Comments by "Hyok Kim" (@hyokkim7726) on "Russia's Attempt to Surround Eastern Ukraine" video.
-
5
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@muzaaaaak ''except you leave out why the soviets bet the Nazis. US arms.''
While the Lend Lease was a very important part of the Soviet offensive victory in the East: it wasn't for the defensive victories through which the Soviets stopped the Wehrmacht offensive.
The Red Army had stopped the Wehrmacht offensive long before the Lend Lease, when the U.S. weapons started arriving in big numbers.
Btw. Was it such a good thing for U.S. to provide arms to the Soviets so that they could roll back the Germans, all the way to Berlin? Maybe U.S. should not have provided them so that the bulk of the Germans would be stranded way in the east, when U.S. landed in Normandy! Then maybe there would not have been Cold War, certainly not to the extent it ended up.
''You left out why US lost Vietnam.''
Hey, big thumbs up to you: at least you acknowledge U.S. lost in Vietnam! Too many people, still think U.S didn't lose in Vietnam!
''Fighting a war with hands tied behind back.''
There are two things you're missing here. First of all, Vietnam war was totally unnecessary, not only that it was counter-productive to U.S. strategic goals. U.S. could have easily turned Ho into a U.S. ally against both PRC, and the Soviet Union!
OSS had had a good relationship with Ho, who actually liked, and preferred Americans. Ho was anything but dogmatic: very pragmatic. He was even willing to work with the Japanese, as many as 5,000 IJA troops stayed on and trained Ho's army, and fought against French. As many as 50 Kempeitai, the Japanese secret police, all war criminals stayed on and worked for Ho.
U.S. was incredibly foolish, pedantic, and dogmatic, anyone labelled communists were all in cat hoots together!
Second of all, U.S. could not have really gone all in in Vietnam war, unless U.S. was willing to go to war against PRC, important supply bases were in borderlands of PRC.
Do you really think winning the Vietnam War was worth going to a nuclear war against PRC, and even the Soviet Union? Me think not.
Besides, the Soviets would have been happy if U.S. got into a nuclear war with PRC. So much easier for them to take over Europe.
''Shall I continue. Please go read more history.''
Oh, please do, so how did that work out for the Soviets in Afghanistan? Maybe they should not have gotten involved?
''While kill ratio alone doesn’t guarantee victory, it sure as hell diminishes the enemy.''
One should not go to war to get high kill ratios. One should go to war to get optimal overall net benefits that cannot be gotten without war.
''Further, UA has decimated RU arms and armor.''
The Germans had done better in Operation Barbarossa: how did it work out for them?
The Russian can keep manufacturing weapons so long as the oil/gas money flow in. Ukraine need to keep getting supplies from the West. How long do you think the West will keep supplying the weapons till they get tired of Ukraine, like they had gotten tired of Afghanistan, Iraq?
When the West get tired of Ukraine, Russia will still be there.
1
-
@reccecs4 No, ROK, born 1968, came to U.S. in 1982.
My father was a refugee from North Korea, part of his family escaped, the rest still in DPRK. His father, a journalist, his grandfather, a police chief of the Japanese police along the Yalu, got rich smuggling, designated a class enemy by DPRK after WW2.
In fact, I'm wondering why DPRK doesn't send troops to Ukraine ala ROK did for U.S. during the Vietnam War.
ROK soldiers got paid the same rate as U.S. soldiers, generating hard currency for ROK, which was a poor country back then.
DPRK can do the same: they have a lot of well trained troops, but mainly shitty infantry weapons, and armor and artillery.
1
-
@MrEnvirocat '' IMHO the West will slowdown or end its support of Ukraine when either 1) there is some great measurable victory by Ukraine, 2) Putin is deposed by Russian government or 3) Ukraine and Russia enter into peace talks. ''
There is another scenario, and I think this is the real reason why Putin invaded Ukraine, after looking at Dugin's books.
The financial/economic collapse of the West
''So far, Ukraine's victory is Russia not winning outright.''
Ukraine cannot win in the long run, due to its total dependence on the West for logistics. Its 'victories' are merely delaying the inevitable: It's like those German 'Victories', after Stalingrad. How long is the West going to support Ukraine?
''Something major will have to happen before the Dogs of War are called off.''
Yes, the one I think is going to do it will be the impending financial collapse of the West, if this continues for the next 2 to 3 years, an outright economic collapse, if the West refuses to disengage in the money pit/trap set by Putin till money 'runs out' so to speak.
1
-
1
-
@reccecs4 '' China invading Japan and then Hawaii in 1950?''
Not PRC, but Soviet Union, at the time, PRC was merely a hired gun, not really an independent actor.
''Okey dokey. Cool science fiction bro.''
No SF, but it's called, Grand Strategy. From the tip of the southern portion of Korean peninsula, it's a short hop with ships, and really short hop with planes, and even shorter with missiles. U.S. had major defense perimeter in Japan. The Soviet Union in 1950 was a grave existential threat: Russian Federation isn't.
''Lots better reason to be in Ukraine ....''
What better reason?
''than defending the backwater undeveloped rice paddy that was South Korea in 1950.''
Ukraine isn't in backwater? Ukraine today is not like ROK in 1950
Ukraine had 3 decades of time: what did she do to develop a self-sustaining economy? She's been stealing a lot of Russian gas in transit, and wanted to keep on doing it: one of the main reasons for Putin's invasion.
Russia today is not an existential threat unless one goes out of one's way to provoke it: the Soviet Union was.
1
-
@reccecs4 '' China invading Japan and then Hawaii in 1950?''
Not PRC, but the Soviet Union, PRC was merely a hired gun, not an independent actor at the time.
''Okey dokey. Cool science fiction bro.''
No SF, but grand/operational strategy.
''Lots better reason to be in Ukraine than defending the backwater undeveloped rice paddy that was South Korea in 1950. Even the troops fighting there couldn't figure it out.''
What better reason? Russian Federation is not Soviet Union, not even close.
Ukraine today has had 3 decades to develop an economy, but failed due to the endemic corruption, one of the worst in the world, worse than even in Russia.
One of the main reason for Putin's invasion was Ukraine's theft of Russian gas in transit, AND her plan to keep on doing it forever.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/04/welcome-to-the-most-corrupt-nation-in-europe-ukraine
ROK, too, had been one of the most corrupt, but by 3 decades after independence, was rapidly improving: Where is Ukraine's improvement?
''Even the troops fighting there couldn't figure it out.''
Hey, at least they weren't raping or committing robberies in ROK, so I guess that mean they had better idea of what they were fighting for.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334204/The-GIs-raped-France-We-know-mass-rape-German-women-Stalins-soldiers-Now-new-book-reveals-American-troops-committed-thousands-rapes-French-women-liberating.html
1