General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

jeppen
Anders Puck Nielsen
comments

Comments by "jeppen" (@jesan733) on "Anders Puck Nielsen" channel.

@TheErazar thanks Ivan for trying to sow division.
166
Swede here. I really love our JAS fighter jet, but we tried to give a big batch to Ukraine but the US vetoed it. I'm really annoyed about this tbh. Apparently a number of components including engines that are US-made. Yes, we could design our way around it, and we should. And perhaps we can just disregard the US' will now. But for now it's a problem.
55
Thanks, great perspective, helped me at least understand better what has happened! Btw, I'm a very reasonable centrist, anti-conspiracy-theory-minded, and I find youtube automatic comment moderation absolutely horrible and frustrating. It's really hard to discuss anything at all because the auto-moderation is so harsh. I have no idea if even this comment will survive or be shadow banned.
55
@DavidGitongawriter the Kherson exit, the Kupiansk sprint and the Kursk incursion says otherwise. Ukraine can clearly take territory. Also, the Kremlin could collapse and then it's pretty likely the army will just retreat.
49
@BronnBlackwater perhaps Russia should have tried to fix demographic decline, low birth rates and bad economic outlook in some other way than starting a war that exacerbates those same issues.
25
@dainisboumber6030 one inch per day, will reach Kyiv in 1300 years.
21
We do exaggerate Russian weaknesses, but the weaknesses are there and Russia is by no means invincible. We continue to not give Ukraine full support to win this war and eject the Russians. One example is the very slow pace in providing western air capabilities and e.g. ATACAMS, another is that we forbid Ukraine to use our ATACMS and similar to target Russian soil.
19
@Princip666 I see from your many comments that you're immersed in ru disinfo.
18
@SaikaAnida are to telling me Trump is grounded in history? That's truly laughable. Is that why he's suggesting taking over Canada and Gaza?
17
@jabezhane I would say as a taxpayer, we've steadily been getting richer since the industrial revolution began. This war is not a significant cost for the western powers. E.g. for a US that spent 6%-ish of GDP during the cold war to counter and contain Russia, now spending 0.3% to truly grind down the Russian army is mindboggingly cheap.
15
@pedritochocolate4094 he has said he could accept continued occupation and relegate it to diplomacy to get them liberated eventually. I don't think he can accept a deal where the occupied territories are internationally recognized as Russian.
13
Where is the population advantage coming from? Europe is 744m, but that includes Russia, Belarus, Turkey, Serbia, Georgia and Kazakstan. Sure Turkey is part of NATO, but let's assume it stays on the sidelines, and Russia draws from at least Belarus and occupied territories. Then it's 160m vs less than 500m, so it's 3:1 in Europe's favor, not 6:1.
12
@ByZHellas ok, Ivan.
11
@hyhhy you frogs said Russia would easily proceed from Bakhmut once that was taken, but Russia did not. You say the same about the counteroffensive now. Btw, Ukraine wasn't trying to keep Bakhmut. They optimized attrition ratio through elastic defense, methodically retreating a street at a time in most cases. And also they kept Russia busy before the counteroffensive. Sadly Russia had enough resources and enough desperation to throw up gigantic minefields while battling for Bakhmut.
10
@evgeniya7853 the Minsk agreements stated that foreign military should exit Donbass. Putin refused, and he refused to let his puppets execute on the other parts of the agreement as well.
9
@angeurbain6129 the western economies have pretty much realigned after the initial supply chock of sanctions against Russia, so it's ceasing to be a problem. The direct cost to the western world is very, very low for supporting Ukraine. However, Russia having an interest rate approaching 20%, increasing repression and wasting a thousand men a day on the front lines is obviously not sound economics. Eventually the palianytsias are going to wreck Russian electricity production and gas distribution as well, so the winter of 2025/2026 in Russia will be cold and dark indeed.
9
@rosenleshtarski472 this war was meant to be won by Russia, because Russia initiated it with that goal and expectation. The west expected that to happen as well, but Ukraine performed better than expected and Russia worse than expected. The west didn't want this war, but when it was forced upon them, the leading governments have tried to contain it but haven't provided Ukraine overwhelming capabilities, fearful of Russian escalation beyond Ukraine if it loses quickly and decisively.
9
@jabezhane the only way for taxpayers to be angry at this is if Russian propaganda convinces them to be angry. It's not a significant cost so taxpayers shouldn't complain about it. Also, it's such a moral and geopolitical slam-dunk to continue supporting Ukraine that people need to be seriously out of touch to vote against it.
8
@Princip666 you exemplify pro-Russian maturity.
8
@glintongordon6811 fact remains that pro-Russians talked about Bakhmut being strategically important as the most fortified place and that it would be smooth sailing thereafter, but Russia is pretty much stuck still.
8
@hyhhy Russia first failed at maneuver warfare and got ejected from Kiev and Kharkiv. Russia was then outsmarted in the Kupiansk sprint and later dislodged from Kherson and kicked across the Dniepr. Its navy was defeated despite Ukraine having no navy, and they had to retreat in desperation to the furthest reaches of the Black Sea. Russia desperately tried to take Bakhmut and eventually got it as Ukraine just used it as a meat grinder. Russia then desperately mined to the extreme to avoid being overwhelmed by Ukraine's offensive, and also desperately blew up the Khakovka dam in order to free up forces to counter the counteroffensive. And now Russia desperately tries to exploit a short lapse in the resolve of US congress by throwing meat waves of drugged-up expendables at Avdiivka. It's all so incredibly pathetic, but sure, let's say I'm the one coping.
8
@jabezhane the US has provided approximately $44 billion in military assistance since February 24, 2022. This is over 654 days, giving an average of just 25 billion per year. As you know, the US defense budget is $800 billion. Thus spending 25 billion on Ukraine is extreme value for money, and it's just 0.11% of GDP. Any US president in post-WW2 history, probably even Trump, would do the same, because it's simply a slam-dunk from both a moral and geopolitical perspective. Furthermore, the spending is in equipment that will be replaced by US manufacturing, which is strengthening a too-weak US military industrial base while providing well-paying jobs in the US. Considering money clearly isn't the issue, what is? That you feel loyalty to this "movement" you're talking about? That you've said it's about money so many times that you can't back down?
6
@ailinofaolin8897 the Russian blitzkrieg toward Kiev was stopped, and that's why Russia was willing to negotiate and withdraw under the guise of goodwill. The Kharkiv offensive was a rout on the part of the Russian military, including the best units Russia had, and they lost lots of equipment and people while Ukraine lost hardly anything. The only thing you're right about is that it was the least defended part, because Russia had been tricked to spend their resources on Kherson, which they eventually lost anyway. Do you truly believe the Russian propaganda that you're reproducing? If so, I feel a bit sorry for you.
6
@petermomanyi529 "Nato countries even deposed a pro-russian government and imposed a pro-western one." NATO did not. Denying Ukrainian agency is typical Russian propaganda. The Revolution of Dignity was the culmination of the indigenous Euromaidan protests.
6
@michaelotieno6524 the Eastern front has not collapsed. Not sure it's been downhill, really. Russia has grabbed 0.5% of Ukraine since then, but at a cost that is clearly not worth it. The issues are mounting for Russia.
6
@jabezhane everyone serious, knowledgeable and responsible say what I say. It's not time to move on, it's time to stop playing politics and support freedom, democracy and US interests. It's time to stop lying about it being expensive. It's time to stop aligning with Russian propaganda. Come back from the dark side. You've spent enough time there.
5
Great reflection, but this was on how an interview could be much better and more beneficial for the west, and this was never in the cards. Probably Putin recorded it all and then handed Tucker the tape, and he wouldn't have if it was disastrous. My reflection is that the interview could've been so much more damaging if Putin had been better prepared himself to press on Western painpoints, exacerbating the lack of trust we have in our own institutions. Instead it was this rambling, boring stuff about history and so forth that won't leave much of an impression. And this in turn is evidence that Putin is winging it to a large degree. He's not taking help from his team of experts in influence operations, for some reason.
5
@bugsygoo unless the US killswitches our F35s.
5
@johnadam2885 the Afghanistan engagement took up political and military bandwidth. Also progress in nation-building was perceived as slow. Also populist framing was increasingly that we have no business there and that the costs are too high, even though they weren't that high. So it was politically expedient to exit. Americans are polarized and divided for a lot of reasons, but none of them is that Ukraine support is truly expensive. It's not. But in populist rhetoric it is. Populists nurture a culture of taking pride in selfishness and reckless ignorance. People conflate budget deficit and printing dollars. It's not the same thing, and the problems are vastly overblown. There's no significant de-dollarization, and the US didn't incite the war in Ukraine. Quite the opposite, and frankly that was part of the problem. A criminal isn't provoked by the police, but by the absence of, or weakness of, the police.
5
Why wouldn't he root for the small democratic defender over the bigger fascist invader? Everyone of healthy mind does.
5
@black_triton9264 yep, normal inflation. It has come down, the stats are in. Sorry. putinist, but that's just facts.. E.g. in Europe, the average volume-weighted electricity prices have halved in 2023 compared to in 2022.
5
@wyskass861 Gripen integrates the long-range Meteor air-to-air missile. That's probably better than the AMRAAM, helping with standoff attrition against Russia's R-37 missile.
4
@angeurbain6129 in the 60-ies, defense spending was 8-9% of GDP. Now it's 3.5% with a 0.2% of GDP add-on for supporting Ukraine. This does not stop the US from balancing the federal budget, nor from supporting its communities. Also, the deficit is financed by borrowing, not by printing money. The dollar as reserve currency is not threatened in any way.
4
@gags730 what was it you didn't understand? Explain.
4
He might not see that as a deal-breaking problem.
4
@Princip666 very clever. Obviously I made a judgement based on the contents of your many posts, not their numbers. You're clearly supporting Ru disinfo narratives, so either you're paid, a s-dist tr-ll or a useful idi-t. I'm trying to be charitable, so I'm assuming the latter, thereby "immersed in Ru disinfo".
4
@johnadam2885 the US could easily afford staying in Afghanistan, and can very easily afford supporting Ukraine. In fact, it's far cheaper to support Ukraine than to contain Russia through ordinary US military spending.
4
@AlexKarasev ">"The west didn't want this war, but when it was forced upon them" On which evidence is this view based?" The evidence is that the US virtually withdrew from Europe after the cold war, refused to send Ukraine any heavy weaponry before the war to not provoke, refused to give Ukraine any means to take back occupied territories before the war, that Germany and large parts of western Europe continued to make itself consciously energy dependent on Russia while having merely symbolic defense spending. Also, the west desperately negotiated before the war, which Putin did not respond to in good faith. And the west offered Zelensky a ride, expecting Kyiv to fall. If the west had wanted this war, don't you think they would have had prepared for it? Russia attacked exactly because we had not prepared for it.
4
Yeah, shovels. Pro-Ru people laughing at the same unfunny joke for 2 years straight. No tism there, nosiree.
4
@glintongordon6811 the Wagnerites in Africa are mostly not Russians but local mercenaries. I'm not surprised that from Prigozhin's perspective only 50% of his men were injured, because he only counted his paid real mercenaries, not the much larger volumes of cannon fodder prisoners.
4
@markbryant4641 Putin thanks you for your propaganda efforts.
4
@ИринаЛукьяненко-ь3ъ "Keep dreaming Russia has hundreds of petrol refineries" And all of them will come off-line because of destroyed fractioning columns.
4
@ИринаЛукьяненко-ь3ъ Russia is not too big. Drones are long range and can also be smuggled in to be launched from inside Russia.
4
@dr-rexmangrca113 dude, we don't have hyperinflation, not even close. It's 2.4% on an annual basis in November, so almost back to normal.
4
@runethorsen8423 the US has basically halved its spending on defense/containing geopolitical threats since the cold war, so the spending is not ridiculous in a historical context. In fact, recent events have shown that the US (and Europe's) spending is way too low. And supporting Ukraine is VERY cheap in relation to overall military spending, yes. There's nothing free about letting the global security order collapse. The idea that the Ukraine war is a "local border dispute" is disingenuous at best. The Ukraine war is Russia crushing the global security order, attempting to collapse NATO and moving 40+ million from the category of European democratic citizens to Russian cannon fodder for the next war. There's nothing "free" about letting a new age of Empires replace Pax Americana that has locked borders since WW2. You say "your entire economy is hinged on military spending abroad". No, it's not. That's why I'm pointing out it's incredibly cheap. Supporting Ukraine is 0.1% of GDP. There's no war economy, and that's evident from how Ukraine is not easily winning. If 1 billion rich people in the west would truly mobilize resources to beat 140 million poor people, then Russia would be quickly evicted. But the US and Europe run complacent peace-time economies. No, 25 billion couldn't be spent better. This is the first thing the US should spend on, not the last.
3
@jantzfitzgerald6115 artillery rounds were more important early on. Now drones is the leading killer. How do you know Russia is outproducing Ukraine in drones, and why do you smile at the idea that the fascist aggressor is outperforming the defending democracy?
3
@michaelotieno6524 correctly so. NATO expansion has prevented Russia from e.g. waging war in the Baltics.
3
@Princip666 fact remains, and as I pointed out, people see it.
3
@AlexKarasev "The cost of the war in Iraq exceeded $3T" The US has allocated approximately $30B annually for the Ukraine war, meaning it would not reach $3T until after 100 years. At the same time, the US defense budget is approaching $900B annually, meaning the Ukraine war is a tiny fraction. And it's extremely good value for money, reducing Russian capabilities in a way that would require trillions to match through mere readiness. In other words, now we have 3.5% of GDP in defense spending + 0.1% in Ukraine spending. If we just give up on Ukraine, the US should probably spend 4.5% of GDP to deter a strengthened Russia from going further.
3
@sullathehutt7720 you have never listened, or if you did, you didn't learn anything. Go and learn outside your eco chamber, then suggest policy.
3
@glintongordon6811 why are you on Russia's side?
3
@yuriipm3973 "You do understand though, that RU has a single mobilization wave, with ~200K mobilized" They themselves talk more about 600k or something like that, or? "Ukraine is now on its 10th or something" Of perhaps 30k a piece? "the video reports of ppl getting grabbed from the streets, bars, nightclubs are coming in regularly" Those are videos of arrests that the Russian propaganda portrays as mobilization events.
3
@piotrd.4850 "Also, drones are no way to dislodge entranched enemy" You will find eventually that it is. Drones can effectively lay siege to an area. How can you resupply when drones hit whatever vehicle you send in?
3
I think you may be right that Putin will have to go. But it's very hard to gauge the stability of the regime, as we've seen so many times how dictatorships look stable until they aren't. There are several possibilities: Unexpected natural death. Kremlin coup Assassination by Ukraine Popular revolution All of these are low-probability events, but they compound and with each month, the likelihood of each rises.
3
@attilamarics3374 whether right or not, you display the maturity of a typical putinist.
3
@johnadam2885 I follow Anders and I can't remember any of these predictions. Can you provide evidence that he made them?
3
@runethorsen8423 yes, I said just, and I put the 25 billion in context to show it's incredibly cheap.
2
@andzzz2 thanks mate.
2
Much of the ammo is fpv drones and hand grenades dropped from drones these days. Very precise and lethal stuff. Spraying bullets and tossing artillery shells over the fence without really looking, and hitting with 1/1000 is becoming last year's war.
2
@cooldad7297 as I proved, it's not going well for Russia. They're excruciatingly slowly taking territory but with losses that aren't worth the territory they're taking.
2
For once I don't agree, Anders. First of all, in a very-high-risk environment such as the Ukraine war, the 2030 perspective is worth next to nothing. Think of it as a discount rate of 20%-ish, and a mundane expected return 7 years from now. 0.8^7 = 0.21. Very little value! Secondly and more importantly, F16s could be important for next summer's front line combat. Sure, no real close air support can be had by either side. BUT, the question is which country that will be able to, in a stand-off way, shoot down enemy aircraft and anti-air defenses across the front line. This in turn will determine which country that can use long-range anti-armor missiles from rotary and fixed wing aircraft, and which can lobby JDAMs (or the Russian version, FAB) across the front line onto enemy positions. Currently this very limited air dominance belongs to Russia. It would be both militarily and psychologically important if the scales tipped to Russia! I could be pursuaded that a few dozen of F16s won't tip the scales for Ukraine, for example if the Russian fighters are better at standoff attrition through e.g. its long range air-to-air R-37 missile. But then I think THAT should be argued (if it can even be determined until tried in practice), and then perhaps there should be a high focus on doing something about it. One option then would be to add Swedish Gripen airframes with Meteor integration. I'm not prepared to just throw up my arms and cede this limited air dominance to Russia for this entire war.
2
@Princip666 I presented an observation, not an argument. With 13 likes so far in the middle of a discussion, it seems plenty others made the same observation.
2
@Politik_International Russia demanded capitulation back then too.
2
@Princip666 not running, still here.
2
@evgeniya7853 Russia demanded capitulation then too.
2
@evgeniya7853 Russia didn't demand implementation of Minsk in Istanbul, it demanded Ukraine make itself defenseless and also recognize Crimea as Russian and Donbass as independent. It knew that none of this could not fly, but still does everything to make it sound like it was the reasonable party and that West prevented a deal. You pro-Russians loyally repeat this narrative, while adding "lol" as you're so happy about your favorite Empire's ability to bully smaller neighbors.
2
Och du är en såpass stark analytiker att du kan göra den bedömningen? Säkert.
2
What support do you lack, primarily?
2
@cheztaylor8 if it's 8 minutes to Moscow from Ukraine, it's 11 minutes from the Baltics. By the same token, it's 3 minutes from the US coast to Washington, so a few submarines could hit Washington faster. Decapitation attacks are always possible, but both countries spread out their heads a bit and have MAD second-strike possibilities anyway. Why do you say the US would immediately build missile bases in Ukraine, considering it hasn't in e.g. the Baltics?
2
@markopodganjek845 The Budapest memorandum did not explicitly or implicitly require Ukraine to adopt a neutral stance or prevent it from joining military alliances like NATO. Ukraine retained full sovereignty over its foreign policy decisions. There was no signed agreement to join NATO on the Bucharest summit in 2008, merely a political statement of intent from NATO. Ukraine was refused a membership action plan because it was very far from ready for that.
2
@cplcabs long range air-to-air, AMRAAM, and perhaps better use of HARM. Then that will pave the way for more frequent use of JDAM.
2
@TheRedland284 it has borrowed from itself mainly. It's not that much either.
2
@r.s.4174 the US is producing greater value from mining than Russia. The US also has approximately 10x higher value-add from manufacturing than Russia.
2
@AlexKarasev we did enjoy the peace dividend and did not contain Russia after 1990. It wasn't completely free though. The cost is this war. It's a failure of containment. Russia saw that we are weak and acted on that.
2
@jimmyc974 please make an argument countering mine. Don't just add immature noise.
2
@luffebassen how did it become your hobby to trust Russian propaganda? Do you remember?
2
@luffebassen no, seriously. Don't you understand that Russia is lying to you in whatever echo chamber you're in? If Ukraine really had bigger losses than Russia, why would it keep fighting? It'd be pointless, right?
2
@luffebassen good luck with the trolling for fascism and disinfo then.
2
@markbryant4641 don't worry, I think you likely just adopt Russian narratives much like some people go flat earthist. But Putin is still appreciative.
2
@samsungtap4183 the fractionating columns are central in the refineries and very vulnerable. They will all be shut down.
2
@ИринаЛукьяненко-ь3ъ the furthest target so far was 1,200 km away. They'll add capacity to go 3,000 km and that'll easily be enough to reach almost all. Very few refineries are in the eastern part of Russia. 12-14% of total offline already.
2
@elektrotehnik94 guys, there's only one p in Gripen. I think you're right that we have too few Gripens, but I think we should risk it and give some away anyway while producing more.
2
@ByZHellas your previous statement included "sign a peace" and "should've signed peace". This is part of a pro-ru assumption that ru has limited goals in this war, i.e. that it'd agree to a status quo peace that allows Ukraine to thrive and decide its own future within the territories it currently controls, rather than setting up conditions that ensures Ukraine is perpetually weak, quite ungovernable and loses major cities that ru doesn't yet control. Ru has at no point in this war been ready to provide Ukraine with such semi-acceptable conditions. Then you blame the victim and says "he's a butcher at this point", despite the fact that he's acting as any decent leader would, fighting for his country's freedom and sovereignty. This is also a pro-ru narrative. Finally the fact that you make it about Zelensky is also a pro-ru narrative, because it's trying to delegitimize Ukr's resistance and agency by pretending it's about a rouge ruler, rather than seeing that Ukr's struggle is based on a deep sentiments shared by the Ukr people. I've watched WOAM, and I don't find him that insightful. He's one of several content creators who make a big deal of ru sacrificing enormous amounts of resources to take tiny amounts of territory, and are therefore rewarded by likes and views by pro-ru people behaving like children in their comment fields and spreading ru propaganda among themselves.
2
@ByZHellas It's simply incorrect that Ukraine is overmatched in resources. It's also incorrect that Ukr is losing exponentially. I've literally seen graphs of territorial gains and they don't look exponential at all. Ru produces cheaply since they're poor (low wages). The west is producing shells expensively since they've got higher wages and since they're still investing in new more automated production lines and working through bottlenecks, and have higher quality requirements. As the production lines comes online, the cost will trend down. However Ukraine has huge drone production and they do it cheaper than ru.
2
@ByZHellas There's absolutely nothing that says Ru has higher stamina. They're fighting an unnecessary war and has various costs related to that, and could break at any moment. Ukr is more motivated as the war is existential to them. Also the west fought in Afghanistan for 20 years and Ukraine is far more important. Putin doesn't have 20 years to live.
2
@ByZHellas Also, your assertion that Ukr should negotiate peace now while it still has cards makes no sense if their situation is as bad as you claim. If it is, why would Ru accept peace? They would know what you know and refuse to negotiate anything but surrender.
2
@markgonczy8293 according to who? Donbass Doug and Ritter the Diddler?
2
@markgonczy8293 everyone can follow, yes, but who reports these numbers? Why do you think Ukraine lost 2k per day throughout the offensive, and how come you think Russia lost just a quarter of the kills that Ukraine reports?
2
Agreed, but Russia doesn't need protection for incoming threats from other border areas, because no neighbor wants or dares invade Russia. And it has already left its flank toward Finland and the Baltics virtually unprotected, going all-in toward Ukraine.
2
Should be easier after November 5 (the US election).
2
@runethorsen8423 Putin never followed Minsk, and the sham referenda are irrelevant. Ukraine is a democracy, Russia is not.
1
@runethorsen8423 you wrote a long and (at least partly) serious reply, so I'm going to do that as well. Hope you'll seriously consider my arguments. The US exports goods and services for around $3 trillion and its military spending is a mere $0.8 trillion. The US doesn't export violence, it exports security. Because of the alliance with the US, security consuming countries like South Korea, Germany and Japan, and many more, can have vastly lower military spending than they would otherwise need, and they don't need their own nukes. With this lower spending, all risks and temptations for war are reduced by a lot, and that's a big reason why the world has enjoyed relative peace since WW2. Also, since the fall of the Soviet Union, despite the "war on terror" and the rise of China, US military spending has roughly halved and the force posture in Europe was drawn down to VERY low levels. We really believed in eternal peace and that Russia would behave well. Germany demilitarized and consciously made itself dependent on Russian gas to prove its good intentions and willingness to trade instead of struggle. The global security order is not the "US empire", it's the basic rule that we don't change borders anymore, and especially we don't change them to expand our territories. The reason is that the UN founders saw that this was the driving force behind WW1 and WW2. (Now you're going to say "Kosovo", and that exception has some merit, but the US didn't annex it, and the genocide that it was saved from was real.) Russia is waging an expansionist war and that's exactly what we've successfully disallowed for 75 years. "Unnecessary wars you started"? Well, they're probably fewer than you think. But I don't claim perfection or purity. I'm claiming that the global security order, and NATO, and US presence overall are stabilizing forces. Russia do interfere in US elections, and in elections in most democracies to undermine, weaken and increase polarization and distrust. Russia was determined to either annex Ukraine (most probably) or make it a vassal state like Belarus. We know this from Russian force deployments and instructions to units. You're right that Russia's 150k deployment toward Kiev was too little for an invasion against a prepared and determined defender, but Russia thought bribed officials, chock and awe effects, assassination squads, air superiority and other technical superiority would make the Ukrainian defense collapse and its government would flee or get assassinated. It also made various logistics mistakes and had some bad luck in e.g. the assault on Hostomel. And Zelensky said "I need ammo, not a ride" and the rest is history. Of course Zelensky is going to have elections. Remember, they want to go into the EU, and you can't do that as a dictatorship. Of course they may postpone elections during war, but so did the UK during WW2. The Russian propaganda that has it that people (including women, old men and kids) are kidnapped in Ukraine to go to the front is just that, Russian propaganda. But lots of Luhansk/Donetsk military age men have now been wasted on the front lines, along with minorities and convicts. You're right that NATO is currently protecting members from Russian aggression and that it's a pity that Ukraine didn't have time to join because it was the only thing that could've prevented Russia's aggression. The west did everything to not provoke Russia, including not giving Ukraine decent weaponry, but Putin just saw that as weakness and as a go-ahead. Perhaps you're not aware of Putin's demands to not attack: Basically a roll-back of NATO to 1992. Part of Russia's plan with this war was to make NATO disintegrate, but it did the opposite. Russia will not take on NATO immediately, obviously, it'll wait for Trump/Ramaswami types that are truly isolationist, and then they will poke NATO, threaten with nukes and see if it works and the US backs off. Letting Ukraine have referendums in every oblast to decide what to belong to is not according to the international security order, which is based on fixed borders. No part of any country can do that, and e.g. Catalonia couldn't break out of Spain. If Russia wants to change this, it should first show the way by letting every Russian province vote on independence at any time. Also, it's unreasonable to first occupy, ethnically cleanse and subject to propaganda and intimidation a province and then force a referendum. I didn't manage to create this "forever war". Russia did. It's the Russian Empire expanding. This war would stop if Russia went back to its internationally recognized borders. It could have spent all the war money on immigration, just telling the Ukrainians: "Anyone who wants to move to Russia and become a Russian citizen, we'll welcome you and give you a great start here." It's not like Russia lacks space.
1
@angeurbain6129 "The US deficit is not balance and the printing of money is huge." This is a common misconception. The regulation of the money supply and the borrowing to cover the federal deficit are separate things done for separate reasons. The Fed’s actions are focused on stabilizing the economy, not on deficit financing. "The dollar as a reserv currency is under threat by the Brics." No, not in the slightest. "The fact of weaponizing the US dollar do not serv the american economy in the long run because many countries won't like the possibility of their asset in the US to be seized, like what is actually is going on with Russia." This is also two separate topics. The dollar as the world reserve currency is unrelated to how to seize Russian assets to start paying reparations for its illegal war.
1
@angeurbain6129 the regulation of the money supply and the borrowing to cover the federal deficit are separate things done for separate reasons. The Fed’s actions are focused on stabilizing the economy, not on deficit financing.
1
@concernedrabbit9075 insufficient surveillance, it seems, so they didn't know. I think it's a sign of weakness for Russia to mine that much. If Russia is going to take Odessa and all of Donbass in short order, as Russian propagandists would like us to believe, why have they mined like mad behind the front lines?
1
@jamesgornall5731 the Ukrainian side has honest reporting of Russian attrition.
1
Anders did re-examine his underlying assumptions. Perhaps you should re-examine yours? Russia has usually had more artillery but less precise and with shorter range. Russia has a meat wave attack tactic and worse leadership. Ukraine's summer offensive wasn't suicidal. They tried one approach, got bogged down in minefields and quickly adapted their tactics to make progress with favorable attrition.
1
@andzzz2 Ukraine made little progress in the summer offensive but I have no indication that the attrition was unfavorable since they switched tactics early on. If you haven't seen Russia using meat wave attacks since Bakhmut, you haven't been paying much attention, especially not to the carnage around Avdiivka. You would say Russia has been in general better at conserving its forces? Well, then you're trusting Russian propaganda. I'm sorry, but it's as simple as that. Nowadays it's not the artillery that's the main killer, but the drones, on both sides. Your idea regarding mobilization of old, young and female is typical Russian propaganda. What real-world statistics do you have on the demography of Ukrainian soldiers?
1
@andzzz2 "Two differences are they are doing in at a time they judge their opponents to be at breaking point and are encircling the defenders instead of themselves." The main difference I see is in culture. From what I hear, the Russian military command really, really doesn't value its storm troopers, while Ukraine values its front-line soldiers. This produces predictable results. Ukraine presses carefully where it finds good opportunities and withdraws when necessary. Russia just presses regardless. "I haven't seen massive Russian war cemeteries or the military-aged violently abducted off the streets in Russia." Russia seems to have a policy of hiding deaths in multiple ways, including not recovering them. Russian propaganda also features vids of Ukrainian arrests that they simply claim are mobilization events with no evidence. Some people accept that, thinking that since they've seen video, whatever was claimed about the video is true. "I have heard Western experts, otherwise trustworthy, say the average age of the Ukrainian army is 43." Wouldn't it be the case that in a high-morale environment that lots of old men would enlist, especially in rear supporting positions? I'm 49 and I would definitely help if my country was attacked. I wouldn't be the best choice for storm/infantry duty, but I could do a lot of other things that'd be useful. "pictures and video of both women and very old men on the Ukraininian lines would support that." If you happen to watch the wrong channels, you'd get fed with visuals of such volunteers, and you'd believe something very rare is common fare, wouldn't you? So are you sure you really have support for the conclusion? For a 1 million man army, how many cherry-picked images of old men and women would be needed to establish a good sense of the actual proportions? "The idea of the Russians conserving their forces is supported by their numbers increasing without mass mobilisation." No, not really. They just need to add more than 30k per month and then their numbers increase without conserving their forces. "Their strategy of not doing stupid shit after their initial blunders." Again, the meat waves in Avdiivka are real. It's not a blunder, it may or may not be stupid, but it gives horribly negative attrition. "making tactical withdrawals like in Kherson and Kharkiv" Kharkiv wasn't a tactical withdrawal, it was a rout after Russia being outplayed and surprised. It took a very long time for them to withdraw from Kherson, and it was a major defeat considering they want Kherson and Odessa. "As I said, when they are on the offensive they tend to outflank rather than dig themselves into a salient." Well, or the outflanking consists of two surrounded salients and Ukrainian drones come at each pincher from three sides.
1
@Satorotas89 "the gains in Chasiv Yar in the past couple of days have been large" That was a month ago, and virtually nothing has happened in Chasiv Yar since then. Strange, huh?
1
@rainyvideos3684 Donbass Doug and Ritter the Diddler are notorious parts of the Russian propaganda machinery. They're hilariously propagandizing and I actually pity you if you don't see that. (I'm sorry to be blunt, I really should try to be nicer to make it easier for people to change their minds, but I'm a bit tired today.)
1
@rainyvideos3684 "Col. McGregor also cites his sources on the inside, but for obvious reasons he has to protect sources and methods or his sources will lose their jobs." Col Macgregor (that's how it's spelled) only sources are RT memos. Same with Ritter.
1
@rainyvideos3684 sorry, they are both RT staff. They're part of the firehose of falsehood that's Kremlin propaganda. He's likely shunned as a traitor by all his classmates.
1
@rainyvideos3684 I doubt he has many friends left there. Treason is usually not appreciated in the military.
1
@rainyvideos3684 it's very, very strange that you talk about "liberals" in this context. Old skool, real and knowledgeable, conservatives are much more likely to be very reasonably and traditionally hawkish on Russia, understanding that it's still our primary adversary, than liberals. Also, it's equally strange to do try to apply formalities here. It's treasonous enough, in an everyday meaning, to be paid by the Kremlin to constantly lie to an American audience to sow division and weaken our cohesion and response to Russian aggression. Thus I'm pretty sure Donbass Doug is not in good standing.
1
@rainyvideos3684 it's very, very strange to talk about "liberals" like this. Old skool, real and knowledgeable, conservatives are much more likely to be very reasonably and traditionally hawkish, understanding that Russia's still our primary adversary. Also, it's equally strange to try to apply formalities here. It's treasonous enough, in an everyday meaning, to be paid by the Kremlin to constantly deceive an American audience to sow division and weaken our cohesion and response to Russian aggression. Thus I'm pretty sure Macgregor is not in good standing.
1
@rainyvideos3684 it's very, very str-nge to talk about "lib-rals" like this. Traditional, real and knowledgeable, conservatives are much more likely to be very reasonably hawkish, understanding that Russia's still our primary adversary. Also, it's equally str-nge to try to apply formalities here. It's tr-asonous enough, in an everyday meaning, to be paid by the Kr-mlin to constantly dec-ive an American audience to sow div-sion and w-aken our cohesion and response to R-ssian aggr-ssion. Thus I'm pretty sure Macgr-gor is not in good standing.
1
@jantzfitzgerald6115 "Because the Ukrainian's tell us the Russians have more" So could they benefit from saying that? "How many soldiers are on half a field?" Usually zero. Rumor has it that Russia at one point in the war fired 60k shells a day. You do the math.
1
@jantzfitzgerald6115 if you don't understand the point, you've lost track of the discussion and should reread.
1
@tomk3732 "Ukraine has no people left due to huge losses and has no ammo or equipment even for these troops they have." Haven't you captives of Russian propaganda said that for a year or more? Yet Russia desperately created extremely large minefields in order to survive the summer.
1
@tomk3732 ah, since two months back, Russia could've just start taking Ukrainian territory with hardly any resistance, since Ukraine have no people nor any ammo? Ok, sweet. Russian command has been kindof dumb for not trying that. They could've started assaulting, say, Avdiivka, and just taken it from the Ukrainians and then proceeded from there. (Donbass Doug and Ritter the Diddler have promised Odessa any day now for more than a year, so that's why I thought you were on that train of thought. My mistake.)
1
@jantzfitzgerald6115 you again display your maturity level.
1
@upsguppy520 why? Because you trust Russian propagandists who have been saying for two years now that Russia will take Odessa next month?
1
I think we can simplify it quite a bit by just looking at manpower devoted to defense. If Russia does 8% of GDP defense spending and has 150 million included occupied, then it's 12 million citizens working with defense. If Europe does 2% defense spending and is 500 million-ish (excluding Russia, Belarus and Turkey), then it's 10 million citizens working with defense. (Ignoring that some people aren't in the workforce, obviously).
1
You wrote that a month ago. Since then, Russia has taken 0.1% of Ukraine's territory at a cost of roughly 47k soldiers. That indicates 1% would cost 450k soldiers, and 10% would cost 4-5M soldiers and take roughly 8 years. Is that a good trade in a war of attrition?
1
@cooldad7297 how come pro-Russians use emojis rather than arguments and facts?
1
@Princip666 the Instanbul talks have been heavily mythologized by Ru propaganda. I guess you've fallen for that.
1
@Princip666 very clever. Obviously I made a judgement based on the contents of your many posts, not their numbers. You're clearly supporting Ru disinfo narratives, so either you're paid, a sadist troll or a useful idiot. I'm trying to be charitable, so I'm assuming the latter, thereby "immersed in Ru disinfo".
1
@hejejdegjxid4682 note that there were three mutually exclusive alternatives. So there's no "and". And yes, what's the point really of arguing with a guy like that?
1
@Princip666 they're relevant to a point I was making.
1
@Princip666 I've never even attempted to defend it. I just made the observation.
1
@Princip666 you're an apologist and a cheerleader for Russia's aggression that has so far killed hundreds of thousands, maimed a million, destroyed cities, traumatized millions of children, made refugees out of millions, and increased global prices for the poor. Is that perhaps shameful?
1
@Princip666 I just smile when pro-Russians call others shameful.
1
@a.brekkan4965 we're not done yet.
1
 @Princip666 not too worried when a pro-Russian find others shameful.
1
@markopodganjek845 oh, is Russia fully backed by China? I just saw a clip where China's diplomats vehemently denied they're supporting Russia. Anyway, good luck with the PPP GDP.
1
@evgeniya7853 no, it wasn't the essence of the Minsk agreements, and also obviously the Minsk agreements didn't stipulate that Ukraine has to neuter itself and give up Crimea.
1
 @evgeniya7853 Crimea had no right to hold a referendum on secession, nor the right to secede nor the right to join Russia. That's not how international law works.
1
@evgeniya7853 the nyt document essentially confirms what I say.
1
@evgeniya7853 I'm great at reading comprehension, thanks.
1
@evgeniya7853 Kosovo became an exception due to the Serbs' ethnic cleansing, and its independence is still only recognized by half of the world.
1
@IvoGisin Georgia, Kazakstan and Turkey ARE part of the 744M, I have the breakdown in front of me. 550/160 = 3.43, which is not "almost 5:1". And there is no 550, it's below 500.
1
@noahway13 good reflection, but I think there's a few things to think about regarding the economy: The US has had double today's defense spending historically, and still kept the deficit under control. It can do so now too. Also, the deficit under Biden was not a problem really, because it didn't increase the debt's share of GDP.
1
@zallyzally2698 since NATO isn't interested in Russian territory, a war between NATO and Russia would from NATO's side be about beating back Russian aggression. Thus it's not about survival. NATO will just pound Russian military assets a bit to make Russia stop and withdraw.
1
@nigelgarrett7970 these ru bots are just lying through their teeth.
1
@cheztaylor8 and why has the US now, after 20 years of Lithuanian NATO membership, decided it needs a permanent presence as a "trip-wire"? Could it be that Russia's threat is growing? The US did everything to not provoke Russia. E.g. it refused to arm Ukraine, it has not placed nukes near Russia, and so forth. Paradoxically, that actually provoked Russia into arming itself and starting wars. Why? Because a criminal is provoked into action by the weaknesses of its victims, and by the inability of the system to punish him.
1
@ what provokes the criminal isn't the strength of his victims, but their weakness. We've learned this the hard way now.
1
Your comment is fairly reasonably worded. The problem is that it's making tons of statements that are perfectly in line with Russian propaganda, which makes you seem quite gullible tbh. The little we can verify, like the gain of 20%+ of territory, is false. Currently occupied territories is 18%, and only 10.6% has been occupied since February last year.
1
@milanmarinkovic3016 Read Christopher Paul, Miriam Matthews, The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It, RAND Corporation.
1
@milanmarinkovic3016 read Christopher Paul, Miriam Matthews on Rssian prpaganda model, also RAND.
1
@BratBugarin "Russians are much more patriotic than you can even imagine." No they aren't. We saw in Kursk. People didn't care. "Ok, so we're Ukrainians now." Of course, after decades of repression and induced political apathy, why would anyone care?
1
@kenziecampbell4605 NATO GDP is 46% of the worlds GDP. And that doesn't include allies like Australia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
1
@johnadam2885 I'm not "indulging in a vague plea that America does not incite wars". I'm making the precise claim that that America did not incite Russia to start a war against Ukraine. It was an unforced error from Russia's side. "Then you argue America has no financial and social problems arising from sponsoring conflicts the world over. Alright then, carry on !" Yes, we will support Ukraine for as long as it takes. And we won't even break a sweat. "when the Iraqis and Libyans tried to sell in Euros, like Saddam and Gaddafi, you invaded and did regime change. Why ?" Not because of the dollar. That's a conspiracy theory. Sorry. "As more and more countries settle bills without using dollars, you will weaken. You are putting on a brave face." I simply don't recognize this as a problem.
1
@gustavalexander8676 if I had a dollar for every captive of Russian propaganda who believes I'm native while they understand how the world really works, I'd be rich.
1
@Adnancorner the US has larger minerals extraction value than Russia, and an order of magnitude more manufacturing.
1
@gustavalexander8676 we are really helping Ukraine. We could do more, yes. Pretty sure I'm not the naive one. Who repeats planted conspiracy theories?
1
@gustavalexander8676 when I criticize Russian propaganda, you retort with "Why do you consider any skepticism towards ukrainian performance as a 'planted conspiracy'?". From which dark place did you pull this "any" generalization? You say: "Academically, its very difficult to respect [...]". That's just ridiculous grandstanding. If you want to earn some respect yourself, perhaps don't "loool" at others like a child, don't overgeneralize in your accusations, don't wave academic credentials around and especially, don't cite obvious RT tools like Mearsheimer as truth witnesses. You ask: "Do you consider Mearsheimer to be a 'russian tool' because he concludes that Ukraine is doomed to lose the war?" And yeah, that and a lot of other things he says, including appearing on every RT propaganda site there is. It's not as if Mearsheimer is a military expert able to judge who will prevail in a conflict. He's merely an academic wedded to his theory (simplification) of historical power relations (offensive realism), and also audience captured (at best) by pro-Russians.
1
@gustavalexander8676 when I criticize Russian propaganda, you retort with "Why do you consider any skepticism towards ukrainian performance as a 'planted conspiracy'?". From which dark place did you pull this "any" generalization?
1
@gustavalexander8676 You say: "Academically, its very difficult to respect [...]". That's just ridiculous grandstanding. If you want to earn some respect yourself, perhaps don't "loool" at others like a child, don't overgeneralize in your accusations, don't wave academic credentials around and especially, don't cite obvious RT tools like Mearsheimer as truth witnesses.
1
@gustavalexander8676 You ask: "Do you consider Mearsheimer to be a 'russian tool' because he concludes that Ukraine is doomed to lose the war?" And yeah, that and a lot of other things he says, including appearing on every RT propaganda site there is. It's not as if Mearsheimer is a military expert able to judge who will prevail in a conflict. He's merely an academic wedded to his theory (simplification) of historical power relations (offensive realism), and also audience captured (at best) by pro-Russians.
1
@gustavalexander8676 I made a single comment first, then broke it up into three pieces to get past automoderation. You use the oldest rhetorical trick in the book when claiming I'm "angry". I'm not, I'm just amused by the arrogance. Some answers: 1) Go ahead and list the "well researched academically supported points" with evidence that they're just that. Then I can respond. 2) Where did I say it was? It's clearly a Russian narrative with little basis in reality, considering larger empires (such as the Soviet Union) has lost against weaker opponents (such as Afghanistan). 3) Again you make unfounded generalizations about my behavior, as if one instance of denouncements make me categorically denounce every opposing viewpoint. But to answer your questions: Yes, No, Unlike you and them, I don't just believe things said in my bubble.
1
@jabezhane no, you're not old-fashioned at all. As I said, old-fashioned is spending 6% of GDP containing Russia in peace time and always standing up for democracy. When you say 0.3% is too much for a major active war waged by Russia and suggests we should give up on European democracy, it's not old-fashioned, it's the opposite. It's a new brand of irresponsible, clueless, populist and Russian-propaganda-infested political activism. Reagan turns in his grave at your nonsense, if you're a real person and not a bot.
1
@mike_oe that's wrong, I absolutely argued for it and he didn't.
1
@jabezhane are you stupid, evil or bot?
1
Russia is sacrificing roughly 1200 soldiers per day in Ukraine. It's hard for me to believe that North Korea will contribute enough soldiers to make a big differerence.
1
Trump could, but Biden has set up Ukraine to last quite for some time, and Europe has been ramping up defense production to increase supply for three years now. And Europe has quite a lot of money. If it comes to Trump and says: "Hey, we'll pay you good money for all the arms from now on, and send it to Ukraine, we'll bankroll it all." Do you think a transactional guy like Trump will turn that down because of a strong desire for peace on Russia's terms?
1
@luffebassen lolling and trolling is consistent, at least. You're on the dark side, and I advise you to clean your room and start taking responsibility. You can have the last word. Bye.
1
@glintongordon6811 what did you expect meat wave attacks were, visible walls of zombies marching? Russia is clever enough to use many small groups of infantry trying to infiltrate (and getting spotted and destroyed).
1
@GeorgE-yo5yc "Only Ukraine lost more troops defending Bakhmut since their were facing not only more experienced Wagner troops" You're lying, they were facing Wagnerites recruited from prisons usually with no experience. "but a massive disadvantage in artillery - 7 to 1" Russian artillery farts in the general direction of Ukraine. Ukrainian artillery precision strikes targets. "Normally, the attacking side has higher losses against the defending one" And plenty ukrainians and international volunteers estimated an 8:1 advantage in attrition for Ukraine. They just mowed down meat waves of drugged-up wagnerites. "tatistically, every a Ukrainian soldier arriving on the front line in Bakhmut during the most fierce fighting had only 4 hours to live on average." This is an idi-tic figure some random nobody on the ukrainian side uttered and it has become gospel for putinists. However, anyone with a brain understands that it would've been impossible for Ukraine to rotate in fresh troops 6x per day and that would also mean casualties of some 30,000 per day if they had a mere 5,000 troops active in Bakhmut. It's so utterly st-pid I fail to see how people can repeat it now more than 6 months later. "Also, Bakhmut and Avdiivka are one of the most fortified citadels in the world with an elaborate system of trenches and tunnels." This is silly putinist propaganda to rationalize the impotency of Russia in taking the small cities . Also it contradicts what you said before, that more random shelling would mean very much.
1
@markbryant4641 don't overinterpret my statements. The Russian propaganda machine does appreciate its "useful idi-ts", but at the same time they throughly disrespect you and feed you ever-more ridiculous ideas to believe. I don't know what you're doing here. You should go to Redacted where you belong.
1
You should reevaluate your sources of info, my friend. You've reproducing Russian propaganda.
1
@Naum96 only 30k fortunately.
1
@janne9034 in the end, all costs are always salaries. Virtually all NATO countries are far exceeding the NATO guideline of at least 20% spent on equipment.
1
Only people who are truly captive of Russian propaganda thinks this is a defensive war for Russia. That said, yes, of course Russia has pulled huge resources from the rest of Russia to Ukraine, and basically left its flanks undefended.
1
The US isn't busy, it's just politically gridlocked. Continued support to Ukraine it can easily do while doing whatever else it wants to do.
1
@tlmoller yes, the vacuousness and ugly, short-sighted selfishness is concerning. But I think Washington will in the end go for continued support because it's so clearly in the US' interests.
1
@ByZHellas Zel understands what I just told you, that ru doesn't have limited goals. Ukr (and e.g. the Baltics) have suffered for three generations under the previous ru empire (called the Soviet Union then) and then suffered for another generation under ru interference and influence operations and war. They're determined to fight for freedom, they refuse to let more generations suffer under ru dominion. Again, this fight is not Zel's decision. It's the decision of Ukr's people to defend. Zel can't negotiate for Ukr to become a failed state and give up millions of more people to occupation.
1
@ByZHellas there's another ru narrative that's false in your premises: That Ukr is fighting a losing war, that it's predetermined to lose, that it's losing "exponentially". It's not. Ru's gains are still snail's pace, and Ru fighting is largely ineffective and unsustainable in terms of losses. If Ukr is properly supported, Ru loses, or at least is forced to a grinding halt. Ukr is relatively much, much stronger than Afghanistan was when it beat the Soviets.
1
@ByZHellas it's interesting how pro-ru people lol while estimating a strength imbalance in the favor of a murderous aggressor. For them, this is a basically game where the strong deserves to win, and where the humiliation and suffering of the weak can be enjoyed as entertainment. It's simply incorrect that Ukraine is overmatched in resources. It's also incorrect that Ukr is losing exponentially. I've literally seen graphs of territorial gains and they don't look exponential at all. Ru produces cheaply since they're poor (low wages). The west is producing shells expensively since they've got higher wages and since they're still investing in new more automated production lines and working through bottlenecks, and have higher quality requirements. As the production lines comes online, the cost will trend down. However Ukraine has huge drone production and they do it cheaper than ru. There's absolutely nothing that says Ru has higher stamina. They're fighting an unnecessary war and has various costs related to that, and could break at any moment. The west fought in Afghanistan for 20 years and Ukraine is far more important. Putin doesn't have 20 years to live. It's very clear that you're immersed in pro-Ru propaganda when you insist that Ru isn't doing meat wave tactics. They are. Your assertions about escalating Ukrainian problems are also based on cherry-picked and biased view of reality. It's possible to instead view Ukr's refusal to mobilize 18-24 yos as a sign of strength. They don't need to tap into those seven age cohorts. Also, your assertion that Ukr should negotiate peace now while it still has cards makes no sense if their situation is as bad as you claim. If it is, why would Ru accept peace? They would know what you know and refuse to negotiate anything but surrender.
1
@ByZHellas It's very clear that you're immersed in pro-Ru propaganda when you insist that Ru isn't doing meat wave tactics. They are. Your assertions about escalating Ukrainian problems are also based on cherry-picked and biased view of reality. It's possible to instead view Ukr's refusal to mobilize 18-24 yos as a sign of strength. They don't need to tap into those seven age cohorts.
1
@ByZHellas it's interesting how you guys lol while estimating a strength imbalance in favor of the aggressor. So this is a basically game where the strong deserves to win, and where the humiliation and suffering of the weak can legitimately be enjoyed as entertainment. Right?
1
@ByZHellas "Ukraine is at a disadvantage in every type of weapon and munition and manpower on the frontline" Can you prove that in any way? "it's industrial might and numerical superiority which wins wars." So why did the US exit e.g. Vietnam? "the graphs (maybe not over winter, but the months before that have been increasing in Russia's favor) have been in Russia's favor as well." Not enough to be very impressive, and now Ru has clear problems (see e.g. Pokrovsk) and is seemingly losing steam. "but gradually as one side is whittled away (and that can only be Ukraine here, they don't have anywhere near the resources or munition production that Russia does)" This is not clear. Ru is fighting ineffectively and is losing far more men and other resources than Ukr. "the lines become harder and harder to hold until it all comes crashing down" This is merely your guess. If Ukr had a huge problem, I guess they'd lower the mobilization age from 25. "this downward trend of manpower, morale, equipment, and all else continues, they will collapse eventually, far faster than Russia will." Again, this is not clear. You're making statements based on pro-Ru info bubble contents.
1
@ByZHellas the FABs are perhaps Ru's only major advantage. Ukraine does have JDAM but can rarely use them because of standoff ru air-to-air missiles that Ukraine currently cannot counter. The assessment of 12-15x disparity in artillery is quite false. It has dropped to 2x lately, but Ukr has better accuracy and range, and Ukr artillery is thus far more lethal. NATO doctrine isn't based on "lightning strikes", but rather on accurate strikes and air superiority. Thus it's not expecting to need as much munitions. Also Ukr produces millions of drones each year. Ru had a brief advantage in fibre optic drones, but that's gone now. And the drones heavily advantages the defender. Ru soldiers aren't saying that it's slowed down in Pokrovsk due to more Ukr soldiers, but rather due to drones and robotic warfare. The storm troopers very rarely come as far as meeting an ukr soldier to shoot at. I see no basis for the claim that Ru has adapted more to the war of attrition. Ukr is using it, and Ru's hunger for territory, to its advantage. What pro-Ru people refuse to see is that Ru has very unfavorable attrition ratio. You convince each other that Ru still has this 10x artillery advantage that was true in the summer of 2022, and that this must mean Ukr loses more men. It's ridiculous. That front-line soldiers always want more resources including more men is not strange. However, there is a grim logic behind not adding more men: If you have less people on the front lines, density is lower and then each enemy fab or artillery strike will cause less deaths on average. For as long as the Ru advances can be kept really slow and you can attrit most attackers using drones, this low manpower allocation optimizes the attrition ratio. They could double the manpower, but then they'd double their losses while not doing much difference to Ru losses (because the total daily recruitment of Ru attackers are kindof dealt with as it stands anyway). As I said, the real paradox is claiming Ukr has a huge manpower issue in an existential war and is thus close to collapse, yet Ukr has exempted seven age cohorts that are normally used by militaries all over the world. It doesn't make sense. If the front lines were at the risk of collapse due to too few men, then they'd add two more cohorts (lower to 23) or something like that. And they'd do it at least 6 months before that, because they're not stupid. So no, there's no imminent frontline collapse. I'm sure you don't think you are in a pro-Ru bubble, but you are.
1
@davidcritchley3509 so why did you choose the side of evil?
1
@me-mo1um you think Russia's conduct isn't evil? Demonizing and dehumanizing opponents for 7 years to then start a war of imperialist expansion?
1
@petermomanyi529 "Nato's role in the colour revolutions is well documented" I know, Nuland handed out some cookies on a square somewhere in Kyiv one day. "4 years later, the coup happened." A coup is made by a small number of government insiders. This was a popular revolution after months of huge protests in the streets of major cities. "Eastern Ukraine has always been pro-Russian, and that's why they demanded autonomy after the coup." Russia almost immediately invaded with "little green men" and heavy weaponry, and enlisted collaborators to also fight in order to pretend that a civil war had broke out. "Assuming Zelensky speaks for all of Ukraine is unwise and unrealistic." He's the democratically elected president. Ukraine has its internationally recognized borders and Russia has to leave.
1
@FunnyBunny-pd5xx I know about it already. Tragic outcome of a chaotic struggle.
1
@petermomanyi529 it's not NATO, it's the EU. Russia doesn't want the EU on their borders. It doesn't want prosperity, democracy and low corruption among a major brotherly neighbor, because then Russians will see and ask why they can't have good things.
1
@ChristianSt97 they're not taking the Donbass. The progress isn't fast enough to be meaningful.
1
@ChristianSt97 I have seen the map. The advances are truly tiny.
1
@attilamarics3374 putinists think normal people are lying, and proceed to perform these attempted humiliations. It doesn't really work, you're only humiliating yourselves.
1
Russian propaganda has a habit of claiming that videos of arrests in Ukraine are mobilization events. However, they're more probably arrests traitors of e.g. people sending Russia info on valuable targets for missile strikes. I happen to trust the Ukrainian MoDs figures of Russian losses. I've seen no reason to doubt them during this war. The visibly confirmed equipment losses checks out (compared to e.g. Oryx) and all losses including personnel losses ebbs and flows with offensives, changed capabilities and even weather.
1
@dr.jonas.skeppstedt families won't rejoice by occupation and the follow-up Russian killings, rapes and torture.
1
The only countries that have contributed more than €1 billion in military aid to Ukraine until October 31 last year were United States, Germany, United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Canada, Poland, Netherlands, Czechia, Norway. These countries plus Ukraine have a combined manufacturing output of 4.3 TUSD (World Bank stats 2021). Russia, Iran and Belarus have a combined 0.33 TUSD. So the Alliance has a manufacturing output roughly 13 times that of the Horde.
1