russian incompetence pathetic. Russia literally stopped because it couldn't advance, its columns were sitting ducks and they would sustain even bigger losses if staying.
    3
  11.  @walterbrunswick  it's an empire and its waging a war of imperial expansion, but the result will probably be the second fracturing of the Russian Empire in the last 35 years.
    3
  12.  @Wlados135  "75'000 ukros kia&wia in 6 months." According to Donbass Doug and Ritter the Diddler, who are both always right and not salaried by the Kremlin to lie to you.
    3
  13. Cool, I thought you were solidly pro-Russian, so hat goes off for presenting Ukrainian successes.
    3
  14. This is a common conspiracy theory in many conflicts. Of course Russian disinfo peddles such memes.
    2
  15.  @blazer4999  "History demonstrates that in a war of attrition, the side that is significantly attrited loses. End of." Problem is you trust the Russian propaganda on attrition ratios.
    2
  16. As if the morally stunted pro-Russians with their shovel jokes and dmb emojis are any better?
    2
  17. Bakhmut was an Ukrainian fixing operation, not a Russian one.
    1
  18. You commie?
    1
  19. Exactly. The Bakhmut area is assaulted because it's the easiest target, and also a symbol of prestige for Russia which makes it add troops even when not favorable from a purely military perspective.
    1
  20. Why do you think so? I have seen zero indications that the US forced it.
    1
  21. How do you know its that costly?
    1
  22. The reason is a dissonance between the Russian propaganda narrative of its huge strength and the reality of battlefield developments. The proper way to resolve that is to stop trusting Russian propaganda and realize that Russia is much weaker than it says and that it's actually losing. Then it all makes sense.
    1
  23. What if you're the nazi? Ever thought about that?
    1
  24. Why not 3 million?
    1
  25.  @psymantronic1528  "Well according to their American operators, all of Western Ukraine's soldiers are expendable" That's just you putinists projecting your own lack of morals onto your enemy. "which is why upwards of 300,000 of them have died" The Pentagon leaks (the real ones, not the Russian-doctored ones) had these best estimates by the US intelligence community: Russia: 35,500-43,000 killed, 154,180 wounded, total of 189,500-223,000. Ukraine: 15,500-17.500 killed, 109,000-113,500 wounded, total of 124,500-131,000. Today, these figures may have almost doubled, so that would mean 30,000 dead for Ukraine. Good putinist guess though, perfectly in line with what Donbass Doug and Ritter the Diddler says, so I fully understand where you're coming from. "in a war in which the only beneficiary is America" The moral void needed to consistently strip the victims of Russia's aggression of their agency and desire to remain free and to liberate their lands is a bit hard for me to come to grips with. Anyway, you should talk to some Ukrainians.
    1
  26.  @serjkey8506  OSINT, primarily. A large number of Ukrainian soldiers and various journalists who testified about the insane human waves that they mowed down, many of which were drugged in one phase of the battle for Bakhmut (they stopped doing that in the late stages).
    1
  27.  @markobucevic8991  don't hate me because I don't believe Russian propaganda.
    1
  28.  @walterbrunswick  tell me, what is it about?
    1
  29.  @michaelh878  "How do you think the side with one-tenth of the artillery and no real airsupport is inflicting the most casualties?" 1. Caring for and supporting its soldiers, and not treat them as expendables. 2. Better planning and a more "western" doctrine where soldiers are encouraged to take initiatives. 3. Superior target acquisition and fire precision. Russia farts shells in the general direction of the enemy, or in the general direction where they want to go. That's not very lethal. 4. Probably the one-tenth was only true in certain times and places. Nowadays, Russia's artillery is being genocided by superior Ukrainian counter-battery fire.
    1
  30. Why are so many dutch captives of Russian propaganda?
    1
  31. Make piece, yes. The Russians will rest in pieces as that's how we properly respect Dugin's and Putin's "concerns".
    1
  32. "they're fighting Ukraine that is backed by nearly 40 states that are the most advanced and most wealthy in the world" Yep, so a Russian defeat is virtually guaranteed. "But despite this during the ongoing counteroffensive since June 4 they've only captured around 200 km² which is the most favorable data." Takes time to get through minefields and NATO still has gloves to take off. F16s, ATACAMS, F35s, go-ahead to bomb inside Russia and more. Also, takes time to grind all the Russian equipment as their storage was pretty deep. It's ongoing, but it takes time. "And all this advance had a huge cost in lives and in western equipment." According to Russian propaganda. "Meanwhile Russia in the north has captured more land than the Ukrainians have taken back during the counteroffensive." AFAIK, Ukraine is holding more recently captured land than Russia. "Also note that Ukraine has had around 12-14 mobilizations while Russia only had 1 which extended to reserve personnel, not everyday citizens. " Russia had one big one, but then never stopped mobilizing. Counting them is completely pointless, says nothing about the volumes. "According to the latest data, Russia only spends around 3-4% of their GDP on this war" The US commitment so far is 0.33% of GDP, of which military aid is 0.2% and most of the rest financial. Germany and the UK is similar in terms of total commitment. They're just toying with Russia, sadly. "Consider them but if you think Ukraine is winning and they're some super soldiers while the Russians are just some steppe "orcs" with low ammo and morale, think again." The morale of Russian troops IS pretty low, it seems. And no wonder that the defending democracy has vastly better morale than the aggressor dictatorship.
    1
  33.  @gappuma7883  keep coping. Everybody who has studied the Kiev offensive know it was for real and aimed at occupation. Russia wasted enormous amounts of VDV and also tried to send in lightly armed police to, well, police Kiev during occupation, POWs confirmed plans, as did tons of other intelligence and analysis of maneuvers. Your denial is funny and your excuses for and rationalizations of Russian incompetence pathetic. "They've done a brilliant job tactically tbh" Beyond pathetic. It was so horribly executed, such an epic fail that I don't even know where to begin.
    1
  34.  @Pythoner  HIMARS is far better and remain a game changer. What if it's Ukraine that has reduced the Russia's advantage? Ukraine has huge support from the west and gets increasingly better stuff, while the Russia is mostly out of modern equipment and is scraping the bottom of the barrel as e.g. its artillery is being genocided by superior Ukrainian counter-battery fire. The Russia is still able to put up a good fight but is basically a shadow of its former self. We can't know exactly when the collapse will happen, but the Russia is working on borrowed time.
    1
  35.  @Pythoner  "It's irrelevant what POWs said, and 'intelligence' and 'analysis of maneuvers' brought to you by the Ukrainians and NATO is worth nothing either; it's all war propaganda." Problem is that faced with two realities, you consistently choose the firehose of lies that is Russian propaganda over sensible western info. If you look into the evidence without as much bias, you'll see that the Russia indeed did its very best to take Kiev, with VDV tasked to swiftly capture and assassinate key spots and enemies, while Rosgvardia was sent to police it. I recommend a read of "Preliminary Lessons in Conventional Warfighting from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: February–July 2022". The Russia stopped because it didn't manage to supply its forces and because it met too heavy resistance. It has every intent to capture Kiev and all of Ukraine.
    1
  36.  @a.e6456  "Are you saying Russia couldn't take it? Let's say you're right...." Nuclear bombs"" Couldn't take what? This is a 200-comment discussion so please include context. It seems to me that Putin wants to live, considering how cowardly he lives his life. Thus I doubt he'll use nuclear weapons. Also, superpowers have lost wars before without using nukes. See Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq and more.
    1
  37.  @АлексейПешков-г8ь  "Russia have saved the World by stopping Ukraine joining NATO and prevented the nuclear WW3 conflict in unavoidable offense against Crimea." Russia has saved the world from its own nuclear weapons? That makes zero sense.
    1
  38.  @Cazigan28  we've watched the same footage, but the Russian propaganda and pro-Russians can't live with the fact that Russia failed miserably in the Kyiv Offensive. Thus they have to convince themselves that Russia didn't want to take Kyiv at all. The huge amount of evidence doesn't matter, because Russia must be percieved as strong.
    1
  39.  @rafomic4210  typical example of the reality inversion of Russian propaganda.
    1
  40.  @stopkillinghazaras  Russia is known to stage videos and also will make the absolute most propaganda value out of any collateral damage, both inflating it and misrepresenting it as deliberate. In 2021, exactly 7 civilians died from active hostilities in Donbass on both sides of the front. But today Russian terror bombing of civilians continue every day and thousands have succumbed to it.
    1
  41.  @stopkillinghazaras  "NATO is the oppressor, as an Afghan you make me laugh" If you had acted like Japan, South Korea and Germany did at US occupation, you would have been "oppressed" like them into regional powerhouses outshining your neighbors. But no, what's important to you is poppy cultivation and making sure girls don't go to school.
    1
  42.  @CattoWasTaken  how did you know the western media claims were bullshit before starting to follow Russian propaganda?
    1
  43.  @ub210  "One thing everyone has to realize is that NATO would have to first hit Russian airfields, all at the same time, and destroy every.single.piece.of.AD.equipment.and.long.range.missile." Why would they have to do that? They would fly weeks long air superiority and AD suppression missions. "In the response salvo from the Russians, every single NATO airfield and Patriot battery would be taken out by hypersonic missiles." They don't have sufficient numbers of hypersonic missiles to even do a fraction, currently. And Patriot has proven itself to be able to defend against hypersonics. "Flying missions off aircraft carriers 2,500km away from Kalibers? Those carriers are like sitting ducks!!!" Kalibrs are easily shot down by the carrier groups' air defenses. "No, NATO would very quickly escalate to tactical nukes, first." That makes zero sense. Russia would be conventionally beaten, so it'd be Russia that would resort to nukes.
    1
  44.  @JC-op7qr  yes, I've met him in the comments.
    1
  45.  @chargedx5768  great Russian propaganda there, my friend. Let us know when you've stepped out of the bubble and start to see the world as it is.
    1
  46. Funny how all the Russian mobiks in trenches report they're never rotated, ever. Yet Russia has all these hundreds of thousands behind the lines just chilling and enjoying life. It all adds up, doesn't it? The Russian propaganda is 100% true, but the generals are sadly a bit lazy and uninspired! Btw, when was the last time anyone saw Surovikin?
    1
  47. If it fails, such as the Kiev offensive, it's always just a diversion and not seriously meant.
    1
  48. Go ahead, without using Russian propaganda.
    1
  49.  @WeDieStanding948  "didn't the Ukrainians lose a lot of men holding it as well? Why spend more manpower on something that is just symbolic?" No, they have favorable attrition then and now.
    1
  50.  @skyguy1236  it's strategically useless but less mined and fortified and important for Russian morale, so it's a great place to grind down Russian troops.
    1
  51.  @УДачныйучасток-я1е  hey, armchair general, please use less 'shrooms. It's not good for you, ok? And strange that Russia hasn't won all of Donbass and Odessa too, considering the occupation of Bakhmut opens up everything.
    1
  52.  @blazer4999  "The Ukonasseys could get all the way to the Azov sea and make no difference to the outcome of the war." I'm sure fire control over Crimea wouldn't matter. "Because as we see from their track record they are prepared to take gigantic losses of men and machines." Problem is that this is just Russian propaganda. "Ukraine have taken tiny bits of the security zone. So no gains at all." Keep coping.
    1
  53.  @joket4445  putinists, duginists, rashists ...
    1
  54.  @blazer4999  sadly, you're not fking hilarious. You're all noise, no signal.
    1
  55.  @WeDieStanding948 "do you have a source for accurate casualty numbers?" Well, the Pentagon leaks likely had the US intelligence community's best assessment, probably dating back to February or something like that. Of course Russia immediately released a doctored version but the real leak had the Russia's losses estimated at 35,500-43,000 killed in battle and 154,180 wounded, that is, with a total of 189,500-223,000. Ukrainian losses were estimated to be 15,500-17.500 killed and 109,000-113,500 wounded, for a total of 124,500-131,000 total losses. So favorable attrition for Ukraine at 2-3x more Russian dead and 2x more wounded. No major reason to believe these ratios have changed much.
    1
  56. Russia will probably have to be not only demilitarized but de-duginized and deputinized. But yeah, this is a demographic disaster for both sides.
    1
  57. Dude, don't be rude, he's trying his best to speak English!
    1
  58. Because they don't have the means to do so.
    1
  59.  @joethekinghawk7514  you're trying to adapt reality to your map. It won't work.
    1
  60. There will be peace once Putin is deposed through a coup. Hard to see it end otherwise.
    1
  61. How do you know?
    1
  62. Keep coping.
    1
  63.  @MrLeadb1  I would guess that I'm better at math than everybody else in this comment field. This isn't about manpower, it's about target acquisition and precision. Currently it's clear that Ukraine has superior counter-battery fire.
    1
  64.  @ViolentCabbage-ym7ko  Germany and France are stable. Russia can fall apart at any time and was pretty close at the Prigo mutiny.
    1
  65.  @aceofspades1624  "it's a war of attrition. So just look at the numbers." We don't have them, do we? You probably think you do, but it's made up nonsense.
    1
  66. Funny how you make excuses for Russia in advance, but keep coping.
    1
  67. Russia just wants to hold to the muddy season sets in, and is prepared to take heavy casualties to do it. Then it hopes to again be able to fortify and reinforce a lot until next spring.
    1
  68. Because Donbass Doug said so?
    1
  69.  @ShamanKish  I thought so.
    1